24-70mm2.8L Pros-Cons

[Ray.Petri]

Hi everyone

I'm close to rushing out and buying the 24-70mm2.8L for my 20D.

Is it as good as it is cracked up to be?

Is it too heavy to hump around as a standard lens?

I sure need a high quality standard lens - but?

Should I save my money?

Regards to all

Ray



20D 18-55 -- 70-200 f4L -- 35-105 f3.5-4.5 -- (28-70macro old style but very good)
All sorts of other bits.

[piku]

well, if you gotta save money, go w/ the tamron 28-75/2.8 for sure.

[GeneMan88]

ditto that... the Tamron is a lighter lens that won't "lighten" your wallet. It's not an "L" lens... you get what you pay for, but it's pretty good for what you pay.

[ayotnoms]

If you got the money and the skill to use it the way it's supposed to be used, GO FOR IT!

If you're in the camp of those who expect the lens to be razor sharp irrespective of the shutter speed, aperture, and focal length you're likely to be disappointed.

Used right, the lens produces stunning photographs.

check this image taken with the 24-70mm lens:

http://steve-montoya.smugmug.com/photos/24373640-M.jpg

Cheers!

[Andy_T]

Steve,

while I agree with you that the 24-70 certainly is a hell of a lens, there are also a lot of images from the 18-55 kit lens that look really great at 600x400 pixels :wink:

The most important differences IMO between the 24-70 and the Tamron 28-75 are:

- 4 mm on wide end (if this is *very* important, consider the Sigma 24-70/2.8 )
- Tamron is lighter & smaller
- Build quality of Canon is a lot better, but Tamron is ok (like Canon prosumer lens)
- Canon might be slightly sharper wide open (maybe not if you get a good copy of the Tamron)
- Canon AF is faster, quieter, and has full time manual AF
- Tamron is 1/3 of the price

I only have the Tamron, so take it with a grain of salt.


Best regards,
Andy

[Salleke]

If you got the money and the skill to use it the way it's supposed to be used, GO FOR IT!

If you're in the camp of those who expect the lens to be razor sharp irrespective of the shutter speed, aperture, and focal length you're likely to be disappointed.

Used right, the lens produces stunning photographs.


Cheers!

Quote 1) ...and the skill to use it the way it's supposed to be used...

Can you please tell me/us wich skills we must have and/or use to obtain the most out of this lens?

Quote 2) If you're in the camp of those who expect the lens to be razor sharp irrespective of the shutter speed, aperture, and focal length you're likely to be disappointed.

Yoy are right that I was expecting this lens to be razorsharp. Is it wrong to expect this of a 1200 Euro lens and from an famous L lens?

Quote 3) Used right, the lens produces stunning photographs.

What is the right way to use this lens so we/I can produce stunning photographs?


Please don't understand me wrong, I don't want to contradict Your input here.
But because I'm a beginner in digital photography I would like to learn as much as possible from it and would apriciate your help.

Thank you.

[jimchapin468]

It is a nice lens, but in my opinion it is not worth the money. I have gotten some really good pictures with it, but many of the other pics seem to look soft.

[condyk]

The Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro is seriously worth checking out as well. I was very impressed with the head to head fstopjojo did last week and from user feedback and posted images. This is a brand new lens. Do a search for the test here and check out the images from the Sigma and the Canon L. You can then decide if you want to spend the extra.

Like Andy I have the Tamron and respect its ability, so worth looking at all three.

[MDJAK]

I have this lens and it is one of my favorites. It produces razor sharp pictures. Any softness is a result of operator error, such as camera shake.

I used it for portraiture at night after my daughter's graduation last week with my 580 flash and the pictures were stunning. If I weren't such a dolt, I might be able to post one.

Yes, it is a little heavy but not that long.

Heck, at one time I thought I would never want to carry my 70-200 f/2.8 IS around, but not I don't mind that either. In fact, whenever I leave it home, I curse myself.

I was at the Palm Beach Zoo with my 70-300 DO IS recently and longed for the 70-200.

