WOW 24-70 f2.8L

[the7ferret]

Just got my 24-70 f2.8L
AMAZING!
Best money i ever spent, this lens is radical. Anyone who has the $$$ but isn't sure go this route. Mind you its heavy.
but this lens is beautiful, and the pictures it creates are ridiculioussly sharp.

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Hm, those are pretty damn sharp. I'll look into it.

[cactusclay]

Congrats.

[Biko]

Yep sure is a great lens and built solid, I use it a lot.

[jbradc]

That is a great lens, mine lives on my 1D MkII just about all the time. It is my "standard" lens. As you said it is heavy but it is still a great walk around lens. Enjoy.

[Wren]

I love reading happy users of this lens. Enjoy it---- it's still my most used lens!!

[MDJAK]

As do I. Unless it's just a misperception on my part, which is entirely possible, this lens has taken its share of knocks on this forum, and perhaps others, from people who claim they've gotten bad copies of it. I own it and love it.

[tim]

Hm, those are pretty damn sharp. I'll look into it.

Worst. Pun. Ever.

[jdrenda]

Great lens, it is on my mark11 most of the time, good choice, John

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Worst. Pun. Ever.

O_O I don't even remember posting that.... I don't see what the pun is though...:confused:

[LightRules]

O_O I don't even remember posting that.... I don't see what the pun is though...:confused:

"look into it"

[malla1962]

You mean you chose the canon 24-70 over the sigma?:confused:Nice to see this lens geting some good press for a change.Congrats on buying a superb lens I love
mine.I don't even mind how heavy it is.:D:D:D

[rabidmoose171]

O_O I don't even remember posting that.... I don't see what the pun is though...:confused:

you look into lenses.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Hey, here's a kick. I'm a wedding photog mainly. If you had to pick either the 24-70 L or the 70-200 L that I have, which would you use if you had to have one?

[malla1962]

Hey, here's a kick. I'm a wedding photog mainly. If you had to pick either the 24-70 L or the 70-200 L that I have, which would you use if you had to have one?:confused::confused::confused::confused::confu sed:But i like e'm both.:D

[grego]

Good to see some positive comments on this lens, because it generally gets ragged on with that dud tag, even though there are some lens that are lemons, but all lens have their duds.

[tim]

Hey, here's a kick. I'm a wedding photog mainly. If you had to pick either the 24-70 L or the 70-200 L that I have, which would you use if you had to have one?

24-70 would be my choice of those two, but I have both ranges covered.

[Mocking-DX]

you're so lucky to have a sharp copy.
i have mine sent to canon for backfocus issue
hoping to get it back next week

i do love the range too

[craigsinclair]

Good to see some positive comments on this lens, because it generally gets ragged on with that dud tag...

Amen! My favorite lens for most things. I can understand someone not wanting to spend (for whatever reason) as much for a lens as Canon's 24-70L costs. I can understand there is a place for third party lenses because of this. But I sacrificed having a more extensive lens collection, at this time, to have the 24-70L and it's quality. Someday I hope to pick up a couple more lenses. I WOULD KILL for a 16-35L but, being retired, I don't see how I will ever have one.

[Titus213]

I just used the 24-70 for a wedding shoot and it is amazing. I'm trying to figure out how I can acquire one permanently....I could write it off but you still have to be able to pay for them up front.:lol: I could sell my truck but I'd still have to add more than I have.

[SeanH]

I love mine. Shot this yesturday with my new "N". Also learned something with this new machine.......watch the portriat picture style, it's a bit on the red side. And when the people your are shooting are wearing pink it's a nightmare. Shooting portriats in the "Faithfull" style from now on.......keep in mind I'm talking JPG's

.......back to the 24-70 L.......
http://www.pbase.com/blue622/image/50116684.jpg

Hmmmm......well it was sharp before the web??

[rklepper]

If I had to choose just one it would have to be the 24-70

[ImagineTNT]

I should be getting mine in two days!!! Can't wait.

[condyk]

Hmmmm......well it was sharp before the web??

:lol: :lol: I'm still waiting for a killer 24-70 L shot to appear on this forum.

Whenever I ask one of the most vocal advocates of this lens to post a sample so we can all finally see it's capabilities the request is ignored. Maybe one day we'll see what the fuss is about :rolleyes: meanwhile, I class it as Canon's most disappointing L based on my own experience with it.

[Fireblade]

:lol: :lol: I'm still waiting for a killer 24-70 L shot to appear on this forum.

Whenever I ask one of the most vocal advocates of this lens to post a sample so we can all finally see it's capabilities the request is ignored. Maybe one day we'll see what the fuss is about :rolleyes: meanwhile, I class it as Canon's most disappointing L based on my own experience with it.

