Canon 24-70 2.8L Vs Canon 24-70 2.8L Mk2....

J

JonFM

Suspended / Banned
Messages
129
Name
Jonny
Edit My Images
No
has anyone compared or owned a Mk1 and changed to a Mk2 and see a noticeable difference making it worth the change? I own a Mk1 at the minute and love it on my 1D4 and 5D.

Reason i ask, I'm about to buy a 5DS and one of the packages available is for the body with the newer lens, would cost about £250 for the lens after I sell my Mk1.

So on that basis is it worth changing or little to no difference?

Thanks
 
yes, for £250 difference it's a no brainer
 
I've had both and wouldn't hesitate to get the MkII for a £250 outlay.

Bob
 
I agree. The mkII seems to be so much better that £250 is a small price to pay for it.
 
I would pay more than $250 for a MkII

Indeed at the moment the only thing that has put me off is the hood design. My 24-70 mk1 spends a lot of time in live music venues so having that incredibly protective fixed hood is wonderful.
 
RichardtheSane said:
Indeed at the moment the only thing that has put me off is the hood design. My 24-70 mk1 spends a lot of time in live music venues so having that incredibly protective fixed hood is wonderful.
Click to expand...

Yea, shame they got rid of the 'reverse' zoom, and the unusually mounted hood. I really like both features.

Not such a big fan of the image quality from it, but it's good enough to not bother upgrading in my case. If starting from scratch then I'd get the mkII of course.
 
No body ever moaned about the Mk 1 image quality untill the Mk 2 came along. Price, size and weight yes but not the image quality.
 
Thanks for the replies, sounds like a no brainier.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top