Get it . You will not be disappointed.

[ayotnoms]

There was a thread several days ago discussing the 24-70mm...actually initiated by jimchapin.
here it is:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=80506
That thread is the basis for what I commented on here.

Again, if money is not the main concern, get it. It's a great lens.
Otherwise, get the Tamron. I had the Tamron 28-75mm before getting the 24-70mm and it's also a fine lens.

I have no experience with the Sigma so can't really comment on that.

[Salleke]

There was a thread several days ago discussing the 24-70mm...actually initiated by jimchapin.
here it is:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=80506
That thread is the basis for what I commented on here.

Again, if money is not the main concern, get it. It's a great lens.
Otherwise, get the Tamron. I had the Tamron 28-75mm before getting the 24-70mm and it's also a fine lens.

I have no experience with the Sigma so can't really comment on that.

Thanks for the link and the answer. I have solved my problem
with my copy of the EF 24-70mm 2.8 L lens.

[csnudelman]

I have the 24-70L and if you get one you'll wonder why you ever considered a 3rd party lens.

[ayotnoms]

Thanks for the link and the answer. I have solved my problem
with my copy of the EF 24-70mm 2.8 L lens.
Super.
I hope the 24-70 gives you years and years of excellent service.
I have the 24-70L and if you get one you'll wonder why you ever considered a 3rd party lens.
If a person simply doesn't have the money to buy an "L" lens or doesn't think it's worth the high $ it's not unreasonable to get a quality 3rd party lens. My 24-70mm besides being wider, represented a 10-25% improvement (disclaimer: purely subjective assessment) over the Tamron I owned. The Tamron is 1/3 the cost so that's an excellent cost/benefit ratio for many people.

Regards
:-)

[blue_max]

The Con in the original question is pretty clear.

The Pro is more subjective. Definitely a pro is the build quality.

The rest is subjective. In fact, very subjective as you have seen.

Given the cost, perhaps it is being judged by standards that are many times the ones used to judge the more economical alternatives. What is clear is that opinion is very polarised.

The best you can hope for is to judge the people making the comments.

Graham

[CyberDyneSystems]

I love it.. it's very heavy for this focal range.. but not really when you consider build quality and aperture.. Canon just likes to make 'em "beefy"

[blue_max]

I love it.. it's very heavy for this focal range.. but not really when you consider build quality and aperture.. Canon just likes to make 'em "beefy"

Glad it has the CDS seal of approval :lol:, but I am not sure that the aperture is that special these days, in the light of the opposition.

Graham

[wibbly]

By all accounts, don't expect sharpness like your 70-200 f4L. But that you have an L lens as well as non-L glass should give you a feel for it's value - or lack of it.

I have the 24-70 as my only lens, currently. I was concerned with it's softness at the edges especially as in a 20D you're not even looking at the edge of the frame designed for a 1x crop(!), but I have no problems carrying it about. At the end of the day, every lens (even an L) is a compromise in design. It may be a little soft, say, wide open @ 24mm but I think you have to consider:

- If another ~ 24-70 f2.8 lens from someone else will be any better or even quite equal
- Don't forget other benefits such as bokeh, colour, and other stuff that gives the results 'punch'
- The joy of using it
- If you can afford it!
- Wide open, you're often (not always) using it that way to deliberately get shallow DOF, when sharpness at the edges is NOT what you're trying to acheive.

For sure we're into the law of diminishing returns. You may well get better *value* if not *quite* the same mechanical and optical quality and robustness looking at a 3rd party lens.

I decided to "go for it". I, for sure, do have to remind myself to just enyoy it and stop pixel peeping. Same sort of story worrying about 'banding' on the 20D itself ;-) Problem is after spending that much we feel it ought to all be perfect. But you can spend an awful lot more and still not get perfection... just less imperfection.

At the end of the day I found myself actually wanting to know that my copies of camera and lens were at least typical (as good as it gets) rather than perfect...

J

[xuxu1]

Heard and read lot´s of good things about this lens. If i were you, i´d go for it! I´m sure you won´t regret it.

