Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

[KJ_North]

Guys,

I currently use a Canon 60D with the Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens. I have an opportunity to pick up a used Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Mark 1 for a good price.

Question: Will the photo image sharpness be noticeably better in comparison to the 18-200 I am currently using even with my 60D body ?

For me I use my camera mostly on vacation's etc. While I find the Canon 18-200 a great lens the F/3.5-5.6 aperture is limiting at night. Even indoors it can be a challenge in low light. I do have the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II for late night, but with the fixed focal length i'm limited to mostly portrait photos.

I would keep the 18-200mm for landscape purposes etc and utilize the 24-70 as my main walk around lens.

Love to hear your opinions.

Thanks

 

[table1349]

Here are some reviews of the lens at that time:
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Lens Review
Review of the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens (page 2) - LENSTESTS
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L review

Best thing to do is to try the lens if possible and decide for yourself if you like it.

 

[KJ_North]

Here are some reviews of the lens at that time:
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Lens Review
Review of the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens (page 2) - LENSTESTS
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L review

Best thing to do is to try the lens if possible and decide for yourself if you like it.

I'm hoping a few on here have used both lenses and can provide a little more help.

 

[table1349]

I had the 24-70 you are looking at and liked my copy. It tended to be a bit soft in the corners and was slightly soft wide open. It was better once I sent it in for repair. Internal focus motor ring cracked while still in warranty. I sent the body I shot it with in as well and they calibrated the lens to the body. It was better then.

I have upgraded to the MkII version and like it a lot better. All around it is sharper than it's predecessor. I have never used wide focal range lenses like the 18-200 as they always come with great compromise in image quality. I prefer IQ over convenience.

You may have a bit of difficulty finding folks that have owned both. One is a consumer lens made for those looking for convenience, the other is top of the line L glass.

As stated, your best bet is to try the lens on you camera, look at the shots and see if they satisfy you. Different copies of the same lens can show differences in image quality.

 

[KJ_North]

I had the 24-70 you are looking at and liked my copy. It tended to be a bit soft in the corners and was slightly soft wide open. It was better once I sent it in for repair. Internal focus motor ring cracked while still in warranty. I sent the body I shot it with in as well and they calibrated the lens to the body. It was better then.

I have upgraded to the MkII version and like it a lot better. All around it is sharper than it's predecessor. I have never used wide focal range lenses like the 18-200 as they always come with great compromise in image quality. I prefer IQ over convenience.

You may have a bit of difficulty finding folks that have owned both. One is a consumer lens made for those looking for convenience, the other is top of the line L glass.

As stated, your best bet is to try the lens on you camera, look at the shots and see if they satisfy you. Different copies of the same lens can show differences in image quality.

Thank you I appreciate the feedback.
I have made some great shots with the 18-200mm but as mentioned the 24-70's 2.8 aperture is really appealing and I have been wanting to add an L lens to take a step up in overall image sharpness.