Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 11 Aug 2010 (Wednesday) 08:11
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Why do people bag the 24-70 L?

 
Ainoko
Stupidest Question Award 2008
Avatar
1,406 posts
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Seattle, Washington
     
Aug 11, 2010 16:37 |  #31

I have the 24-70 and I have no complaints about the lens. It performs exactly as I would expect it to - It's fast, accurate, and sharp. However, I found my self bagging the lens after renting a 35L. The style I want for my pictures is the really shallow depth of field even on wider shots. I love the look because it makes the subject just pop out of the background. I can't get this look with my 24-70. It's also the reason I'm considering ditching my 70-200 2.8 IS for an 85L. No fault of the lenses - just doesn't fit my style.


Full Gear List
https://photography-on-the.net …?p=4846834&post​count=1005

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
eg6turbo
Senior Member
388 posts
Joined Oct 2009
Location: San Francisco
     
Aug 11, 2010 17:10 |  #32

i was wondering for the 24-70 owners whats the slowest shutter speed you can go hand held?


| Canon Rebel T2i Gripped | EF-S 17-55 2.8 IS USM | EF-S 18-55 IS | EF-S 55-250 IS | EF 50 1.8 MK II | EF 85 1.8 USM | Speedlite 430EX II |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xMClass
Goldmember
2,203 posts
Joined Jun 2008
Location: California
     
Aug 11, 2010 17:12 |  #33

Let's put it this way, if I had to use only one lens forever it'd be the 24-70. It really is a fantastic lens. I love mine.


-Mikey

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rebop
Senior Member
540 posts
Likes: 38
Joined May 2005
     
Aug 11, 2010 18:11 |  #34

Mine is back at Canon for the second time and I have only had it 3 months. No where near as sharp as my 24-105 or 70-200 2.8. MA does not help at all. And it seems to be both front and back focusing.

My fingers are crossed this time gets it right or I will be pushing for an exchange.

Of the 7 Canon lenses I have owned including 5 L's, 3 have had to go in for calibration. Two have come back acceptable. This one did not the first time, though it was improved. But not of the quality it should be just yet.

~Bob


I'm Bob and I'm an L-coholic
1DX - 5D MK II - G5 X
16-35
L - 24-105 II L - 24-70 II L
70-200 2.8 L - 70-300 L - 100 2.8 L Macro

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikekelley
"Meow! Bark! Honk! Hiss! Grrr! Tweet!"
Avatar
7,317 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Aug 11, 2010 18:17 |  #35

Jack of all trades, master of none.

For me it was:

not wide enough
not long enough
too heavy to want to take anywhere
not fast enough to make up for it's other shortcomings
and i am not a sharpness stickler, but i got much better results with my other lenses wide open.


Los Angeles-Based Architectural, Interior, And Luxury Real Estate Photography (external link)
How To Photograph Real Estate and Architecture (external link)
My Fine Art Galleries (external link)
My articles at Fstoppers.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Camera ­ Nerd
Senior Member
935 posts
Joined Nov 2009
     
Aug 11, 2010 19:03 |  #36

i dont know. i like my 24-70 alot, but it doesnt seem to amaze quite as much as my 70-200 2.8 on my 7d. maybe with full frame it would a better range. Though it still provides great pictures and i find it great for portraits as the extra length from the 7d's crop factor makes the 70mm a useful 110mm (about). plus i dont have to change my 24-70 when shooting on the long end. i just wish i had a full frame camera for this lens too. many of u prob are saying that the 17-55 is usm would have been better, but i realized that i shoot my pics in the 30mm-70mm range when i had my tammy 17-50. but now im actually starting to get interested in landscape and wide angles, so it was and still is a tough call.


canon 7d, canon 5d classic, 24-70 2.8 L, 70-200 2.8 (non-is) L, .
my flickr http://www.flickr.com/​photos/51827770@N04/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
k-lo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,316 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Lost in SN's Canon vs Nikon Thread
     
Aug 11, 2010 19:04 |  #37

mikekelley wrote in post #10703967 (external link)
Jack of all trades, master of none.

For me it was:

1. not wide enough
2. not long enough
3. too heavy to want to take anywhere
4. not fast enough to make up for it's other shortcomings
and i am not a sharpness stickler, but i got much better results with my other lenses wide open.

1. if you're on a crop camera
2. that's when the 70-200 comes in
3. good glass and great build makes things heavy
4. name a canon zoom (not prime) that's faster than a 2.8, name one and you get a cookie. (j/k) ;)

I have no problems with my copy.


-=Karlo=- 1D III, 5D Mark II, 17-40 4 L, 35 1.4 L 24-70 2.8 L, 135mm 2.0 L, 85mm 1.2 L II, 300mm f 2.8 L, 580EX II, and a crapload of Elinchrom Gear :cool:
View my flickr sets (external link)
Check out my Modelmayhem port (external link)
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikekelley
"Meow! Bark! Honk! Hiss! Grrr! Tweet!"
Avatar
7,317 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Aug 11, 2010 19:08 |  #38

1. 5d and 1d3
2. Changing lenses sucks
3. it just doesn't do anything cool enough to justify the weight. 85L, 70-200 2.8, big L primes, tilt shifts, etc, are just way cooler and i can live with the weight :p

of course that was why i prefaced everything with "me", haha


Los Angeles-Based Architectural, Interior, And Luxury Real Estate Photography (external link)
How To Photograph Real Estate and Architecture (external link)
My Fine Art Galleries (external link)
My articles at Fstoppers.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
k-lo
Goldmember
Avatar
1,316 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2010
Location: Lost in SN's Canon vs Nikon Thread
     