I don't know if these are killer shots but they are ones that I like

http://seamus.smugmug.com/photos/25086273-L.jpg

http://seamus.smugmug.com/photos/24390138-L.jpg

http://seamus.smugmug.com/photos/16936453-L.jpg

http://seamus.smugmug.com/photos/16930453-L.jpg

[condyk]

No ... I see why you like them. I quite like the first one, but 'quite like' doesn't do it enough for me. Shame. I am really hoping for better consistency and pop from the 24-105 IS L I have on order (if it ever arrives!!) I have seen lots of encouraging shots taken with that one and that gives me a bit more faith.

[SolPics]

For me it's one of Canon's best lense. It covers the most useful range for my photography and it's expensive and heavy but you get what you pay for. The $600 over the third party lens that I tried is well worth it.

I take about 20,000 shots a year. About half are with this lens (10,000). So for 6 cents a shot it's well worth the difference, and I'll most likely have that lens for twenty years (until they come out with a 24-70 f/1.4 L IS).

[ed2day]

No ... I see why you like them. I quite like the first one, but 'quite like' doesn't do it enough for me. Shame. I am really hoping for better consistency and pop from the 24-105 IS L I have on order (if it ever arrives!!) I have seen lots of encouraging shots taken with that one and that gives me a bit more faith.

I don't know, it looks to me like fireblade got a pretty good copy. The original poster's pics don't look particularly sharp to me. But you can't tell too much from a downsized web pic.

[malla1962]

I don't know if these are killer shots but they are ones that I like

http://seamus.smugmug.com/photos/25086273-L.jpg

http://seamus.smugmug.com/photos/24390138-L.jpg

http://seamus.smugmug.com/photos/16936453-L.jpg

http://seamus.smugmug.com/photos/16930453-L.jpgNice shots,I realy like the first and last one.

[SolPics]

Here is a good link about the 24-70L

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

[craigsinclair]

Fireblade, you are in very good company. The 24-70L is simplely the very best in it's focal range. Check out http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...ad.php?t=66189 for numerious positive comments and some great shots.

[condyk]

Fireblade, you are in very good company. The 24-70L is simplely the very best in it's focal range. Check out http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...ad.php?t=66189 for numerious positive comments and some great shots.

Perfect ... the link goes nowhere :lol: :lol: Was that intended? If so, it's a very good joke :lol: :lol:

Could you post some of your own shots raigsinclair as you seem to be a very keen supporter of this lens. Maybe you can be the person to finally nail this debate :D

[craigsinclair]

Let me try again http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=66189

[condyk]

Sorry ... but you're pointing to a thread that has a few poor images that an owner complains about and lots of debate about whether it's a good lens or not!! I clicked on two links to images from one fan of it and both dead!!!

So, why are owners not posting images but then still saying how great it it? If it's great, let's all see. Strange ... thread after thread we get the same. People say how great it is but then it seems most never take any pictures with it, or the pictures I see are good but just not good enough. Others say how disappointing it is and they do post pictures and sometimes those pictures seem the same to me as some of the pictures I have seen over the last 6 months or so posted by fans of this lens :lol: :lol:

Maybe it comes down to the shooter. Maybe this lens is so good only the best photographer can take a good shot with it. They then obviously don't show any of their shots here in case we steal them :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Fireblade]

Sorry ... but you're pointing to a thread that has a few poor images that an owner complains about and lots of debate about whether it's a good lens or not!! I clicked on two links to images from one fan of it and both dead!!!

So, why are owners not posting images but then still saying how great it it? If it's great, let's all see. Strange ... thread after thread we get the same. People say how great it is but then it seems most never take any pictures with it, or the pictures I see are good but just not good enough. Others say how disappointing it is and they do post pictures and sometimes those pictures seem the same to me as some of the pictures I have seen over the last 6 months or so posted by fans of this lens :lol: :lol:

Maybe it comes down to the shooter. Maybe this lens is so good only the best photographer can take a good shot with it. They then obviously don't show any of their shots here in case we steal them :lol: :lol: :lol:

You haven't posted too many images yourself:) , I searched your posts and found two threads you started:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=83223

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=82518

:lol: :lol: :lol:

[condyk]

You haven't posted too many images yourself:) , I searched your posts and found two threads you started:


I would say they where sharp shots with plenty of colour and pop. If the 24-70 L could produce shots like that I'd be very happy. But frankly that's not even close to the point. Even if those shots sucked well we still wouldn't have any decent 24-70 L shots. Why aren't any of the big fans, other than yourself, prepared to back up their words? That's all I'm saying! Genuine question ...

[malla1962]

First shot with my 24-70L 1/160@f2.8.:D

[Fireblade]

I would say they where sharp shots with plenty of colour and pop. If the 24-70 L could produce shots like that I'd be very happy. But frankly that's not even close to the point. Even if those shots sucked well we still wouldn't have any decent 24-70 L shots. Why aren't any of the big fans, other than yourself, prepared to back up their words? That's all I'm saying! Genuine question ...

