24-85/3.5-4.5 & 24-70/2.8L

[Mike H]

I'm agonizing over the choice of whether to buy a 24-85 or 24-70 lens to use with my Mark II.

If you made a list of things I don't like in equipment, it would start out with 1. Heavy and 2. Stands out in a crowd. But after picking up a couple of L lenses, I've grown fond of (and accustomed to) their build and image quality. To help me settle the issue, perhaps someone can answer these questions:

1. Have you ever seen a carefully done, direct comparison of the image quality of these lenses? I've done a few web searches and have come up empty. All I have come up with is speculation, no real tests.

2. Has anyone bought either lens and found themselves sorry later? If so, why?

Thanks.

Mike H

[wintoid]

I don't have an answer for either of your questions but I will say I'm pretty happy with my 24-85 lens. I tend to use my 50mm 1.4 a little more, which is certainly sharper, but the 24-85 is a great walkaround lens.

Not to push you in any direction, but the Tamron 28-75 is a similar range to those you mention, is almost as small as the Canon 24-85, and supposedly quite close to "L" quality.

[DaveG]

I'm agonizing over the choice of whether to buy a 24-85 or 24-70 lens to use with my Mark II.

If you made a list of things I don't like in equipment, it would start out with 1. Heavy and 2. Stands out in a crowd. But after picking up a couple of L lenses, I've grown fond of (and accustomed to) their build and image quality. To help me settle the issue, perhaps someone can answer these questions:

1. Have you ever seen a carefully done, direct comparison of the image quality of these lenses? I've done a few web searches and have come up empty. All I have come up with is speculation, no real tests.

2. Has anyone bought either lens and found themselves sorry later? If so, why?

Thanks.

Mike H

These are two different animals that kind of share the same focal length. The 24-7- f2.8 L is going to be sharper, faster, will auto focus more quickly, is heavier, is tougher and more durable, and will cost a a lot more money that the 24-85.

Now I have two L lenses the 16-35 and the 70-200 f2.8. I also have the 24-85 f3.5-f4.5 and I'm in no hurry to buy the L.

I find that my workhorse lens is the 16-35. I use the 70-200 for sports and longer shots at commercial assignments, and I'll usually use a 50 f1.4 for H&S shots. That usually means that the 24-85 is not used at all. On a 10D the 16-35 effectively takes me from 26mm to 55mm, which is a moderate wide angle to normal focal length. The 50 forces me to move the camera to change H&S composition and this increases subject to subject consistency during post production.

So where would I need a very fast lens in the 40-110 focal length? And once again it's only fast compared to the 24-85. I would look at every prime f2.8 lens from 24-70 (or even more so in 40 to 110 mm) as being very slow. I mean if it ain't a macro am I likely to spend any extra money on a 50 f2.8? A 35 f2.8? Just because it's a zoom is no reason (for me) to spend any extra $.

Although I made the original purchase of the 24-85 based on "that's what the shop had and I need a lens TODAY", it's been a good lens when I had only one. And it has remained a lens that I don't hesitate to use when the focal length is appropriate. But as I say I have no urge - even in my lens fantasies - to spend more money to upgade to the 24-70 L.

[DocFrankenstein]

I'd go with the L if you need the focal length. You need all the lens resolution you can get for your mark 2 and there's just no way 24-85 is gonna be better

I remember reading on dpreview I think the comparison between 28-70 L and 24-70 L. The latter was way sharper.

I'd go with L

[wintoid]

I found this http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/28_135zoom/ which compares the 24-85 with many other zooms, including the 28-70 f2.8L (albeit only briefly).

[Mike H]

Thanks, everyone, for the helpful responses. You've given me lots of food for thought.

In the end, what I may have to do is stop thinking about it and just buy the whole set of L lenses. :D

Mike H

[Olegis]

You might give a try to the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 that was mentioned here by wintoid. I have this lens and like it very much. For its price there is no better lens IMHO.

[Mike H]

You might give a try to the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 that was mentioned here by wintoid. I have this lens and like it very much. For its price there is no better lens IMHO.

I've heard a lot of good things about that lens, but I can't see me going for it.

When I shifted from the 10D to the Mark II, I wanted to try a new zoom that might work better with that camera for PJ work. I checked my EXIF data and found that when shooting the 10D I lived at the 16-17mm end most of the time, but also switched to the 35mm end fairly often. A 17mm lens on the 10D is equivalent to a 27mm lens on a full-frame camera.

On the Mark II, you would need a 21mm lens to get the same angle of view. Hence, I'm thinking that with a 24mm I would be okay just taking a few steps back. At 28mm it would be several more steps back--assuming that there is space to move back. At that point perspective would start to change noticeably, and I don't want that.

I like the close in, wide-angle perspective that you often see from shooters like the celebrated photojournalist James Nachtwey. I like the way that puts you into the photo, or lets you emphasize one person or thing and still put the subject into context by having a lot of background in the shot.

I do appreciate the suggestion. :D

Mike H

[Canuck]

It seems to me that if you're really serious about the pics, there isn't a chance a consumer version will do the trick. I have got the 24-70F2.8L and I can't imagine it many other ways! I comapred it to the Sigma lens I have which well straight out sucks and got blown out of the water by the Canon lens. My vote is pro glass, for whatever that means to you.