Canon 24-70mm ii vs Canon 24-70mm i

[Motrr]

what is the big differents between the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 i and the ii version?

Is differents big? Im not a pro so Its a lot of money.

 

[TCampbell]

I have the version I.

Version I has 77mm filter threads. I believe version II is 82mm.

Version I is a “reverse zoom” — version II is standard zoom. A “reverse” zoom means that when you see the lens get physically longer, the focal length is actually getting shorter (most lenses do not work this way). This has some advantages when using the hood. Normally you have to make sure the hood is short enough to avoid causing any vignetting. Since the version I is a reverse zoom, when you’re at the 24mm end the objective element is all the way forward (sticking out near the front of the hood). When you zoom to the long 70mm end, it will retract deep inside the4 hood. On the version II (being a standard zoom) the hood is actually rather shallow to avoid vignetting.

The version II does improve the optics. It’s a sharper lens vs the version I and it’s sharper everywhere and at every focal length. While I don’t own the version II, I’ve heard people wax poetic about the improvements to sharpness and boast that it’s not just the best 24-70 for a “Canon” ... but go on to boast that it’s the best 24-70 lens in the industry for *any* camera. I’m not sure if that boast is true, but it is an exceptionally good lens.

Neither version has image stabilization (there is an f/4 version that does include image stabilization).

If I were buying “new” and my budget would allow me to afford either version, I’d go for the II.

I didn’t bother to upgrade my lens to a version II *because* it’s a lens I just don’t use very often. That may sound surprising since this is considered one of the “bread & butter” lenses for most photographers. I find it’s good for typical candid shots. Most of the time, I’m shooting with my 70-200 ... or maybe my 100-400. When I shoot something that calls for a shorter focal length, I have enough specialty lenses that I usually grab one of those lenses instead (such as the 85mm f/1.4L ... or if I’m shooting a landscape I might grab my 24mm tilt-shift, etc.). My 24-70 does get some use ... just not enough to justify shelling out for the new version.

 

[Motrr]

I have the version I.

Version I has 77mm filter threads. I believe version II is 82mm.

Version I is a “reverse zoom” — version II is standard zoom. A “reverse” zoom means that when you see the lens get physically longer, the focal length is actually getting shorter (most lenses do not work this way). This has some advantages when using the hood. Normally you have to make sure the hood is short enough to avoid causing any vignetting. Since the version I is a reverse zoom, when you’re at the 24mm end the objective element is all the way forward (sticking out near the front of the hood). When you zoom to the long 70mm end, it will retract deep inside the4 hood. On the version II (being a standard zoom) the hood is actually rather shallow to avoid vignetting.

The version II does improve the optics. It’s a sharper lens vs the version I and it’s sharper everywhere and at every focal length. While I don’t own the version II, I’ve heard people wax poetic about the improvements to sharpness and boast that it’s not just the best 24-70 for a “Canon” ... but go on to boast that it’s the best 24-70 lens in the industry for *any* camera. I’m not sure if that boast is true, but it is an exceptionally good lens.

Neither version has image stabilization (there is an f/4 version that does include image stabilization).

If I were buying “new” and my budget would allow me to afford either version, I’d go for the II.

I didn’t bother to upgrade my lens to a version II *because* it’s a lens I just don’t use very often. That may sound surprising since this is considered one of the “bread & butter” lenses for most photographers. I find it’s good for typical candid shots. Most of the time, I’m shooting with my 70-200 ... or maybe my 100-400. When I shoot something that calls for a shorter focal length, I have enough specialty lenses that I usually grab one of those lenses instead (such as the 85mm f/1.4L ... or if I’m shooting a landscape I might grab my 24mm tilt-shift, etc.). My 24-70 does get some use ... just not enough to justify shelling out for the new version.

Wauw thanks for your big info!
I have now buy the 35mm 1.4 but I still want that zoom lens haha.

