24-70 f 2.8 L image quality?

[dennykyser]

I am considering getting this lens for family portraits and weddings. I have been using primes but this seems to be a better choice for fast changing siturations. For those who use them, is the image quality as good or close too what I am getting from the primes?

[raztazor]

I have the 24-70 f2.8L and can recommend it. It is actually my favourite lens. When compared to the Tamaron equiv, the Canon lens is pin sharp, whereas the Tamaron is soft until about f5.6. I can't say if it is as good as primes (unlikely) but I can say it is an excellent zoom lens and I don't think will you disappointed.

[Mike Panic]

i plan on buying this lens in the next 2-3 weeks - one of the guys i work w/ is a pro wedding photog and since buying it, he has told me that it lives on his 1d2 most of the time. for image quality and performance, i have not heard a single complaint

the only complaint i ever heard was it weighs too much (2.1lbs) and the hood is as long as the lens.

in both of those situations, i dont care... ive worked w/ the 85mm f/1.2 and that think is a brick

[scottbergerphoto]

The 24-70 f/2.8 is my favorite portrait lens for a 1.6 or 1.3 crop. It gets a little short for film or full frame. This series of portraits was done with it if you are interested:
http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/ayana_bailey
Regards,
Scott

[n8.]

I have the 24-70 f2.8L and aside from getting used to the size/weight I love it. I mostly take outdoor travel/landscapes and indoor sports but I was extremely pleased with it's sharpness and range recently when I took some family photos at a birthday party with pretty poor lighting. The handheld results using the 24-70 on my dreb are comparable to the primes I've used (135f2L, 200f2.8L) though I mostly view them on my laptop/CRT - I have printed a few 8x10's with good results too.

I suspect if you find a couple folks with the lense they will have some samples in their gallery you can see - I don't have a gallery up yet, unfortunately.

[FlipsidE]

I don't own it, but I have seen photos taken with it on a 1D MkII. They look GREAT!

FlipsidE

[pcasciola]

the Canon lens is pin sharp, whereas the Tamaron is soft until about f5.6.
I wasn't going to bring the Tamron up in this thread, but since it was mentioned that the Tamron is soft until f/5.6, I was just wondering, is the Canon actually sharper than this at f/2.8? My copy seems to only be a hair sharper going from f/2.8 to f/5.6, but I wouldn't call it soft until f/5.6.

Tamron 28-75, f/2.8, 51mm (33% crop):
http://www.casciola.com/pics/tamron_f2.8_crop2.jpg

Tamron 28-75, f/2.8, 51mm (100% crop):
http://www.casciola.com/pics/tamron_f2.8_crop3.jpg

[raztazor]

I wasn't going to bring the Tamron up in this thread, but since it was mentioned that the Tamron is soft until f/5.6, I was just wondering, is the Canon actually sharper than this at f/2.8? My copy seems to only be a hair sharper going from f/2.8 to f/5.6, but I wouldn't call it soft until f/5.6.

Tamron 28-75, f/2.8, 51mm (33% crop):
http://www.casciola.com/pics/tamron_f2.8_crop2.jpg

Tamron 28-75, f/2.8, 51mm (100% crop):
http://www.casciola.com/pics/tamron_f2.8_crop3.jpg

Actually, yes in my opinion, the Canon is sharper at f2.8 and the extra paid for the Canon does make a difference. I have 2 test photos, one with the Canon @ f2.8 and one with the Tamron @ f2.8 and the Canon lens in my opnion wins. As for the f5.6, that was when I recall that the Tamron matched the Canon for sharpness but I do admit I maybe wrong as I can't find my test photos @f5.6. However, the photo I have attached shows a comparison between the Canon and Tamron @ f2.8. The Canon is the top image and the Tamron is the bottom image.

[Persian-Rice]

This is a very good lens and far better then the Tamron overall. You will love it.

[WestFalcon]

I shoot weddings with it and it is extremely sharp....you can easily do 16x20's and that's good enough for me.

[MrChad]

Isn't the 24-70L the best lens of this kind, period?

I've shot my buddies 28-70L, I can't imagine a better lens for the range it's the best glass I've ever had on my Drebel, well that or the 70-200 f2.8L..... :rolleyes:

[pcasciola]

Actually, yes in my opinion, the Canon is sharper at f2.8 and the extra paid for the Canon does make a difference. I have a 2 test photos, one with the Canon @ f2.8 and one with the Tamron @ f2.8 and the Canon lens in my opnion wins. As for the f5.6, that was when I recall that the Tamron matched the Canon for sharpness but I do admit I maybe wrong as I can't find my test photos @f5.6. However, the photo I have attached shows a comparison between the Canon and Tamron @ f2.8. The Canon is the top image and the Tamron is the bottom image.It definitely looks like you had a bad copy of the Tamron there, but my question wasn't whether or not you got a bad copy, but if your 24-70L could produce an f/2.8 shot sharper than what I posted.

I have to say, though, the bad copies of the Tamron are the one major downside. They seem to have really poor quality control. It seems that at least 10% or even more of the copies out there look like what you just posted when used wide open. I guess you either have to hope you get a good copy like I did (about a 90% chance), or be willing to exhange it once or twice until you get one you're happy with.

I guess the bottom line is, you can't go wrong with the Canon, but there's a 10-15% chance you could go wrong with the Tamron. I'm a big fan of Canon L glass, but for me, this Tamron is one of the few than can stand tall with it's Canon L equivalent. People can argue it until they are blue in the face, but on all the forums I follow, many people are selling their 24-70L in favor of the Tamron and never looking back.

[yalemba]

The lense delivers great quality... I have been using it for over a year now, and am very happey with the results.

[danphoto1]

I think it is a beautiful lens. I used it with a 1D and it id a very sharp lens. Great choice for weddings and protraits.

[raylks]

Great choice for general purpose too.