Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Canon EF ZOOM / PRIME L Lenses versions (I vs. II)

A

Artur Kowalewski

Banned
Joined
Sep 30, 2012
Messages
1,311
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Warsaw, Poland
Hallo,
i read some forum posts and i'm a bit confused. i'm getting in Canon EF system and i just want to know - what is really difference between I and II versions of some lenses.
i'm talking about:

ZOOMS

16-35 2.8 L I vs. 16-35 2.8 L II
24-70 2.8 L I vs. 24-70 2.8 L II
70-200 2.8 L vs. 70-200 2.8 L IS

and what about 80-200 2.8 L and 17-35 2.8 L ??? are they too old for new digital camcorders ? not so good.

PRIMES

14 1.4 I vs 14 1.4 II
24 1.4 L I vs 24 1.4 L II
85 1.2 L I vs. 85 1.2 L II

i'm really wondering if second versions are always better. i'm talking about filming of course ! in photography - almost NO difference.
if You can help i will be very grateful.
Regards, Art.
 
The first 70-200 2.8L is a beauty, the II is a bit sharper but frankly sharpness on the first one is all I'd want 98% of the time.

The first 24-70 is a known dog, QC on the II has a bad rep but people who got good samples swear by them.

I have never been able to compare the 24mm L versions side by side but supposedly the II is a big improvement.

Cheers - #19
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #4
Thanks Blair. Thanks Bryant.
I'm still waiting for some opinions. I'm just wondering - is it worth to pay two times more for versions II. but if they are much better i think i've answered my question.
 
I think the old 24-70 is quite soft, the 70-200 2.8 IS II is a beast, everything looks beautiful with this lense, absolutley worth every penny.

Didn't touch the new 24-70, but if it comes near the 70-200, i will like it :)
 
Max M. said:
I think the old 24-70 is quite soft, the 70-200 2.8 IS II is a beast, everything looks beautiful with this lense, absolutley worth every penny.

Didn't touch the new 24-70, but if it comes near the 70-200, i will like it :)
Click to expand...
24-70 is not soft when focused correctly. This is a urban legend made up by incompetence in a simple task of focus adjustment....
 
The old 24 70 is fine, no issues with it but the mk2 is better.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #9
Yeah, it will be hard. I just want to buy some lenses, but now i'm more confused than on the beginning. Some says 24-70mm I is a legend, some that it is soft.
And what about older ones ? Like 17-35mm or 80-200mm. Are they good ? And 85mm difference. Becuse about 14mm and 24mm i heard a lot. I think II version is much, much better optically (i'm still talking about wide angle 14mm and 24mm lenses).
If You know something - share with us. It's a good topic. Helpful for many Buyers, not only for me.
 
Artur Kowalewski said:
Yeah, it will be hard. I just want to buy some lenses, but now i'm more confused than on the beginning. Some says 24-70mm I is a legend, some that it is soft.
And what about older ones ? Like 17-35mm or 80-200mm. Are they good ? And 85mm difference. Becuse about 14mm and 24mm i heard a lot. I think II version is much, much better optically (i'm still talking about wide angle 14mm and 24mm lenses).
If You know something - share with us. It's a good topic. Helpful for many Buyers, not only for me.
Click to expand...
OK to be clear I did not say the lens was a "legend"
I meant the the perceptions of some peeps here that it is soft is an "urban legend" meaning not true.
It's a decent lens but I'm sure that the new one is significantly better. The newer versions usually are significantly better otherwise why would they exist?
I realize I'm being rational here which is not very popular these days :beer:
 
I am constantly reminded by the advice of a good friend that every lens is an individual. If you get 10 lenses of same type and manufacture and go through them, some will be better than others. Ive always found Canon to be pretty consistent in their QA with their L series lenses.
 
OptiTek said:
24-70 is not soft when focused correctly. This is a urban legend made up by incompetence in a simple task of focus adjustment....
Click to expand...

Ok...anyway when i put on my 70-200 after using my 24-70 i notice its sharper, so in comparison the 24-70 feels softer...
 
The new 24-70 is incredibly sharp.... sharper than many primes.
 
hate to state the obvious but longer lenses usually seem sharper- shallow DOF, more magnification=less detail, etc, etc, etc.
 
Ok, two things.
First of all. Canon - like most producers - do new versions newdays to... get more money from users. It's JUST marketing. With some exceptions. Becuse we like to change things. In Canon FD system there were versions: older branch lock and newFD and older ones were better than new ones (like Canon 55mm 1.2 ASPHERICAL glass used in Canon K35 lenses).
Second. It's good to have both, because sometimes softer lenses have better contrast, BOKEH, picture look, etc.
So, 24-70mm I and II version in 'the pocket' and i will be happy ;) ? I hope one day i will have them all ;)
 
Again.
And what about 'old school' lenses like: 80-200mm and 17-35mm ? They are very cheap, but are they good ?
 
Artur just get the newest versions and you'll be fine.
It's that simple:yesnod:
 
Jacek, are You 100% sure newer is better ? Sharpness is very important, but sometimes it's not the point. I'm really confused.
My good Friend says: "buy first verions, do some shots and exchange them for newer versions and compare results; older versions are all the time in price, so You won't loose the money". maybe this is the answer ?
 
I worked for a lens manufacturer- i assure you that newer versions are better, significantly so. They have to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top