Canon 24/70 L 2.8 comments please

George

George

Chasseur Haggis extraordinaire
Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,533
Edit My Images
Yes
I am considering the above lens as I have been using the 35/350 for many years, and just decided I needed IS for the longer lengths, and have bought a 100/400 L IS which I think is great, however lugging this around and the 35/350 is a bit of a struggle for someone of my advancing years!!:help: so I'm thinking of covering the shorter lengths with the 24/70, although I realise there also is a smallgap 70-100, I don't think this is too important.

I also like the 2.8 depth of field possibilities, but I haven't seen any reports of hands on experience.

I don't really need the 24mm extension over 35 as I have the 17/35 for the wide angle stuff.

Or should I look at eg Sigma?

Any experience/comments most welcome.

Thanks,

George
 
Thanks, another use it will have is as a standard lens on the missus's cam, a 400d, so will give a bit of interchangeability
 
I have the Sigma equivalent and as a walkabout lens it's hardly off the camera. Keltic Ice Man also bought one regularly and I know he loves his too. The IQ is top notch and it really is tack sharp, and of course it does represent a fair saving over the Canon. The downsides I guess are that resale value wouldn't be as good but I'm guessing that might not be too much of an issue if you're not intending to part with it!
 
mm, thanks Witch. I have a Sigma 14mm which I must admit is a real belter, and was 33% of the equivalent canon. How's the Sigma for weight? I must admit, the Canon is pretty heavy!!

George
 
Having just popped it on the kitchen scales (Yes, honestly! *wipes flour off lens* :D ) I can tell you that the Sigma comes in at 775 grammes. It feels solid, but not heavy - if that makes sense - in use. If I were to buy again right now I'd get exactly the same again - that's how impressed I am.
 
Thanks for that, I'll have a look at prices on Mon. Its about 200gm less than the Canon, I think. Hope your lens didn't go in the oven....!!
 
Just not long got the canon version myself, cracking lens. Very sharp.
 
I've got the Sigma and I'm upgrading to the Canon when funds are available. The simple reason is build quality. The Sigma's front end has gone wobbly causing occasional focusing issues and I would also like USM. Sharpness wise the Sigma is brilliant.
 
Well, a bit to think about here, and Kerso's price is not bad, I do like the Canon build quality and the L series lenses are excellent,

Thanks to all who have contributed, it was Kerso (Ian) who recommended the forum, and I must say in the few weeks I've been on it Ive found you all very helpful.:clap:

George
 
Top draw lens. My walk about and main lens for a long time. Tough reliable and as others say sharp as a room full of sharp things. Did I mention very quick and oh yeah sharp. Sharp.
 
:thumbs: Sharkey, thanks, but will it be that sharp in Fife? Hope so 'cos I think i'm convinced!!
 
We will find out how a southerner gets on no doubt.:exit: :runaway: :runaway:
Expecting sound thrashing from all true scottish persons of course as I'm not and a lashing from my former brethren Darn Saff. Cant win.:p
 
Bumped into a freelance pro with one on his D1 mk2 - Heavy, he loved it.
Bloody expensive though!!
 
i have the sigma version,very happy :thumbs:
 
Don't rule out the Canon 24-105mm F4 IS. Its not as fast but is still a pretty sharp lens and bridges the gap you would otherwise have. This would also leave you with some money over for a cheap prime dependant on your main interests (50mm F1.8 or 1.4, 35mm F2, 85mm F1.8).
 
Mark - where you been! Talking sense as well. I have the 28-70 which precedes the 24-70. It is as sharp as a sharp thing and a favourite lens. I was going to get the 24-70 but when I saw the 24-105 I thought, wait a minute, extended range and lighter! ..............but it is only a f4. Can't be as good.............how many shots are you taking at f2.8 then?..........quick look at the exif and yes 3.5 is frequent but 2.8? not often........and it's got IS. Blooming difficult this.....................:D
 
Oh dear, will have to wait till tomorrow, too much wine tonight. Why isn't lifr simple, compromises like weight, f stop DOF oh hell it's off to bed for me!!
 
I love my Canon 24-70 L....it's the bees knees of lenses.

Heavy? Yes...but you soon get used to it. Sharp....you bet! I use it frequently at f2.8, with ISO at 800+ and it's still great. Just occasionally, I wish it had IS.......and again just occasionally, wish it were a tad longer. If you hardly ever shoot at f2.8, then the 24-105 might be worth a look. If that was L, IS f2.8 and USM....it would be perfect!!
 
George,I have the 24-70 and its the best lens I have ever oned. Might get nifty 50. l aways went for Good lens,but not camera's.This is the year its time for one of them Good Camera,s. Good luck in your choice of Lens...........
 
Sharpness is of course critical, and I'm using it with a 1Ds so its full frame. I also wish that it went to 100mm, but suspect to get 2.8 over that range would make it a lot bigger abd heavier, and IS would also be great, but also prob only really of use at the longer focal lengths, ie over 70mm. I do think the 2.8 feature is important, maybe not used too ofted, but when you want that small DOF, its critical. I also have the 100mm f2, which again isn't used that much, but a good one to have in the armoury. Again, thanks wvwryone for the help.

