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 07 Oct 2015 (Wednesday) 11:16
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

24-70's are all crap

 
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
49,319 posts
Gallery: 155 photos
Likes: 5889
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Oct 07, 2015 22:55 |  #16

I have to admit that I have always found my 24-70mm (and 28-70mm f/2.8L before it) to be among my least favorite lenses from a creative standpoint.

That said, i do reach for them any time i just want to be able to shoot fast and get good results.

If I need more light, then I go for faster primes, but the 24-70mm and frankly 70-200mm zooms are going to be versatile and let me work much faster with fewer restrictions than a prime.

I lived without a 70-200mm for several years recently, but was compelled to pick up the Tamron with VC for a shoot where it proved invaluable.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
CanonYouCan
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,480 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 22
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Belgium
     
Oct 08, 2015 05:46 |  #17

This evening i'm going to get my Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, crap or not :)
In past I sold allready 24-105, 24-70 2.8 I, Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, i'll see later after the wedding.
But yesterday I checked the lens sample database and tack sharp pics at 24mm, more zoomed in would be a bit less sharp.


Sony A7 III | Metabones V | Canon 17-40 F4 L | 24-70 2.8 L | 70-200 2.8L II
Sigma 50 1.4 Art | Sigma 85 1.4 Art

Lighting : Godox AD600B TTL + Godox V860II-S + X1T-S
Modifiers: 60cm Collapsible Silver Beautydish + grid | Godox 120cm Octagon softbox + grid
Tripod: Vanguard Alta 253CT carbon

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kolor-Pikker
Goldmember
2,790 posts
Likes: 59
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Moscow
Post edited over 3 years ago by Kolor-Pikker. (2 edits in all)
     
Oct 08, 2015 08:25 |  #18

The 24-70/2.8L II I have is obscenely sharp, has no aberrations, and has excellent contrast in back-lit situations, there is nothing more I could want from it TBH... well, maybe only if it could have fit on my 645Z.

I pretty much only use my Canon SLR for run & gun shooting nowadays, so having a 24-70mm lens is a given.

Edit: Also, that is one heck of a click-bait troll article, I can't believe it's worth it's own thread. His arguments against a mid zoom is mainly that there are primes in the same FL range (dat bokeh!) and that there are actually other lenses you can actually use on an interchangeable lens camera... YA DON'T SAY?


5DmkII | 24-70 f/2.8L II | Pentax 645Z | 55/2.8 SDM | 120/4 Macro | 150/2.8 IF
I acquired an expensive camera so I can hang out in forums, annoy wedding photographers during formals and look down on P&S users... all the while telling people it's the photographer, not the camera.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Avatar
3,050 posts
Likes: 177
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia Suburbs
     
Oct 08, 2015 23:26 |  #19

CanonYouCan wrote in post #17736474 (external link)
The weight won't make much difference between the Sigma 35 Art & Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC I think.
Yes I have the 16-35 f4L IS, but would you take 3 lenses with you for a wedding ? Don't most use 2 lenses on 2 body's to stay "reasonable compact" ?

My first body is the 6D FF, as a second body I'm going to lend a crop camera (1000D or 650D - I have no other choice), but with a 35mm on this body it will be only a 49mm.
With the 24-70 on it, the 24mm will be 33.6mm, probably a big difference in church ?

Maybe I need to use the 16-35 f4L IS during the church ceremony and leave a 35 1.4 or 24-70 in my wife's handbag,
and give her the 16-35 after the ceremony to switch again with the 35 or 24-70 ? :)

Don't know which 2 lenses are used mostly in church ?

Gotta give JP the author credit for getting us to read his article.
The real "Crap" is that Canon does not offer a 24-70 f/2.8 L II with Image Stabilization.........​...


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,459 posts
Gallery: 13 photos
Likes: 2221
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Oct 09, 2015 08:26 |  #20

Now if they would come out with an 18-35 Full frame F/2.0 lens like Sigma has for a crop....now were talking.....Maybe an 17-50 Full frame F/2.0..........Cmon Sigma....cause you know canon will want 4K or more for the darn thing


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
GregDunn
Goldmember
Avatar
1,287 posts
Likes: 127
Joined Mar 2013
Location: Indiana
     
Oct 10, 2015 19:45 |  #21

I just used my "crap" 24-70 mk I to shoot a portrait session last weekend. :-D It did a great job, and one of the reasons I used it was that I had strobes and didn't need IS. If anything, the 24 was a little narrow even on my 5D3 for the confines of the room sometimes, but I needed the full zoom range at one point or another. Maybe someday I'll upgrade to a mk II, when the price comes down; meanwhile, this one is working fine for me.

