Canon 24-70 f/2.8

[Robert Butts]

I met with a local photographer who is going to give me a chance to assist/3rd shooter; she has 36 weddings booked for this year.

She is encouraging me to add/buy a 24-70 f/2,8 lens since I currently own a 17-40 f/4, 70-200 f/4. 100 f/2.8 macro and 50 f/1.8 . I currently own a 40D and hope by next year to pick up a used 5D

[Markitos]

Okay.....? Is there are a question, or are you just letting everyone know?

It's a superb lens, and you can see many samples of shots taken with it, and every other lens, here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406

Also, since you have a 40D, I'd consider a 17-55, since it fits the range better. You can always sell it when you get the 5D, or if you keep the 40D, keep the 17-55 for it.

[jonwhite]

24-70 on a crop is a pain, its neither one thing or the other .... BUT 24-70 on a FF body is the perfect lens for weddings IMO.

Me and Nick have been shooting weddings with crop bodies for the last couple of years and in anticipation of swapping to full frame at xmas we bought a couple of 24-70 f2.8 L lenses to replace our 17-55 f2.8 IS lenses at the back end of last year.

We shot a couple of weddings using the 24-70 on a crop and it was painful, kept swapping to the 10-22 to get wider.

Shot our first wedding of this year with a couple of 5D MKII's + 24-70 f2.8 L's and they barely came off the cameras, perfect focal length for FF wedding work.

Some pics in this thread > http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=640040

and many more on our blog (http://www.boundlessphotos.blogspot.com/) exif is intact on them and I think you will find the vast majority were 5D MKII + 24-70 f2.8 L.

[Markitos]

jonwhite--beat you to it! :p

[jessika]

im assuming you want advice on to buy it or not .. well i am going to say all good things about it cos i own it hahah but it is a brilliant lens. you wouldnt regret buying it in my opinion.

[jonwhite]

jonwhite--beat you to it! :p

Nice to see you added something to your original post.

[Markitos]

Nice to see you added something to your original post.

I was adding the stuff about the 17-55 as you were typing/posting about the 24-70 being a pain on crop....

Great minds think alike, I guess. :)

[jonwhite]

I was adding the stuff about the 17-55 as you were typing/posting about the 24-70 being a pain on crop....

Great minds think alike, I guess. :)


Good to know because it looked a bit abrupt without it.

[Markitos]

Good to know because it looked a bit abrupt without it.

It was an ambiguous post--it took me a minute to figure out how to address most of the possible answers, if it even required answers (not sure it was a question).

[Robert Butts]

To all thank you; I agree that the 17-55 is great lens for the 40D; but my thought was the 24-70 since I am serious about acquiring a 5D later in the year or first part of 2010...also goal was to keep the 17-40 as a back up or use the 17-40 with a flash; "bad Strategy for a newbie"????????

[Markitos]

no, I don't think that's a bad strategy at all... the 17-40 will work great with flash.

[collierportraits]

Well, I shoot a 5D along with a 40 as backup. This past weekend, I shot mostly the 16-35 on the FF, with the 24-105 on the crop. Really nice combo, IMO. Gave me basically a continuous 16-168, just switching between two bodies.

If you only have the 24 on a crop, though, IMO it's not wide enough...

[g-money]

yep, what others have said. On a crop body go with the 17-55.

Greg

[Robert Butts]

Thank you for your reply; how do you compare your primes to telephoto lenses

[Svetlana]

now I'm running a risk of appearing dumb but what is "continuous 16-168"?:oops:

[Robert Butts]

I believe what collierportraits was stating that when using 2 camera bodies 1 full frame and 2nd crop sensor with the lens pairing, 16-35/full frame and 24-105/crop sensor, his focal range is from 16-168mm, combined

[collierportraits]

Yes! Thank you Robert. A 24-105 on a crop body turns into a 38-168, so I had 16-35 on the FF camera covered and then 38-168 on the crop body, so essentially a continual 16-168 lens between the two cameras. (except for the 35-38 if you want to get really technical) Does that make sense?

[picturecrazy]

On a 40D? 17-55 rules over the 24-70L imo. I could confidently say I could shoot an entire season of weddings with that one single lens. I would never say I could do it with a 24-70L as my only lens... aside from all the quality control problems.

[jonwhite]

On a 40D? 17-55 rules over the 24-70L imo. I could confidently say I could shoot an entire season of weddings with that one single lens. I would never say I could do it with a 24-70L as my only lens... aside from all the quality control problems.