2147 posts and two of them are of pics you have taken?????

"Body: Canon 350D with Grip/Handstrap Lenses: Tokina 12-24mm 4.0 PRO DX, Canon 50mm II 1.8, Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 EX DG Macro, Canon 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 USM IS L, Sigma EX APO 1.4x TCon. Essentials: Pod Beanbag, Lowepro Computrekker, Crumpler Stunner, Feisol CM-1401 Monopod & Manfrotto 488RC2 Ballhead, Sony Vaio VGN-B1VP, Adobe Photoshop CS."

Do you use any of this equipment???? Do you have a gallery?????

I smell a troll

http://seamus.smugmug.com/photos/38533898-L.jpg

[condyk]

:lol: :lol: always good to have a debate with some intelligent people. Thanks for your contribution.

[malla1962]

2147 posts and two of them are of pics you have taken?????

"Body: Canon 350D with Grip/Handstrap Lenses: Tokina 12-24mm 4.0 PRO DX, Canon 50mm II 1.8, Sigma 24-70mm 2.8 EX DG Macro, Canon 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 USM IS L, Sigma EX APO 1.4x TCon. Essentials: Pod Beanbag, Lowepro Computrekker, Crumpler Stunner, Feisol CM-1401 Monopod & Manfrotto 488RC2 Ballhead, Sony Vaio VGN-B1VP, Adobe Photoshop CS."

Do you use any of this equipment???? Do you have a gallery?????

I smell a troll

http://seamus.smugmug.com/photos/38533898-L.jpg:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[paulhillion]

No ... I see why you like them. I quite like the first one, but 'quite like' doesn't do it enough for me. Shame. I am really hoping for better consistency and pop from the 24-105 IS L I have on order (if it ever arrives!!) I have seen lots of encouraging shots taken with that one and that gives me a bit more faith.
For me the important word here concerning the 24-70L is 'consistency'. I've owned 2 24-70's & whilst they both produced a fair few decent shots they never seemed to turn out consistently above average shots. Sharpness was always the main issue & also that certain something a WOW lens like the 70-200 has...imo.

My initial feelings with the new 24-105L lens are much much better then I ever had with the 24-70. Condyk I'm pretty confident that you'll be a very happy photographer when you do eventually receive your new lens. I look forward to hearing your views on it.

Best wishes.

[Citizensmith]

:lol: :lol: always good to have a debate with some intelligent people. Thanks for your contribution.

Funny seeing someone with 2000+ posts being described as a troll. You think the new poster is just trying to get some flames going or what. Oh yeah and I'm sure you just imagined the equipment in you sig. :) What is a Crumpler Stunner anyway? Do you not like people who use crumpler bags?

[condyk]

My initial feelings with the new 24-105L lens are much much better then I ever had with the 24-70. Condyk I'm pretty confident that you'll be a very happy photographer when you do eventually receive your new lens. I look forward to hearing your views on it.

Of course, I never use my gear so I can offer my views now:

First off, the technical criteria. It's shiny, shiny, shiny and then it is also black with a red ring and finally I can see all the way through it. One end goes in that camera thingy somewhere, but that's still in the box so not sure how or why. The other end is made of glass of some sort, which is a nice feature of these Canon models.

I think it's just nice to hold and polish now and again tho'. It really does look shiny, shiny and makes me so happy to look at it :D The most important feature is it fits snug in my Crumpler bag. I take that out shopping every day to impress people. Sometimes I leave the flap open so people can see it inside. That makes me happy too. They look so green when they see it. Maybe they are Trolls too ... or maybe they are just a little jealous.

Hope that is a useful review for people. The 24-105 Is L is really outstanding and meets all my needs.

[Fireblade]

Funny seeing someone with 2000+ posts being described as a troll. You think the new poster is just trying to get some flames going or what. Oh yeah and I'm sure you just imagined the equipment in you sig. :) What is a Crumpler Stunner anyway? Do you not like people who use crumpler bags?

The point was that quantity didn't equal quality. He has 2000+ posts but only 2 of them contain photos that he took.

Anyway I'm going back to the sports forum where people post pictures :D

[paulhillion]

Of course, I never use my gear so I can offer my views now:

First off, the technical criteria. It's shiny, shiny, shiny and then it is also black with a red ring and finally I can see all the way through it. One end goes in that camera thingy somewhere, but that's still in the box so not sure how or why. The other end is made of glass of some sort, which is a nice feature of these Canon models.

I think it's just nice to hold and polish now and again tho'. It really does look shiny, shiny and makes me so happy to look at it :D The most important feature is it fits snug in my Crumpler bag. I take that out shopping every day to impress people. Sometimes I leave the flap open so people can see it inside. That makes me happy too. They look so green when they see it. Maybe they are Trolls too ... or maybe they are just a little jealous.

