Canon 24-70 f2.8 MKI or MKII

Kell

Kell

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5,130
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

Many years ago I bought myself a new Tamron 24-70 f2.8 because I couldn't afford the Canon version and I hadn't (at that time) bought anything SH and was a little scared to do so.

It's been fine in terms of quality (if a little slow to autofocus). There's nothing inherently bad about it, it's just not the Canon version that I always wanted.

Now that I'm a little more au fait with the idea of buying SH, I was toying with the idea of trading that in for the Canon version at MPB (MKI) but wondered if anyone could tell me if it's worth waiting till I can afford the MKII and what the differences would be between them. I'm slightly concerned that if I go for the MKI, I'll still be left thinking "I should have got the MKII".

For the record, I'm not expecting the Canon version to do anything the Tamron doesn't - except maybe be a little quicker on the focusing. It's just to scratch that L glass itch, really.

Has anyone had both versions and would be prepared to give me a insight into how they found them?

Thanks in advance...
 
Last edited:
Just for the record, MPB have them priced at £709 and £1,219 respectively*.

That's quite a jump for someone like me that won't be using it professionally.

(*In 'GOOD' condition. They did have a V GOOD MKI last week, but I didn't pull the trigger in time,).
 
Last edited:
I have the MKII and it is incredibly sharp. I have heard the MKI is less so, but not sure by how much and what is acceptable to you.

I guess the prices they are at show what people think.

Have you ever thought of renting one first to see what difference it will make to you?
 
I did a fair bit of reading on this yesterday, as I faced a similar dilemma, general consensus is that the Mkii is better, main feedback seems to be its sharper in the corners.

I had the original mk1 version years ago, it was still a great lens, but the hiring suggestion is a good one, compare to the Tamron to see if there's a noticeable difference for you.
 
I had the Tamron when it first came out, and quite enjoyed using it for a while. Then the stabilisation stopped working and i got it replaced. Same thing happened again so i got the Canon MKII. For a few days i had both.
I felt the Canon was just better in every respect, but not by a huge difference. Main thing for me is it just oozed confidence. Its never missed focused, i can use the full frame without worry, and it feels very much like a premium lens. I also prefer the look from this lens, although thats probably more subjective.
 
Mk ii is considerably sharper and with far greater consistency. But it's also still not perfect in that department if you need extreme edges to be prime quality. For event work it is just the thing, for landscape it could get a little better. I would only consider mk1 as an absolutely last resort, they come with all sort of bad centering issues too.
 
Thanks all for the comments.

In the end I went with the MKII. I was leaning that way, but I think the last two comments definitely pushed me over the edge.

Just need to get to use it now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top