It´s still on my shopping list. Sooner or later i will have one also. Just can´t make up my mind which lens (24-70L, 70-200L f4 or 70-200L IS) to get first. Awful... decisions, decisions...

ED

[DavidEB]

I understand that with the pop-up flash on the 20D, the 24-70 casts a shadow. Since I find having convenient fill flash to be worthwhile, especially for my main "walk-around" lens, I wouldn't want the lens.

Does the sigma alternative 24-70 have HSM?

I'm very fond of the Tamron, having learned to tolerate the loud focus motor and the rotating front ring.

[SeanH]

Here's my take.....and I have this lens

The Tamron is about 300 bucks, and if you get a soft shot that you think should have been sharp you think...."heck it's a 300 dollars lens" and think of all the other shots that looked great and feel like you got a deal. On the other hand when you pay 1200 dollars and get that same soft shot, that you feel should have been sharp then your down right pissed and feeling you got ripped off.

......just depends on how you want to feel.....LOL

IMO I would get the Tamron. In most all test I have seen it's is very close to the Canon 24-70L.....close enough to not spend the extra 900 buck. Hell I'm thinking about get the Tamron just to check it out, and have a lense of that focal length that dosen't weigh 15 pounds.....LOL. Just for Family stuff.

Canon makes some great L lenses, this one IMO just isn't one of their best. So far my best one is my 70-200 2.8 non IS............razor sharp all day long!!

[J Rabin]

Ray.
As a satisfied 24-70 f/2.8 L owner, the biggest difference between this and the Tamron is speed of focus and focus lock accuracy in lower light, not sharpness.

If you have not used both in this environment, they "appear" similar in f/stop, sharpness specs, etc. It's when you're doing PJ or event work in fast-paced lower light, and you NEED focus speed and focus lock accuracy that the 24-70 L distinguishes itself from the Tamron. There just is no comparison in this setting.

The Tamron is a fine lens, a little plasticy (is that a word?), but fine for many uses and users. Even for studio portraits on a tripod the Tamron is fine. If you want a light two lens travel kit with the Canon 70-200 f/4 L, get the Tamron because it shares the odd 67mm filter with the Canon f/4 L zoom.

BUT, if you find yourself in lower light fast event situations I described above, get the Canon L. THAT speed of focus lock is its strength. That's why it's worth what I paid for it.

I'm one of the few people that really likes the way the lens barrel moves inside the hood on the L, rather than the hood moving on the front of the extending lens body. Very innovative.
J.

[Visuals]

Hi everyone

I'm close to rushing out and buying the 24-70mm2.8L for my 20D.

Is it as good as it is cracked up to be?

Is it too heavy to hump around as a standard lens?

I sure need a high quality standard lens - but?

Should I save my money?

Regards to all

Ray



20D 18-55 -- 70-200 f4L -- 35-105 f3.5-4.5 -- (28-70macro old style but very good)
All sorts of other bits.

Well Ray
I am probably more of a beginner photographer than you. I was able to pick up the 28-70L from Ebay and had shot with it over the Fathers day weekend. It's like what people said you need to apply yourself if you want to take sharp pictures and its normal for beginners to expect SHARP pictures for that price no matter what.

For me the weight was a bit much and it wasn't as sharp as my 70-200 f4. Granted its the older version I still said to myself..." I gotta get my money back" so back to Ebay it went and I got myself the

Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 Lens which I find to be Excellent. Colour is on par with my 85mm 1.8 and 50 1.4 its sharp enough for me and the price was right on

If I were you I would get the Tamron for you normal lens. you can surround it with cannon glass like i did

Tamron 17-35mm f2.8
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8
Canon 50mm f1.4
Canon 85mm f1.8
Canon 70-200 f4

PS: Professionals, please don't kill me for selling the 28-70mm L I'll get it back
later :-)

[Ray.Petri]

Thanks for your replies guys - I'm still undecided - but I will most probably go for it - where do you stop?
I was interested in the comment regarding the fill flash casting a shadow though - any further comments on that on though.