17-55 is a more suitable forcal length than the 24-70 on a crop body and the 24-70 is a more suitable focal length when your on full frame I agree, but its misleading to talk about the 24-70 quality issues without saying something about the 17-55 issues also.

I know you have had bad experience with the 24-70 Lloyd but many people have had bad experiences with the 17-55 f2.8 IS. and the fact that it comes with a disclaimer from some rental places about failure rates indicates that its not just the odd person having issues.

Great performing lens on a crop when its working but it does seem to be a bit fragile.

[picturecrazy]

The 24-70L quality control issues affect it's performance and image quality straight out of the box. It also focuses dog slow compared to a 17-55. But almost all copies of the 17-55 deliver exceptional IQ and performance straight out of the box and gets you up and running very quickly. That is why I mention the 24-70L quality issues... you could be screwed right from the start.

Yes, the stabilizer is weak. Turn off IS unless you actually need it.

[jonwhite]

The 24-70L quality control issues affect it's performance and image quality straight out of the box. It also focuses dog slow compared to a 17-55. But almost all copies of the 17-55 deliver exceptional IQ and performance straight out of the box and gets you up and running very quickly. That is why I mention the 24-70L quality issues... you could be screwed right from the start.

Yes, the stabilizer is weak. Turn off IS unless you actually need it.


Youve had bad experiences with the 24-70, me and Nick have had bad experiences with the 17-55 (along with other people) and not just IS issues, back focusing issues and AF issues in the middle of a wedding that wont be solved by turning off a feature thats built into the lens are very frustrating.

I dont dispute that the 17-55 makes great images, and yes its a great lens on a crop .. ive said that myself .... but you comparing failure rates between that and the 24-70 is misleading imo. The 17-55 f2.8 IS is specially flagged on lensrentals due to its failure rate (they have 31 copies of it) and I know many people who have had failures with it .... the 24-70 most definitely isnt flagged on lens rentals and your the only person I know to have had issues with one.

Ive just read some of Nicks old posts on this lens, ohh how he used to love this lens :) ... 45 weddings later and several lens failures in that time mid wedding and several lenses that have been back and forward to canon and he would give a very different optionion of it along with mine :)

Have you ever had a 17-55 f2.8 IS fail on you Lloyd ?

[picturecrazy]

Have you ever had a 17-55 f2.8 IS fail on you Lloyd ?


Yes absolutely, I was the first one on POTN to mention it. The stabilizer failed. I'm on my second now and turn off IS when I don't need it and it's been perfect. Focus accuracy and speed is unmatched from any of my other lenses, L's included. I know dozens of other pros (most local to me) who use it with similar great results.

I'm on my 6th 24-70L copy. Still far from perfect. There are many people on POTN who complain about this lens. Actually, most local guys I know who have this lens don't even know of it's problems until I demonstrate it for them on their own lenses. They just chalked it up to 'no lens hits focus 100% of the time'. I end up manually focusing this lens when I need it because I get a much higher keeper rate that way, rather than relying on AF. Which is why the 24-70 is my least used lens by far. If ever I need a normal range zoom, I pick the 40D/17-55 over the 1Ds3/24-70L ANY DAY.

There is a thread on potn somewhere in which a member went on a hunt for a good 24-70L and was allowed to test out lenses at a local store until he was satisfied with one to buy. He went through their stock and found 6 bad ones and one that worked half decently.

At 50-70mm, this lens is an absolute champ. Around 24mm and at F/2.8, it's much more of a hit and miss scenario if you have a flawed lens. Subject distance of around 12 ft in dim light, say your prayers and hope it hits focus. 5 of my 6 copies would misfocus by about 10 feet.

The 24-70L has most definitely caused me more headaches and stress than the 17-55. I'm considering buying the Nikon 24-70 instead but lens prices are just too high and I'd have to take a big loss on the sale of the 24-70L.

I still stand by my statement 100% and recommend a 17-55 over a 24-70L on a 1.6 body ANY DAY. And I still believe overall, the QC of the 24-70L causes many more bad shots than the 17-55's problems. I'm not saying you didn't have a backfocusing copy, but overall, focusing complaints are almost very low on the 17-55. It's the build and the IS weakness that gives this lens it's bad rap, and low rating on lensrentals. But at least the IS failure can be avoided, and the build quality doesn't affect image quality.

[SuzyView]

I use the 24-70 on 5D for weddings. Great combo. But for a cropped camera, the 17-55 is better. 24 is not wide enough.