The Canon 24-70 MkI versus the MkII

First, let me say that this comparison is not scientific by any means. Here’s it is in a nutshell: A friend of mine just got a new Canon 24-70 MkII lens. I’ve used the original 24-70 for a number of years and it is one of my favorite lenses. It’s relatively fast (f/2.8), it’s sharp, and its the color, contrast, resolution, and all other aspects of the lens are great. My only complaint is that the front section on the lens moves in and out when you zoom. More on that later.

When the new MkII version of the lens came out I was curious how much they improved the lens. So when my friend got one, I couldn’t wait to give it a try and compare it to my MkI. The comparison was simple, we shot both lenses at 70mm and photographed some various stuff at a distance of just under two feet away. Then we shot the lenses across the studio (about 15 feet) at 24mm and at 70mm. Both lenses were shot at the same aperture for each test.

One of the first things you notice about the lens that on the MkI when you zoom to 70mm the front part of the lens retracts into the lens body. On the MkII, it does the opposite. When you zoom to 70mm the front of the lens extends out. While it’s strange that this happens, it really makes no difference in usage. That’s one thing I dislike about either lens is that you possibly expose the internal components of the to dirt and dust because of the movement of the front section of the lens. Another physical difference is that the lens hood on the MkI mounts on the lens body and doesn’t move with the front part of the lens. The front part moves within the lens hood, so the lens hood protects it against lateral impacts when it is zoomed in or out. On the MkII the hood mounts on the front part of the lens and moves with it. This offers much less protection.

When it comes to real life shooting, the lenses are similar when you are pixel peeping. When shooting up close it appears that the MkII back focuses slightly where the MkI front focuses slightly. The focus point on both lenses was very sharp. When zoomed in at about 2 feet, the MkII appears slightly brighter and warmer than the MkI. An interesting difference is that MkII field of view slightly larger at 70mm. So it appears that the MkI has just a tad bit more focal length.

When shooting across the room the images also tell the same story. The MkII is slightly brighter and a little warmer than the MkI. The MkI has a bit more focal length when at 24mm and at 70mm.

So the final verdict, in my opinion, is that overall the MkII is a tad bit sharper and warmer than the MkI. The build quality is comparable, but the MkII is said to be better sealed against the elements. You can find many reviews that say that the lens’s price ($2300) is unjustified, but I disagree. If I didn’t own the MkI, I would be investing in the MkII. The lens is worth the money. But I don’t think the slight differences between the MkI and the MkII justify an upgrade.

Like I said this is not a scientific, lab test. It’s just me pixel peeping at some realistic comparisons. If you look at the bench test charts, the MkII is a sharper lens than the MkI. But in daily shooting, I doubt that you’ll see much difference between the two.

That’s it for this week. Once again, thanks for reading!

-Ken