I was wondering maybe I go for the Sigma 24-70mm Art or Tamron G2. But I can't find which one is the best

 

[TCampbell]

I’ve been hearing great things about many of Sigma’s new “Art” line ... I don’t know how it compares.

You could always rent them for a few days from a place like BorrowLenses or LensRentals.

 

[fotografdenunta]

Version II i smuch much better. Low to none cjromatic aberation.
You can take a lokk at Sigma's new 24-70 it has also image stabilizer.

 

[CODYMAJ]

OP I would suggest checking out Canon's refurbished lenses as well. They are going to be cheaper than a new lens of the same model, however they will perform (and appear) like new. I have only heard good things, and just got my EF 16-35mm II refurbished from Canon and I have nothing but praise for it.

Just some food for thought

 

[fotografdenunta]

IF you are not a pro, then pick 24-70 f4 is it is very good even in dark. The stabilisation is very good in this lens

 

[Sharpshooterr]

what is the big differents between the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 i and the ii version?

Is differents big? Im not a pro so Its a lot of money.

Mo, if you’re looking at used versions of either lens, obviously the mkl is gonna be a lot cheaper. I currently still have both versions and they are both good.
Yes the mkll is better in all aspects especially wide open but the mkl is no slouch, it’s very sharp. And yes, the mkll does gave an 82mm filter if it matters to you.
I went to the mkll mostly because it focuses a bit master and I find more accurately but I’m shooters very fast moving sports with mine.
The f4 is probably a lot cheaper and I’m sure almost as good. If your focus demands are pretty excessive the 2.8 will focus faster and more accurately more often under fast shooting since it’s a lens group A and lets in twice the light to see the contrast quicker.
I’m sure a few stops down they’re both extremely sharp!
The mkll is about a 1/2” shorter. It’s not a lot but makes the lens appear much smaller but it’s only a 1/2”!
If you don’t have to have a 2.8, the 24-105 is a lot more versatility, has IS and is a very good lens for a lot less money. Wide open it’s less sharp than the 2.8’s but again, a few stops down you’ll never see the difference(I own all three).
About 1/2 of my shooting is done professionally so personally I would never use a 3rd party lens no matter how good it’s touted to be. It’s important to me the Canon be able to troubleshoot or repair my equipment, either a lens or body separately or send them in together for calibration etc. I can only do that if they are both Canon products. Also many 3rd party lenses are equipped with a dock in an attempt to keep pricey lenses compatible with canon bodies but there are no guarantees on that into the future!!
I bought both of my 2.8’s used. Maybe 6 months ago the mkll cost I think $900. The mkl about $600 a couple years ago for comparison.
In good shape or new I would not hesitate to buy any of the 3(f4)Canon 24-70 lenses or the 24-105 because I know that in 10 years they will still be fully compatible with any canon body. Good luck
SS

 

[photoflyer]

1/2”!
If you don’t have to have a 2.8, the 24-105 is a lot more versatility, has IS and is a very good lens for a lot less money.

I was going suggest this option as well. It is f 4 but as my outside "walking around" lense that is fine and I really like it. For how I use it, it is often at f 8 anyway. But, I understand the need for speed.

 

[Sharpshooterr]

1/2”!
If you don’t have to have a 2.8, the 24-105 is a lot more versatility, has IS and is a very good lens for a lot less money.

I was going suggest this option as well. It is f 4 but as my outside "walking around" lense that is fine and I really like it. For how I use it, it is often at f 8 anyway. But, I understand the need for speed.

Mike, yes the 24-105 is my go-to walk-around as well! Being the same size and weight as the 24-70 2.8 but with almost double the length it is arguably the most used Canon L lens. Sometimes when my travels involve a plane I only take two lenses, a 50 1.4 to handle the indoor/low light duties and the 24-105 for everything else. I do also take a small tripod to use the f4 at night etc.
It's an L lens after all so makes it an excellent lens!!!
SS