Hope that is a useful review for people. The 24-105 Is L is really outstanding and meets all my needs.
When you've had a chance to use it, I'd really like to hear your initial views on the 24-105...I'm not fussed whether you post photos or not ;)

Cheers, Paul

[condyk]

The point was that quantity didn't equal quality. He has 2000+ posts but only 2 of them contain photos that he took.

Anyway I'm going back to the sports forum where people post pictures :D

No, please stay ... it was nice having the Three Stooges on one page at once back there. Can't finally work out which of you guys is Curly (the thickest one!) though. It's pretty obvious which of you is Larry and I'm pretty sure who Mo is. I guess that makes you Curly!

BTW I think you may need to calibrate your monitor. Your red is way out.

When you've had a chance to use it, I'd really like to hear your initial views on the 24-105...I'm not fussed whether you post photos or not ;)


I'll let you know fella ... and maybe I'll even take a shot with it. Costs a lot so I really should work out which end goes where I suppose.

Oh yeah and I'm sure you just imagined the equipment in you sig. :) What is a Crumpler Stunner anyway? Do you not like people who use crumpler bags?

All imaginary I'm afraid. Managed to fool several members into parting with large amounts of cash in person buying my old imaginary gear. Good scam while it lasted!

Crumpler Stunner is a very cool and practical bag for walkaround. Because I'm 98% into 'exotic wildlife' I don't shoot hardly anything walkaround here, too boring, but I'm now finding I am taking the camera out much more. Stunner is just the right size for my body, Sigma and Toki and bits and bobs. Here's a link, but I think it's called something else in the US:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=98637

Damn ... shows another five pictures I took :p

[Fireblade]

No, please stay ... it was nice having the Three Stooges on one page at once back there. Can't finally work out which of you guys is Curly (the thickest one!) though. It's pretty obvious which of you is Larry and I'm pretty sure who Mo is. I guess that makes you Curly!

BTW I think you may need to calibrate your monitor. Your red is way out.

:p

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=82518

and the picture in this thread is good?????????

[condyk]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=82518

and the picture in this thread is good?????????

Definately Curly :lol: :lol: :lol: I don't think there was a myopic Stooge, so it must be Curly! Hey, if you want to do a rational critique of my photographs then feel free, but understand it is pointless. Did you even read the text that goes with them? Probably a few too many words. Hey, you could have a field day on those Crumpler shots. But let's leave it at that 'Fireblade'. This is way too dull witted for me.

End of thread as far as I'm concerned. I'll leave you to have the last word :lol:

[Fireblade]

Definately Curly :lol: :lol: :lol: I don't think there was a myopic Stooge, so it must be Curly! Hey, if you want to do a rational critique of my photographs then feel free, but understand it is pointless. Did you even read the text that goes with them? Probably a few too many words. Hey, you could have a field day on those Crumpler shots. But let's leave it at that 'Fireblade'. This is way too dull witted for me.

End of thread as far as I'm concerned.

another photo of yours:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=87458

[craigsinclair]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...ad.php?t=82518

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...ad.php?t=87458

Very interesting...mmmmmm...please tell me these were taken with some 3rd party lenses and not a Canon.

[SeanH]

:lol: :lol: I'm still waiting for a killer 24-70 L shot to appear on this forum.

Whenever I ask one of the most vocal advocates of this lens to post a sample so we can all finally see it's capabilities the request is ignored. Maybe one day we'll see what the fuss is about :rolleyes: meanwhile, I class it as Canon's most disappointing L based on my own experience with it.
That shot of mine is RAZOR sharp, but for some reason lost it on the web. Me & a buddy were talking about that tonight, we were wondering if some of these photo storage sites don't compress the images more. We were thinking how some of the sharpest shot's you see are on peoples own sites......hell maybe that's just because their better but I know my shots are every bit as sharp as the ones I see.........until I post them on the web. Not the resizing, because they still look good on my computer after that........dunno what happens??

But that 24-70 is very sharp.......at least mine is. But that's the 3rd copy. But I honesty think that alot of the soft shoots are people tring to hand hold this lens at to slow of a shutter speed. I think alot of folks just forget it's a 70mm.......not to metion the X 1.6, or 1.3 factor. I know I was doing that quite a bit when I got my first copy, then you hear the negative press (probably folks doing the same thing) and you blame the lens. It's not the lens people.....it's you!!! Is it sharp at 2.8.....not really, But I honestly haven't seen very many that are sharp wide open.........or even at f4 for that matter. But IMO the 24-70 is a great lens when you figure how useful of a focal length it is. No it's not a 85 1.2, or a 35 1.4 (which BTW aren't to hot wide open either) but overall I think it's a very good lens that will always give good results provided you watch the camera shake. Kinda makes ya think why Canon put I.S. on the new 24-105........hmmmm, think about it.