As a point of interest - I have had the 60mm 2.8 macro about a month now - WOW - great - I highly recommend it.

[csnudelman]

Ray.Petri "...regarding the fill flash casting a shadow..."

I have a 550EX, 420EX...AND, a 220EX. The latter is small, light and easy to carry (for me) and gives a bit more light if needed. It also gets the light above any lens obstruction.

[J Rabin]

Ray. Yes, depending on where you are zoomed (FL mm) with the 24-70, using an on-board flash will cast a quarter moon shadow in the frame, ruining the photo. If you can afford this lens, you should afford not be using the on-board flash. Same with the 17-40L and other f/2.8 77mm pro lenses.
It's a costly disease.
J.

[wibbly]

I have to say I never use the on-board flash (after testing it actually worked). I try to use no flash first (esp. given the 20D high ISO performace and a f2.8 lens is such a killer low light combination), and resort to a 420EX if I must...

I think it's sufficiently difficult to get good flash shots using a single flash, I'd rather be using 3200 ISO wide open if I can, especially if I can't use bounce flash (as will always be the case with the built-in flash)

J

[Ray.Petri]

Hi Guys
Wow! That certainly drew some comment. Well, I went to my local Jessopps emporium today and had good play with the 24-70mm 2.8L They were most eager to let me play. 10 out of 10 to their staff for their patience.
My initial conclussion is that it is too big and heavy for a standard lens - although I like the idea very much - I have put it on hold - I dunno how long I can hold off for though - I know, some of you will disagree with me and say I should have gone for it.
Thanks for all your encouraging comments though - by the way - what does one have to do on this forum to get promoted to a more senior grade of membership - do I have give a funny handshake or something more sinister?
Regards
Ray.

[ayotnoms]

...what does one have to do on this forum to get promoted to a more senior grade of membership - do I have give a funny handshake or something more sinister?
Regards
Ray.

I think you need to sell a kidney or some other vital organ on E-Bay

:lol::lol:

[who me?]

Ray, you might want to go back to your Local Jessops and give the Tamron a play too. This way you can get a better feel for what others are talking about regarding the differences in the two lenses.
I did that with both and purchased neither. I ended up not liking the Tamron and feeling the Canon was too much money at the time. I ended up buying another lens that I am not to thrilled with either but it was cheaper and did almost what I wanted it too for the weekend I used it. I will sell that lens in the future but am unsure what I will replace it with. Unfortunately Canon doesn't make a L in the focal lengths I want. :-(

[cactusclay]

I've owned both the Tamron and the Canon, I sent both back due to softness on one side or the other. The other problem with the Tamron is it hunts very badly indoors with artificial lighting or at least the two copies I've tried. I liked the feel of the Canon, but I fear there is,or has been some serious quality control issues. Like a couple of other people have mention, the several copies I tried out all had very bad edge softness, some extending nearly a third of the way into the center. That is something that would be hard to swallow on a 300 dollar lens, but for me, imposible, on a 1200 dollar one. I've heard of sharp copies, but I'm still looking. I've heard some good things about the Sigma, but once you have full time manual focusing and USM, it's hard to use a lens that the focus ring spins on when you are holding it. I'm not saying it's impossible, just rather annoying. Like I said the feel and build quality of the Canon is really good, almost as good as the shorter L zooms, but getting a soft copy can be discouaging. Good luck. And by the way the Sigma does not have HSM.

[Ray.Petri]

Thanks guys for your comments.
I've had a good play with this lens 24-70mm 2.8L at my local Jessops emporium - they were very patient with me. Thanks to the female assistant who did not try to pressure me in any way. I have decided to put this purchase on hold for a while - However, I was not 100% convinced the definition was all that great and it was rather bigger and heavier than I might want to lug around. Note:- I did say I'd put it on hold - my compulsitivity factor might just get the better of me yet. I'll let you know later. I've been thinking of the advantages of the f2.8 for low light focus.
Regards
Ray

[ed rader]

>>The Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro is seriously worth checking out as well. I was very impressed with the head to head fstopjojo did last week and from user feedback and posted images. This is a brand new lens. Do a search for the test here and check out the images from the Sigma and the Canon L. You can then decide if you want to spend the extra.

