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

<- interested

After owning the 24-70 for the last 2 months, I'm going to say I had a positive experience with it. If I had to answer my own question that I asked before I bought the 24-70, I'm going to say No, this lens is not an overkill for the T2i. A good lens is going to be a good lens no matter what body it's mounted on, and this one is no different.

The positives I liked about the 24-70:
-The Images you get from it are superb. The 2.8 can create some nice background blur and the bokeh is pleasant. This is the only reason why I sold my 24-105 and even the extra reach or the IS can ever convince me to go back. Wide open my copy is still sharp, although not as sharp as a prime @ 2.8, the results are very acceptable.
-The build of it is fantastic. You can definitely tell it's a heavy duty lens that will last decades. The AF is fast and quiet, pretty much instant focus.
-The hood design and the reverse zoom mechanism. Besides looking like you're about to shoot a missile out of your lens with the hood on, I love how it protects the neck of the lens and leaves no part exposed when zooming. The hood itself is the worst I've ever seen. You can scratch it almost by just blowing on it.
-Weather sealing. This doesn't really matter to me but I had no problem taking my lens out in the drizzle without having to worry. My body is a different story though.

What I didn't like so much:
-Weight and size; especially with hood reversed. This lens isn't as heavy or massive as a 70-200 2.8 lens, but it's still pretty heavy and bulky. A full day of carrying it will strain your neck unless you have a cross body strap. A full day of shooting can tire out your forearms. However, most fast zooms will be heavy and it's a price you pay for a fast lens. I HATE storing the lens though. It's so fat with the hood reversed so storing it might be an issue if you have a small bag.
-Could be wider. I thought 24mm would be wide enough for me but sadly there have been times (not a lot) where I wished I had something slightly wider. Even with a UWA, sometimes I don't feel like switching lenses and I just needed something a tiny bit wider.

Pretty much this lens is like having 4-5 primes in one. 24, 28, 35, 50, not quite a 85 but 70 is close enough. You sacrifice a bit of IQ wide open and the fast aperture of a prime but the versatility can't be beat. No matter what body you are using I highly recommend the 24-70.

I absolutely love the 24-105mm on my crop. It is almost the perfect focal range for me.

Also I want to do some comparison with two lenses that are compared to death with the 24-70. This is how I feel about these lenses strictly from personal experiences so feel free to disagree.

#1 is probably the 17-55 for the crop users like myself. It's a nice lens, with better FL suited for the crop bodies if you like to shoot wide. It's true, the 7mm difference on the wide end totally makes a huge difference than the 15mm you gain on the long end on the 24-70. As far as I can tell, the images from both are very similar but you can get slightly more background blur from the 70mm than 55mm. The IS never affected me and I never had a time where I felt like I needed IS. The build on the 17-55 was disappointing though. It is definitely NOT L build quality like some claim. That is not to say it's poorly built because it's not, but just not on the same level as the L. I'd say if you have no intention to upgrade to a FF and like to shoot wide more often then the 17-55 will be a better option. If you want to go FF and don't really shoot under 24mm but would prefer the extra reach for portraits and the better build, the 24-70 is your best bet. For me I do plan on going FF soon and I just didn't want to pay almost same price for an ef-s lens so I went w/ the 24-70.

#2 is the 24-105. I originally decided to go with this lens because it seemed like I was getting more for less $. It had more reach, IS to make up for the f4, and about 200$ cheaper. I had no complaints about the 24-105 when I had it; it was sharp, the range was good, and the IS was excellent.There was just something missing from it though and to me, the f4 did not give me enough background separation that I had hoped for and it was not fast enough for low lights. After I traded it up to a 24-70 I immediately knew I made the right decision. The IS, the longer FL, and the extra $ I forked up all of sudden didn't matter and I couldn't have been happier with the upgrade.

So sit back and think what is more important to you. For me the faster aperture lens that will work on a FF body was the answer so I went with the 24-70. Each of the 3 lenses I mentioned are amazing and you really can't go wrong with any of them.

megrac wrote in post #12051305
Thats right. For me with my 24-105 i find 24mm fine i hardly ever need wider but i would hate to lose the 70-105 part out if i was to have a 24-70. For me a 17-55 would be the most annoying lens on the planet, my cpeap 18-55 is a good example of this for me as i hate using it because of its focual length. 55m is right in the middle ground for my use.

+1 for me 24 is wide enough (even with 1.6) and 55 is not long enough. so I pick 24-70

I really appreciate the update. I am in the market for a 24-70 for my 7d (1.6x crop). I have never owned a FF body before so i guess you could say I don't know what i am missing... I have also never shot with anything wider than with a 50mm. I just picked up a tokina 11-16 2.8 on sunday and I have a 70-200 2.8. Seeing as how my style of photography does not require me to shoot wider than 50mm on a regular basis I think 24mm will be plenty wide for me. And the tokina will mostly be for landscapes and specialty wide angle affects.

Thanks for the thread!

not an overkill! It is not wide on your camera but a decent mid-telephoto zoom lens....

i dunno...imo zoom lens is versatile but f2.8 isn't fast enough....i rather buy say sigma 30 1.4, canon/sigma 50 1.4 and Canon 85 1.8 instead....

I've used the 24-105 and the 24-70.

The only thing overkill is the price...

Sadly I sold both and do regret it...I'll probably get another one once the 24-70 IS comes out so the price drops a bit.....but anyway if you enjoy it and the lens will give you want you want out of taking photos then that's a winner to me.

Can someone post a picture of a 24-70 mounted to a T2i? I had this same problem and I ended up choosing the 24-105 for the extra range and smaller size. But I would like to see what it looks like when mounted.

You guys should have seen when I had my 70-200 f2.8 IS with 2x TC on my ungripped xti! That was funny.

vct218 wrote in post #12598193
Can someone post a picture of a 24-70 mounted to a T2i? I had this same problem and I ended up choosing the 24-105 for the extra range and smaller size. But I would like to see what it looks like when mounted.

I just got my 24-70 today and couldnt be more excited!!! Sorry the following photos are really crappy but I took them with my phone! I can not wait to start using it! I hope its the best lens for me! Although it does look kinda big for my T2i lol. Oh well...

I just got back from my local camera shop after trying bunches of medium zooms on my t2i. I loved the 17-40L, the size works really well on the small t2i body, the L build quality is great, and the price is attractive for an L ....but I'm afraid it just won't have enough reach for me.

So I tried the 24-70L...same great L build quality, but man that lens is a HOSS...it's still under consideration though.

Then I tried the 15-85 USM IS, the Sigma 17-70, a Tamron 28 to something....and about then realized I was spoiled by the fit, finish and feel of the L series. Unfortunately, due to the recent disaster in Japan, the 24-105 L is back ordered and they have a significant waiting list.

Decisions, decisions...

I get dizzy reading this thread. I'll stick with my 15-85. It's wide enough, long enough, fast enough for my needs, not too heavy to carry all day, not too $$$, and the IQ is excellent.

Well, I bust my credit card and went for the 24-70 on my T2i about 3 days ago.. no regrets so far, but I'm yet to test it properly.. so far, TBH, have not noticed a MARKED improvement on IQ from the kit 18-55... Perhaps someone with the 24-70 and some experience here can give me some feedback on a few 'controlled' tests I get done ASAP...?

So far, noticed my T2i even in a moderately fluorescent lit room would shoot the ISO up to 3200 and even 6400 on F2.8... noisy and not impressive so far.. might just need to figure it out and find the sweet spot but... hmm...