Is the 24-70 an overkill on my T2i? Anyone use the combo?

nikesupremedunk wrote in post #12048422
so yea...does anyone actually HAVE the 24-70/t2i combo?

Here's the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 HSM on the T2i. This lens is 3.7" long (vs. 4.9" for the Canon, which is not quite the length of the hood in this picture) and 3.5" wide (vs. 3.3" for the Canon). This should give you an idea in terms of lens size on the camera. The Sigma is $500 less than the Canon and is optically a bit better. However, the Canon has a little better corner performance, flare control and is weather sealed if those are important to you.

If you need the extra length of the 24-105 vs. the one-stop loss in aperture, IS is desirable and you're ok with the poorer bokeh, then you should probably get the 24-105. However, I am rather impressed with the T2i's high-ISO performance (it is only about 1 stop lower than my 5Dii) and I've shot it at 3200 with very good results. So in that regard IS becomes less of an issue. I also think that since you do a lot of indoor shooting, then you should really consider a fast prime and that also lessens the value of the 24-105.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

i guess i'll go try out both lenses one more time before making a final decision on friday..but i might be leaning more towards the 24-70 because of the 2.8. thanks everyone.

I have a hard time understanding why so many folks are commenting on and complaining about the "balance" of the combo ? Don't any of those folks shoot with bigger/heavier lenses ? How would like the 300 f/2.8 or the 200 f/2 on just about any body ?

To the OP.....you will love the images you get from a 24-70. It is one of my most used lenses, and that is true whether we are talking the 1.6 crop bodies, the 1.3 bodies or the FF. It's just a really nice, usable lens.

I get a kick out of it when people make generalizations like "you won't be disappointed," "it's the best," "perfect," not "wide enough," "Not long enough," etc.

I have been trying to be careful with my language and say things like "might," "maybe," "could," etc. And taking into consideration that just because something works well for my style of photography, it might be counterproductive, or not the greatest option for other people's photographic style.

I think it can be potentially damaging to a photographer who is in need of advice of "which lens to get." It's mostly personal preference and shouldn't be used as fact.

Like earlier in this thread when I was playing around with Sp1207 for saying the "24-70 is an awkward FL on a crop camera." From Sp1207's observation and experience for his / her style of photography, that statement is probably very accurate. But at the same time, nikesupremedunk (or someone else) might think it's a perfect focal length for his / her style of photography once he / she uses it on a crop camera.

Another example

litlefiter wrote in post #12048483
go for one of the crop lenses, such as 17-55 or 15-85. Do not go for 10-20 + 24-70. You will change lenses alot with this combo and miss many shots.

What if nikesupremedunk needs 10mm? Or 12mm? Should he / she listen to your opinion which is stated as a fact? Do you know exactly how much nikesupremedunk will change lenses? Isn't that one of the beauties of owning a DSLR... having high quality optics specialized for a certain styles of shooting? If 17mm is not wide enough for nikesupremedunk, 15mm might not be wide enough too. But for litlefiter, his / her statements might be very accurate for his / her style and preference.

george m w wrote in post #12057254
whether we are talking the 1.6 crop bodies, the 1.3 bodies or the FF. It's just a really nice, usable lens.

Simple and straight to the point.

I'm not sure if this will matter to you but anything other than kit lenses really make Rebel sized cameras look TINY in comparison!

I'd suggest that you always get the best glass you can afford... it will last FAR longer than any camera body. It's results will be better and when you upgrade the body later, you don't have to fret about buying glass all over again.

IMO cameras are overrated, glass is not. You'll get use to weight, balance or whatever... after awhile muscle memory kicks-in and you're all good.

nikesupremedunk wrote in post #12048422
i guess i don't "NEED" an L lens, but i'm also sure not everyone buys/bought their L's because they NEEDED it..more of a want. I don't want to buy lenses over and over when I'll probably end up with the better ones later on anyway...and yes I do plan on adding a FF later on and the combo with 5D2 and 24-70 blew me away (in the lens thread). also, i knew the 17-55 was going to come up but I don't want to spend nearly same amount of $ for an ef-s lens and the focal length doesn't appeal to me that much (17 not wide enough and 55 not long enough). lastly, i find my prime is too long to use indoors and wish now that i bought a 30mm instead.

so yea...does anyone actually HAVE the 24-70/t2i combo?