Like Andy I have the Tamron and respect its ability, so worth looking at all three.<<

the sigma is 205 gms heavier than the tamron and takes an 82mm filter and it's also longer and larger in diameter....the tamron takes a 67mm filter just like the canon 70-200L f4.

in fact the tamron is the most compact in it's class and has optics equal to or better than (depending on the source) to the sigma and the canon 24-70L.

of course with the tamron you also lose 4mm on the wide end.

ed rader

[CyberDyneSystems]

I continue to be stunned by how heavy this lens is.. :lol:

regarding the onboard flash catching tghe lens hood.. Yup.. and with the exception of the 28mm prime,.. every other lens I own has this same problem with built in flash... and I mean EVERY other lens I own.

[me100finn]

(posted on wrong thread..sorry...)

[coorz]

Weight is it's only drawback but you'll get used to it once you see the results; you can't go wrong with the 24-70L arguably Canon's best walkaround zoom.
Alternative: 24-105L IS, a tad lighter.

[digitaljoe]

Canon 24-70 is a great lens. Ideal for portraits and much else. My moneymaker!

[Steve Parr]

There isn't a whole lot I don't dig about the 24-70mm f/2.8L...

[bbc14f]

If money isn't a problem get the 24-70L. I can't really think of any cons because there were no situations where it was needed that it let me down. I knew how heavy it was so weight has never been an issue. The only con would be the price. I'm 100% satisfied with this lens, I'm fortunate to be able to afford it; but even I wince when I have to shell out $$$ to get "quality" gear. I guess I'm from the school of get the best that you can afford. Good luck!

[Double Negative]

I have one and love it. It's my most-used lens by far - never lets me down or disappoints.

[pup]

i loved the focal length of my 24-70
too bad i got a soft copy :( and i sent it back and bought a razor sharp 35L
but I still want that focal length again
and the lens was very heavy but that didnt bother me

[madferrit]

I'll be buying the 24-70 L in the next few weeks.. currently have the Tamron but feel let down at times with the slow AF. Can't wait to get it! :)

[august23]

Some are saying they bought a 35L in place or in the mean time. I say - buy both! :D

[pup]

Some are saying they bought a 35L in place or in the mean time. I say - buy both! :D

I will definitely own both..... in the not so distant future

[Steve Parr]

I should probably mention that I also own the Sigma 17-70mm. The focal length of the Canon lens may seem redundant, but I use it for concert shooting, as it has a constant f/2.8, which the Sigma doesn't have.

In all honesty, If I didn't need the f/2.8, I probably wouldn't have gotten the lens. Don't get me wrong; it's a great lens, and worth every penny I think. I know it's definitely gotten the "money shot" for me on more than one occasion. I do like the Sigma too, though...

[Honeybee]

I have all three of these lenses and am trying to figure out which two to sell. The Tamron was my money-maker for many years and never let me down - low light or not. The Sigma's 'da bomb, too. But I took pictures of my toes (which you'll never see!) and tested the BG of each picture - the Canon won hands down, but none of them were slouches in the image department.

The resale value of all 3 lenses is good, get what you can afford. If you get a bad copy, send it back and try another.

BTW, the Canon is heavy as hell for a walkaround lens - FOR ME, but I plan to get used to it real soon.

The bottom line will always fall back on you and your wallet. Bestaluck!

Honeybee

[adamp88]

I fell in love with the Canon after I rented it for a wedding I shot. While the Tamron and Sigma may be just as sharp, my favorite feature of the Canon is it's autofocus. Not only is it the fastest AF I've ever used, but it constantly amazes me how little light this lens needs to find focus - it was a true lifesaver at the wedding. I had previously thought my 85 1.8 was quick to focus, but compared to the 24-70 it's a slowpoke, especially in low light situations.