George
 
HIMUPNORTH said:
Mark - where you been!
Click to expand...
Not been anywhere Gary just not posted much outside of bird photos. This place is pretty busy now so it takes a fair amount of time just keeping up with whats going on. I've never been a volume poster - taken me over 18 months to get to 500!!

Good luck with the decision George. Its hard balancing the various pros and cons. I'm still wrestling with what to do my 70-300 and 400mm lenses as I need more reach and better low light. Decisions eh!

An example shot from my 24-105mm F4L IS at 105mm F5. Taken on 30D.
 
Nice, Mark.

Think I'll go for the 24/70 though, I have an old 28-105 which isn't bad,but of course no IS.

George
 
Mark, after a lot of thought over the weekend, I am now also considering the 24-105 f4. I am abit concerned, however re its quality, particularly its sharpness.

Any comments anybody?

George
 
Personally I don't see the point in the 24-105 f/4. Its f4. Sure its got a better range but I'd prefer f/2.8.
 
petemc said:
Personally I don't see the point in the 24-105 f/4. Its f4. Sure its got a better range but I'd prefer f/2.8.
Click to expand...

In some ways I'm wishing I'd gone for the 24-105 rather than the 24-70.

A lot of my stuff gets taken at 80-100mm range. In good light F4 is fine but it's those days where the light is poor I need F2.8. That's what swung it for me eventually, I can always change to a longer lens but I can't get F2.8 out of an F4.
 
dod said:
In some ways I'm wishing I'd gone for the 24-105 rather than the 24-70.

A lot of my stuff gets taken at 80-100mm range. In good light F4 is fine but it's those days where the light is poor I need F2.8. That's what swung it for me eventually, I can always change to a longer lens but I can't get F2.8 out of an F4.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Also the depth of field would be better at f/2.8 than f/4 wouldn't it?
 
There is no comparasion for me. 24 - 70 F2.8 is perfect if you plan your lens purchases well.

16 - 35 F2.8
24 - 70 F2.8
70 - 200 F2.8
300 F2.8
:D Thats something like what I am aiming for. Although its the 17 - 40 F4 rather than the 16 - 35.
 
:bonk: Well, up to a point I agree.Problem is, you don't buy all your lenses at once, mine are:
14mm sigma
17-35 2.8L
was 35-350, but that's now been superceded by 100-400 IS which I need for a specific trip, and I'll sell the 35-350 I think, so I have to fill the gap between 35 and 100mm.

Would obviously prefer 2.8, but there isn't a 35-100 2.8 IS, and I think IS is really useful over say 70mm, and therefor I'm leaning towards the 24-100.

Also the backup (and my wife's camera ) is a 400D, and the 24-105mm would do as the sort of standard lens there, and avoid too much duplication.

I suppose IS in some way compensates for the lack of 2.8, but doesn't help in the DOF area where the 2.8 excels.:bonk: :bonk:

Ah well, lets see if someone has a stroke of genius!

George

So that's the quandry, folks. No ideal solution, and I certainly don't want 2 more lenses!!

My current concern is really the quality of the 24-105mm.f4 IS.
 
Its not only about range coverage though for me.
Yes you can buy a 35 - 350 and only end up needing two lenses.
I prefer to keep the distances between focal limits to a bare minimal to ensure maximum quality.
 
I agree, but I have to live with what I've got, and the 24-105 fits in better than the 24-70.

B----r is the f4.
 
The 24-70mm is a great lens.... I am into primes, but bought a couple of canon L zooms for general walkabout stuff, and the 24-70mm is the best zoom lens I have owned bar none
and I have pretty much had a lot over the years..
I would not even consider the 24-105mm F4

I am affraid that F4 just does not cut it for indoor shots - F2.8 is a struggle,
and the autofocus is a lot better than the equivelent Sigma offering

here is a link to a pic taken last week....
http://eventphotographer.smugmug.com/photos/154500501-O.jpg

plus I really like the close focusing of the Canon
http://eventphotographer.smugmug.com/photos/64874135-L.jpg

my 2p
Chris
 
I had a Sigma 24-70 and swapped it out for the Canon. The Canon is a cracking lens. My girlfriend has the 24-105, and whilst I'd like the longer range at the top end and the IS, the 24-70 pips it for quality in my mind.

The other thing to bear in mind is that, even when stopped down, the f/2.8 still helps with AF accuracy (cross point sensors work at f/2.8 or better I believe). The 24-70 is also phenominally fast to focus. Depends what you take pictures of, but for dogs on the beach or similar, I find the fast and accurate AF of the 24-70 to be top. I'm not personally convinced by IS in a shorter lens either, a nice to have but give me another stop any day.
 
I'd recommend the 24-105 over the 24-70 for practical everyday use. Check luminous landscapes review of the two for IQ rationale :)
 
Well, for better or worse, I ve gone for the 24-105, been using it over the last week or so, and still not convinced I've made the correct choice.- but I'm not buying both!!

I do feel the IS is worthwhile at 100ish, but then could I have got the same effect with a faster shutter speed and enlarged afterwards in CS?

Oh well, that's that!!

Thanks everyone again!!
 
You've made a good choice - enjoy :)
 
:) Thanks, Johnnyreb, I will!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top