The "crap" lens is the one which won't let you get the shot. I don't have any of those. ;-)a


Canon 1Dx | 5D3 | 7D2 | 6D | 70-200L f/2.8IS | 70-200L f/4 | 24-70L f/2.8 | 24-105L f/4IS | 100-400L f/4.5-5.6IS | 17-55 f/2.8IS | 50 f/1.8 | 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 | 4x Godox AD360

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,614 posts
Likes: 489
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Oct 10, 2015 20:08 |  #22

That's got to be one of the worst photography articles I've read. So essentially all 24-70 2.8 lenses are crap because they don't go down to 1.4 or do not go down to 14mm. The author seems to be missing the point on what zoom lenses were designed for. Oh boo hoo, my 24-70 doesn't give me a 14mm or 200mm FOV....more power to you if you want to carry around a 24mm,35mm,50mm, and 65mm prime lenses to get faster apertures. I find the 24-70 2.8L II to have really good optical quality, and its aperture is an adequate compromise for the convenience of a zoom.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2731
Joined Oct 2015
     
Oct 10, 2015 21:42 |  #23

davesrose wrote in post #17740625 (external link)
That's got to be one of the worst photography articles I've read. So essentially all 24-70 2.8 lenses are crap because they don't go down to 1.4 or do not go down to 14mm. The author seems to be missing the point on what zoom lenses were designed for. Oh boo hoo, my 24-70 doesn't give me a 14mm or 200mm FOV....more power to you if you want to carry around a 24mm,35mm,50mm, and 65mm prime lenses to get faster apertures. I find the 24-70 2.8L II to have really good optical quality, and its aperture is an adequate compromise for the convenience of a zoom.

Funny. That is exactly how I feel about my 18-55 STM.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
InfiniteDivide
"I wish to be spared"
Avatar
2,844 posts
Gallery: 265 photos
Likes: 217
Joined Dec 2013
Location: Kawasaki, Japan
     
Oct 11, 2015 01:18 |  #24

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i598.photobucke​t.com …/govols87/popco​rnemot.gif (external link)

James Patrus
6D | 16-35L F4 | 24L II | 50L | 100L | |  -> Website (external link) & Gallery (external link)
For Sale:Canon 16-35mm f4 IS l Do you enjoy Super Famicom games? (external link) PM me directly.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sir_Loin
Senior Member
Avatar
530 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 70
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Leicestershire UK
Post edited over 3 years ago by Sir_Loin. (5 edits in all)
     
Oct 11, 2015 14:12 |  #25

Yep, all 24-70mm lenses are crap! I suppose using a prime lens would have made this image so much better!? I've never seen such a stupid online article.

(Image removed)

EDIT: Blimey, posting pictures on here softens the image quite a lot!


EOS-1D MkIV, EOS 5D MkIII, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, EF 24mm f/1.4L II, EF 50mm f/1.8 MkI, EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, EF 85mm f/1.2L II, EF 100mm Macro f/2.8L IS, EF 300mm f/4.0L IS, Extender EF 1.4x II * EOS M5, EOS M3, EF-M 11-22mm f/4.0-5.6 IS, EF-M 15-45mm f/3.5-6.3 IS, EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS, EF-M 22mm f/2.0, EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS * Speedlite 580EX II, Speedlite 430EX III-RT, Speedlite 270EX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,061 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2717
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Oct 11, 2015 19:51 |  #26

Sir_Loin wrote in post #17741396 (external link)
EDIT: Blimey, posting pictures on here softens the image quite a lot!

Which is why web sharing photos you can get away with subpar IQ.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,061 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2717
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Oct 11, 2015 20:09 |  #27

by the way. The 24-70 are decent for what they are. I find at 70mm 2.8 very good for shoulder/head shot portraits. Leaves plenty of DOF to keep subject in focus and still blows out the background.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
WhidbeyHiker
Goldmember
Avatar
1,878 posts
Gallery: 54 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 2448
Joined Dec 2013
     
Oct 11, 2015 20:32 |  #28

Was Ken Rockwell a contributor to the article?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
David ­ Arbogast
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,961 posts
Gallery: 35 photos
Likes: 7086
Joined Aug 2010
Location: West Point, Georgia
Post edited over 3 years ago by David Arbogast.
     
Oct 11, 2015 21:16 |  #29

I interpret the thread title to say more regarding the OP's ability/talent/skill than anything regarding the lens. Something to do with craftsmen and tool-blaming.....


David | Flickr (external link)
Sony α7R II | CV 12mm, FE 12-24mm, Loxia 21mm, Loxia 35mm, FE 50mm ZA, Batis 85mm

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,061 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2717
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Oct 11, 2015 21:30 |  #30

David Arbogast wrote in post #17741823 (external link)
I interpret the thread title to say more regarding the OP's ability/talent/skill than anything regarding the lens. Something to do with craftsmen and tool-blaming.....

I agree to an extent. Sure a pro could take the cheapo 75-300 and produce nice images but the 70-300L would improve that drastically.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

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

11,754 views & 25 likes for this thread
24-70's are all crap
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 jovenbiinz
333 guests, 364 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.