I finally saved up enough money to buy one last fall, and it pretty much instantly became my most used lens. I don't even mind the weight - it's a heavy mofo, no doubt, but in many ways I find that weight reassuring. Mine is sharp wide open and very sharp stopped down, has beautiful contrast and color, wonderful creamy bokeh, lightning fast AF and it's built like a tank. Yeah, I'm not letting go of it anytime soon. :D

[august23]

So basically:

Pros of 24-70: Superb IQ, nice FL, f/2.8, and amazing build.
Cons: Cost, weight, QC control.

[cdifoto]

Mine makes me a better photographer...





...ok well at least a faster photographer since I don't have to wait for focus. :) :p

[maxxed]

EXIF - ISO400, f2.8, +.03 FEC, 85mm, 1/20

Then I went into the hallway and again using the onboard flash, grabbed this shot. Again, only edge sharpen on the jpg. This one was f2.8, ISO800, 1/100, 100mm. You can clearly see the DOF here on the floor tiles.


This lens is exceptional. It is heavy - these shots were handheld - a monopod would be SO much easier. I need to buy a GOOD tripod and toss


Im a bit confused here. This thread is 2+ years old, and the first post after 2+ years is regarding images at 85mm and 100mm? :) I mean, just how exceptional IS this lense!?

[me100finn]

maxxed - good things just keep going and going....

[jerrybsmith]

I think your lens choice depends on what camera you will have in the long run. If you ever plan on getting a full frame camera like the 5D, then the 24-70 is the way to go. It is a heavy, well built lens and I think the pictures I get with it on my 5D are incredibly sharp. If, however, you are staying with the 20D indefinately, then you should consider the EF-S 17-55. I had that lens briefly before I got the 5D because I was never happy with the sharpness of the 24-70 on my 30D. I even sent it to Canon for recalibration because it seemed slightly off. I bought the 17-55 to see the difference and it was amazing. Light weight, sharp and IS is absolutely amazing in low light. I sold it but would still have it if the 30D were my main camera.

[beanster]

So does anyone else have the same exprience as Jerry?

I have a 30d and (not for long) a Tamron 28-75 and am returning the Tammy as I have had nothing but issues. The 24-70 seemed like a good option as 24 is plenty wide enough but this "soft" issue concerns me.

[darktiger]

Pro
Great lens

Cons
Not long enough (70mm max)
No IS.....

[Double Negative]

There's nothing "soft" about the 24-70mm.

[wannasmaxx]

Love mine, rarely comes off.

[andrewmr]

I'm considering this lens and a number of you have commented on it's weight.... how much heavier is it than a 24-105 which is the lens I would replace with the 24-70....

[radiohead]

The 24-105 is 670g and the 24-70 is 950g.

[andrewmr]

WOW, almost 50 percent heavier...... now I'm gonna have to find one and compare to see if it's too heavy.

Thanks for the info.

[august23]

I owned the 24-70. I never thought it was too heavy. It was definitely not made for lightweights, but nothing like the over-dramatic babble you see on this forum.

[pcunite]

So basically:

Pros of 24-70: Superb IQ, nice FL, f/2.8, and amazing build.
Cons: Cost, weight, QC control.

I would agree with this. But... QC control can really really be frustrating taking all the original joy out of it.....

[Tom K.]

The 24-70 f/2.8 is a superb lens. The only thing you should consider very carefully is whether you want to carry around a HUGE and HEAVY monster of a lens as a walk around. You will know the first time you use it for a few hours whether this will be a problem or not.

[YaYa]

I'm am also just learning and I just purchased the Canon 70-200f2.8L IS lense for my
20D. I'm excited to see how it does with my sons ice hockey league.

Yesterday, I tried using it in church for my son's grandparents lunch and didn't have good luck with it. I'm thinking of added the Canon 24-70L f2.8. Any thoughts.

[jerrybsmith]

I've also had mine for only a few weeks and have found it does not solve every low light situation. IS is great and does work but I'm still learning what is the best combination of shutter, f-stop and ISO to get the best chances of sharp images when zoomed at 200mm.