28-70mm 2.8 L vs 24-70mm 2.8 reliving an old dispute.

[TH!EN]

switcing back to full frame has been amazing. I missed it from the film days. But now in the new canon eos system lenses are a struggling game for all of us. They are indeed tools, but you have over 50 lenses and who knows how many different combinations. I have found a need for a midrange zoom. I was about to find means to save up for a 24-70mm 2.8L but somethign came across my path. A used mint condition 28-70mm 2.8L for $500. I can go and pick it up at will. It's local. or should I wait and save for a 24-70mm 2.8. Arent they essentially the same lense besides one being alittle wider? I am not much of a wide shooter this may not bother me. Is this lense very sharp? i mean 500 opposed to 1075 looks pretty good.
Any thoughts?

[sunbeast]

I picked up a used 28-70 after I purchased my 5D and it is an outstanding lens. As I think you are alluding to, the full frame aspect helps you get past the 24 vs 28mm dilemma. I saved money and got a fantastic lens to boot.

[cdifoto]

At that price I'd probably go for it, even on crop. And I'm not even one to buy used glass. Just check it out thoroughly before handing over your cash.

[cjm]

For $500 you can not go wrong! Buy it! Make sure its a good working copy but if all checks out buy it because you can always get upto $750 for it used. So you cant lose. Best case you get a perfect lens for you for $500, worst case you hate it and get a bunch of free money towards the 24-70 L.

I love my 24-70 L, coming from a nice good copy of the 28-80 L. But the 28-70 L is probably just as good as the 28-80 L which was a awesome lens. Best of luck

[tsaraleksi]

There's a review on Luminous Landscapes more or less saying that the 28-70 is great, the 24-70 improves on it. It looked somewhat better but I'd guess you'd be happy with a 28. The difference was similar to the comparison of the 17-35 and 16-35.

[Woogie]

I read somewhere that noted the newer USM of the 24 being a little faster and hunts a little less than that of the 28. I've also read that the 24 is a little sharper up until 50-70.

[grego]

For that price, that is truely hard to pass up.

[TH!EN]

thank you everybody for your input. I guess i should go test it out. If all is well then take it. If i dont like it, like someone mentioned 500 is a good price i could always turn around and sell it to someone who needs this range?

I guess ive been so firm on believing to never get second best. And it has proven to be a good theory for me for the most part, instead of 30d i went 5D, instead of any 70-200mm zoom i went straight for the IS. the 50 1.8 and 17-40mm were second best choices and linger on me like a heavy cloud.

i hope this cost decision will save me in the long run, you guys all gave really good supporting advice thank you.

[grego]

like someone mentioned 500 is a good price i could always turn around and sell it to someone who needs this range?
.

You can sell it for 600 shipped, and it will sell probably in less than 2 days if you post it here and on Fred Miranda. I'd probably buy around that price(500-600) if I caught the deal.

[Mark_Cohran]

I have th 28-70 f2.8 - I bought it only slightly used about 5 or 6 years ago and it's a sharp, tough lens. It's been one of my main workhorse lenses for years. I paid $800 for mine, so $500 is a good deal I wouldn't pass up.

Mark

[coreypolis]

if you don't get it, tell me where it is :)

[coreypolis]

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml

[psy4fun]

Are you planning to use this lens in which situation?

I'm asking this because for me looks like you actually have a very good lens combination, too good to spend more money in a 24-70 or 28-70 (unlike you, I'm planning to sell my 24-70 to get a 17-40 and a 70-200).

[Tapeman]

I have had this lens for approximately 10 years. Highly recomended.

[jimlp]

I read somewhere that noted the newer USM of the 24 being a little faster and hunts a little less than that of the 28. I've also read that the 24 is a little sharper up until 50-70.

This was shot on a moving boat, I was surprised how sharp this lens is. I think it is sharper than my 24-105L.
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b230/jimlp/Full.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b230/jimlp/Crop.jpg

[Mark_Cohran]

I read somewhere that noted the newer USM of the 24 being a little faster and hunts a little less than that of the 28. I've also read that the 24 is a little sharper up until 50-70.

Well, the 28-70 is one of the sharpest lenses in my bag and I've never had a problem with it hunting, so for the price difference I certainly wouldn't worry about it.

Mark

[Phideaux]

How much for your 24-70 shipped to the UK?

[TH!EN]

This was shot on a moving boat, I was surprised how sharp this lens is. I think it is sharper than my 24-105L.
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b230/jimlp/Full.jpg
http://i20.photobucket.com/albums/b230/jimlp/Crop.jpg

That is amazingly sharp. Thank you for sharing any at 2.8?

[TH!EN]

Are you planning to use this lens in which situation?

I'm asking this because for me looks like you actually have a very good lens combination, too good to spend more money in a 24-70 or 28-70 (unlike you, I'm planning to sell my 24-70 to get a 17-40 and a 70-200).

Alex

I do mainly weddings, travel, portraits. I just find with my setup the 50mm is a great lense but is very cheaply made and sometimes just too short or too long. I find the 17-40mm very sharp and a good lens, but pictures are too flat and unintersting. I even tried a few landscape shots with it at 17mm and i am just not feeling it. I woudl rather stitch together a few shots from a different lense than use a wide. It's justnot wide enough and not enough shallow depth for anythign interesting. Plus when using a 50mm i find that when its not wide enough i have to switch to the 17 then when i need to get some shallow depth i have to swtich back it gets very tedious. So i figure 24 or 28 is quite wide. Enough to cover most landscapes, close indoors, 2.8 (still wish it was a 1.4 haha but hey) , It is like a 50mm except you can go wider or longer. You dont have to switch lenses. All i would carry in my bag is two lenses and taht one on the camera. As soon as you reach in your bag your set for most situations. Your downtown, can get some decent wides, with your friends get some good group and candid portraits. You at a pro event you have credibility in a good lens. Your doing a wedding and you are safe for extreme changes from wide to semi telephoto. To me it seems perfect. key word being "seems". every photographer has a beef about their own equipment, its a curse. We get the best and end up settling for something different. who knows i probably wont be satisfied after this, or maybe i will be, it's a gamble. Well if you have a good price on that 24-70mm maybe even a trade for a 17-40mm we may have a deal that'll help us both.

[TH!EN]

well i guess this ends my guessing game. the owner sold his lens to another buyer. Until next time then i guess. Tank you everyone for helping me figure this out. Your efforts were not wasted this just pushes me to save up for the the brick.

[grego]

The 24-105 does not do f/2.8.
Damn, i wish you had bought that!