So I noticed the new 24-70 L costs a full $1000 more than the current version (which I just purchased), but do lessened chromatic aberration due to improved elements (on a lens that is already stellar) and a larger filter thread (slightly larger lens?) justify the cost?? I'm a bit baffled here. Those who have a better idea than I, please don't hesitate to chime in.
I don't own either lens but I have noticed prices going down on the used ver 1 ones on CL. Just saw one for $820 and had to talk myself out of it. If you're shooting RAW, CA is easily fixed in conversion. I'd think a larger filter would be a disadvantage as the most common size seems to be the 77mm. Are those the only improvements?
I haven't read too much about this particular upgrade...but overall, Canon (and Nikon) have been upgrading their lenses to perform better. One big reason is that with modern (high megapixel) sensors, the lenses didn't have enough resolving power to really take advantage of the potential of the sensor. I believe that was a big part of the upgrade to the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS, and I'd assume that is part of this upgrade as well. Also, the old version of the 24-70mm F2.8 L, had a bit of a notorious reputation. While most people rave about how good it is...I've been hearing more and more tales of how the AF just isn't accurate on some copies. They are saying that if you don't get a 'good copy' of this lens, the focus will be slightly off. And some have gone though several copies...looking for one that is accurate all all focal lengths. So, that is an issue that has hopefully been fixed with the new version.
I'll be interested in seeing some tests of the new version. All the tests I've read of the old one indicate a lot of problems at the wide end, distortion, field curvature, corner softness... pretty much convinced me I didn't want one. The bokeh was also unimpressive at best. It seems like such a sweet range of focal lengths though, would be great if they cleaned everything up with the new one.
