24-70 Compared to 28-70, 2.8L

[DReb-MO]

Really on the fence here. I have read the forums here and read the LL article. Mixed signals. Sounds like a real QC problem with the 24-70 but if you get a "good" one it's better in a number of different ways then the 28-70. There is / was a used 28-70 (9) at B&H for $799 but then I have the extra to buy the 24-70. Any thoughts? Thanks. :confused:

[Andy_T]

Please clarify what 'sounds like a real QC problem with the 24-70'.

I (and I assume many other users here) was not aware of such a thing until a certain thread was started yesterday.

Please be so nice to inform me of any additional information you have on this issue.

Best regards,
Andy

[DReb-MO]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=68189&highlight=24-70

This is the primary thread. There are others that express disappointment. I spent some time on the "net" searching yesterday and really do not recall all the sites and reviews I read. Enough to lead me to believe there is a "percieved" problem.

[Andy_T]

You are objectively right ... there is a 'perceived' problem.

But is there a real one :wink: ?

Don't get me wrong, I understand that you want to get clarity on this issue if you plan to buy the lens yourself ... I just find don't consider it so great if opinions of single people get blown ouf ot proportion and turn into veritable rumours that haunt the boards for the times to come.

But that might just be me.

Best regards,
Andy

[DReb-MO]

Be great if you had a perspective on either lens versus the other. That was the intent of the post. ;)

[Andy_T]

Hmm.

I currently own the Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI and am very happy with it.

I would not have the money to spend on the 24-70/2.8 L ... because I will rather get the 70-200/4.0 instead with the money I saved by getting the Tamron.

Still ... if I had that money available (say, I won $ 5000 in the lottery), then I would very much want to upgrade that lens (after getting the 70-200/2.8 IS, 135/2.0 and 300/4.0 IS, that is :wink: )

And then I'd go for the 24-70/2.8 instead of the 28-70/2.8, mostly because of the Luminous landscape article and the better wide angle coverage as opposed to my Tamron.

I also would expect it to be very sharp at f/2.8 (say, as sharp as the 50/1.8 at f/2.8 ) and most likely return it to the shop if it was not. If that was not possible (I would inquire beforehand), then I would not get it in the first place, because then it would not have any advantage over my Tamron 28-75/2.8

Best regards,
Andy

[ed2day]

Andy,
If you venture onto the DPReview board, it's full of complaints about 24-70L QC issues. You get the impression it's hard to find a decent one. People are grinding through 6-8 samples to find a "good" one. I think you're right to be skeptical. Almost everyone on this board seems to love theirs. People on this board tend to the approach that if it takes great pictures, it must be a great lens. Seems reasonable to me, that's why I like this forum. I guess I listened to them, because I got my 24-70L yesterday and I'll make up my own mind.

[DReb-MO]

Part of what I was looking for was if the 24-70 is a "good one" is it worth the ~$400 increase over a used 28-70 in terms of overall quality at comparable focal lengths and apertures.

[J Rabin]

I've owned 24-70 f/2.8 L a half year. This is one of the most stellar zoom lenses I've ever owned. I did not throw comments into those threads because they seemed so.... inflammatory. And one has sympathy for users with mediocre copies of expensive lenes. My 24-70 f/2.8 is outstanding. After I read those posts, I went out and photograhed 6mm wide screw heads from 1.5 meters at various f/stops in various parts of the image field. Sharp all over, even when viewed on the camera LCD. About the ONLY "functional" differences between the Canon and the Tamron people rave about are 1.) far better Canon focus speed and especially focus speed lock-on in low light AMAZES and 2.) USING 24mm at the WA end daily means rarely need to switch lenes on 20D for group photographs. The color and contrast are beautiful. The hood system is rather ingenius because the lens moves inside it. If those things are important TO YOU in a high performance zoom, then... If they're not important, don't spend for this lens. It is not stealthy. It is a 1 Kilo brick. Out and about with the hood, it announces itself like a white L. Three hours lifting and you'll know it. If you value portability and stealth and need light gathering get the Tamron. If low light is not important, buy the Canon 17-85 IS. It's actually a uniquely positioned functional focal length lens if you don't need OOF background blur. You gotta decide what works for YOU.
I needed indoor auto focus speed and accuracy. No FT-M, no phutzing, no deliberative studio work, no making the kid sit there with hand under chin for 1 minute. The autofocus has to nail and move on. That's what the 24-70 is for.
BTW: Everyone raves about the 50mm f/1.4. I felt mine was junk and dumped it for 30% loss. It was slow focusing, the images were "muddy" and mine front focused by 8-10 inches on a 10D. It took sharp photos only if I manually adjusted focus. Also, I found that focal length did not work for ME. I either needed shorter or longer. Each to his/her own.
Hope that helps. One user's opinion.

[DReb-MO]

Thanks for the advice and nicely put.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Just sold a 28-70mm f/2.8L it was an awesome lens that allways worked.
Sharp crisp contrasty images, never intended to replace it..

But a deal on a 24-60mm crossed my path that I could not pass up...

I have far less expeierience with the 24-70mm.. but my breif observations are these.

1. It is in no way a signofocant improvement over the venerabe 28-70mm

2. It seems to do exactly what I want from it,. and do it a little wider than the older lens. with slightly faster AF.

Thus far this is all I see.

Do I like it?
Hell YES!
Did I like the 28-70?
Hell YES!