Aug 11, 2010 19:12 |  #39

mikekelley wrote in post #10704290 (external link)
1. 5d and 1d3
2. Changing lenses sucks
3. it just doesn't do anything cool enough to justify the weight. 85L, 70-200 2.8, big L primes, tilt shifts, etc, are just way cooler and i can live with the weight :p

of course that was why i prefaced everything with "me", haha

:p back LOL :lol:

it does something cool, it's reversed zoom hows that?!!!! :p


-=Karlo=- 1D III, 5D Mark II, 17-40 4 L, 35 1.4 L 24-70 2.8 L, 135mm 2.0 L, 85mm 1.2 L II, 300mm f 2.8 L, 580EX II, and a crapload of Elinchrom Gear :cool:
View my flickr sets (external link)
Check out my Modelmayhem port (external link)
500px (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mguffin
Goldmember
Avatar
2,627 posts
Gallery: 17 photos
Likes: 17
Joined Jul 2010
Location: Allendale, NJ
     
Aug 11, 2010 19:21 |  #40

LOVE THIS...!!!


Mike
Nikon D800 ~ Nikon D500
Sigma 35 f/1.4 DG ~ Nikkor 50 f/1.8G ~ Nikkor 85 f/1.8G ~ Nikkor 12-24 f/4 DX ~ Nikkor 17-55 f/2.8 DX ~ Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR ~ Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 DC ~ Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 DC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Camera ­ Nerd
Senior Member
935 posts
Joined Nov 2009
     
Aug 11, 2010 19:37 |  #41

mikekelley wrote in post #10703967 (external link)
Jack of all trades, master of none.

For me it was:

not wide enough
not long enough
too heavy to want to take anywhere
not fast enough to make up for it's other shortcomings
and i am not a sharpness stickler, but i got much better results with my other lenses wide open.

thats just the way it is. i mean if you want a 24-105 2.8 IS lens, it would be huge. the whole point of the lens is that it is a fast zoom, sure you can have a 28-200 f4.5-5.6, but you sacrifice 2stops of light, and its more like three stops cause those lenses arent good till stopped down to f8


canon 7d, canon 5d classic, 24-70 2.8 L, 70-200 2.8 (non-is) L, .
my flickr http://www.flickr.com/​photos/51827770@N04/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikekelley
"Meow! Bark! Honk! Hiss! Grrr! Tweet!"
Avatar
7,317 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Aug 11, 2010 20:05 |  #42

right, but usually with any other lens it at least does something well, such as long tele, ultra wide, fast, tilt, fish, etc. a 24-105 2.8 IS would have a huge range. that's great, it does something well, from semi-wide to a nice portrait length (almost 135). the 24-70 range is bland as ever.

i personally hated the 24-70. it made me not think at all. your mileage may vary. i am sure i will be attacked for this (as i always am) but i'm making my living just fine without it.


Los Angeles-Based Architectural, Interior, And Luxury Real Estate Photography (external link)
How To Photograph Real Estate and Architecture (external link)
My Fine Art Galleries (external link)
My articles at Fstoppers.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Camera ­ Nerd
Senior Member
935 posts
Joined Nov 2009
     
Aug 11, 2010 20:09 |  #43

mikekelley wrote in post #10704610 (external link)
right, but usually with any other lens it at least does something well.

just because it is not the best for you doesnt mean it isnt a good choice for someone else. i agree with u that on crop its not wide enough, and on full frame its too short. but it produces magnificent pictures wide open with the convenience of a zoom. others could say that the 70-200 is too long on crop as well. Also there arent alot of alternatives besides the 24-105 f4 and primes. I mean it isn't like canon is the only lens manufacturer who has a has a 24-70. I mean nikon, pentax, sony, sigma, tamron also market this lens too.


canon 7d, canon 5d classic, 24-70 2.8 L, 70-200 2.8 (non-is) L, .
my flickr http://www.flickr.com/​photos/51827770@N04/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ricardo222
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
16,067 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 196
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
     
Aug 11, 2010 20:58 |  #44

Bought my 24-70 with my old 5D and thought it was pretty good. Since then I have upgraded to the 5D2 and have purchased other lenses. Each new lens gets a good workout as I use it for it's intended purpose, but the interesting thing is that after a while I find the old brick back on the camera.

If you've got big mitts and average strength the combination of 5D and 24-70 is a good one, and it's well balanced in the hand.


Growing old disgracefully!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
spacetime
Goldmember
Avatar
1,276 posts
Joined Oct 2009
     
Aug 11, 2010 21:48 |  #45

mikekelley wrote in post #10703967 (external link)
Jack of all trades, master of none.

For me it was:

not wide enough
not long enough
too heavy to want to take anywhere
not fast enough to make up for it's other shortcomings
and i am not a sharpness stickler, but i got much better results with my other lenses wide open.

That pretty much sums up my experience with the brick as well. 24mm was wide enough for me though especially for a walkaround lens. But compared to the 17-40, yeah it just isn't quite wide enough.

I know there's rumors of a mkii having IS but I say screw that. Make it f/1.8 instead. :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

11,760 views & 0 likes for this thread
Why do people bag the 24-70 L?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is RidsDeb
994 guests, 312 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.