It's like you're in my head.

I'm replying to this so I can keep reading it later.

Me too. I am in the same boat. I have the T2i and I love my 50mm 1.8 but I am looking to get my first L lens. I also have the 28-135 USM but I only shoot with my prime 99% of the time lately. Looks like the OP already bought the 24-70L since it's in the sig. OP please reply and tell us what you think of your lens.

CanonGrl01 wrote in post #12564336
It's like you're in my head.

I'm replying to this so I can keep reading it later.

Salsageek wrote in post #12587763
Me too. I am in the same boat. I have the T2i and I love my 50mm 1.8 but I am looking to get my first L lens. I also have the 28-135 USM but I only shoot with my prime 99% of the time lately. Looks like the OP already bought the 24-70L since it's in the sig. OP please reply and tell us what you think of your lens.

Per the discussion in this thread, there's no reason to get the L (over any of the 17-5X) for a crop body. It doesn't have the resolution to stand up to the 18MP crop sensor's pixel density, is of a comparatively awkward (we'll go with 'less versatile' to be objective) focal length, lacks IS, has slower AF (than the Canon 17-55, it's matched with the Sigma 17-50 and faster than the Tamron 17-50s), worse color, and is ~400$ more than the Canon 17-55 (and over 1100$ more expensive than the Tamron 17-50!).

If you want an L for an L, get it, but the better lens (both in general and for crops) exists in one of the APS-c optimized lenses.

24-70mm is an excellent. There is never overkill in terms of having a nice lens. You rather have a nice lens with a cheapo camera than a nice camera with a cheapo lens. You can totally tell the image quality from having a nice lens. The 24-70mm is heavy, so it will make your rebel front heavy for sure. I don't really mind that, I used to use it on my XSi, doesn't really bug me that much. But fitted the 24-70mm on my current 60D feel more balance.

I personally won't go for the 24-105 simply because of the F4. I always like the f/2.8, it performs way better in low light / indoor. Not everybody likes/know to use flash. In terms of IS, you don't really need it on a fast lens like the 24-70mm f/2.8. So if money is not an issue, by all means go for it.

L lens is ready for full frame as well. So down the road, if you upgrade to a FF, you can still use the same lens. Getting the 24-70mm is good, coz you can get the 70-200mm later and not overlap your focal range. I am glad that I picked up the 24-70mm, I initially bought the 24-105mm, after a day of playing around, I returned it and exchanged for the 24-70mm, simply because it is a better lens. Just my 2 cents.

Thanks for the advise. I will definitely look into those lens. My thinking was to get the 24-70L so I could use that when I do upgrade to a FF camera someday...

Sp1207 wrote in post #12587900
Per the discussion in this thread, there's no reason to get the L (over any of the 17-5X) for a crop body. It doesn't have the resolution to stand up to the 18MP crop sensor's pixel density, is of a comparatively awkward (we'll go with 'less versatile' to be objective) focal length, lacks IS, has slower AF (than the Canon 17-55, it's matched with the Sigma 17-50 and faster than the Tamron 17-50s), worse color, and is ~400$ more than the Canon 17-55 (and over 1100$ more expensive than the Tamron 17-50!).

If you want an L for an L, get it, but the better lens (both in general and for crops) exists in one of the APS-c optimized lenses.

I had the tammy 17-50 sold it for a 24-105, loved it! But then realized it was really not wide enough indoors, and when i did the trade it was during winter. So i bought another 17-50 2.8 non-vc for indoor shooting.

Outside/walkaround the 24-105 is king!

This is what a 24-105 L f4 IS does to an old 400d

wow didn't think this thread was still alive...it's like going back in time lol.

i'll be back in a few min and give a review if anyone's interested.