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

Don't go crazy testing, do a few to make sure there are no issues but if the photos you take look good, the lens is good.

This has nothing to do with the lens except for the fact that its 2.8. If you need faster you will need a prime or use Flash to keep the ISO under 1600

You can't go wrong with a 24-70L on any Canon DSLR!

ams2006 wrote in post #12605040
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...

Heh, you should've seen my Sigma 150-500 on my T2i, talking about not even realizing there is a camera attached to the lens

Like Tommydigi said - you need a flash. Get a diffuser with some color gels, too.

From the signature:" | Andrew | 5D Mark II | Canon 17-40mm f 4 L | Canon 24-70mm f 2.8 L | Canon 70-200mm f 4 L IS | Canon 50mm f 1.4 | Speedlite 430EX II |"

I guess the decision has already been made

I did a few tests with my 24-70 against my old 28-135 USM and I noticed the color is much better on the L. I love my lens even though many suggested the 17-55 2.8f but I really wanted the 24-70. I love the weight now with a grip and a flash so I don't feel like I am holding a toy.

Try it outside on a sunny day or make sure you have a flash on inside. I have a few test shots on my flickr.

dirkkristen wrote in post #12751207
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...

I think if you need a great lens and a constant aperture the canon 24-105 L is the winner. The 24-70 is heavy and often leaves me felling that I had a bit more reach/focal length of the 24-105L. The 24-105 is also quite sharp. Canon L lenses are worth every penny VS the competitors lenses and the resale is good when you want to get into another lens the canon will hold its value quite well.

ams2006 wrote in post #12605040
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...

That, LOOKS, GORGEOUS

Mr. Pick wrote in post #12605241
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...

As far as lenses like the 24-70, they tend to require fine calibration with your camera by canon. My 24-105 / T2i needed this because the two had become VERY out of sync about 2 mths ago. Now they're disgustingly sharp and I gather that the better glass combined with focus calibration has helped make the lens ridiculously sharp, even when shooting at ISO 3200. The 24-70 is a HOSS, but it's the good type of HOSS that'll be reliable and ready when you go from APS-C to FF.

Jason

So did you have to send both camera and lens to canon for calibration?

ganzosrevenge wrote in post #12752036
That, LOOKS, GORGEOUS

As far as lenses like the 24-70, they tend to require fine calibration with your camera by canon. My 24-105 / T2i needed this because the two had become VERY out of sync about 2 mths ago. Now they're disgustingly sharp and I gather that the better glass combined with focus calibration has helped make the lens ridiculously sharp, even when shooting at ISO 3200. The 24-70 is a HOSS, but it's the good type of HOSS that'll be reliable and ready when you go from APS-C to FF.

Jason

Looks nice! Enjoy..

Salsageek wrote in post #12752111
So did you have to send both camera and lens to canon for calibration?

Yes, because what may be a calibrated lens for one camera, may be completely out of whack for another. Calibration works to THAT camera. When canon makes a lens, it's made to work for the mass majority of cameras reasonably well. Tools such as microadjust help to compensate to some degree for lenses that don't quite work, but they're only on DSLRs like the 50D, 7D, etc. (I have a T2i.) But to have it calibrated makes the camera and the lens "locked for each other". Without YOUR camera there with YOUR lens, Canon cannot make a fully accurate assessment.

And yes, it's worth it. Turned my 24-105 from a fuzzy focuser to a lens that puts the 50mm f/1.8 on my Nikon F3HP to shame.

Thanks, that's good to know. I have a T2i also but I think my 24-70 is doing okay for now without any calibration.

How much did that cost for Canon to do that?

ganzosrevenge wrote in post #12752999
Yes, because what may be a calibrated lens for one camera, may be completely out of whack for another. Calibration works to THAT camera. When canon makes a lens, it's made to work for the mass majority of cameras reasonably well. Tools such as microadjust help to compensate to some degree for lenses that don't quite work, but they're only on DSLRs like the 50D, 7D, etc. (I have a T2i.) But to have it calibrated makes the camera and the lens "locked for each other". Without YOUR camera there with YOUR lens, Canon cannot make a fully accurate assessment.

And yes, it's worth it. Turned my 24-105 from a fuzzy focuser to a lens that puts the 50mm f/1.8 on my Nikon F3HP to shame.

Salsageek wrote in post #12753223
Thanks, that's good to know. I have a T2i also but I think my 24-70 is doing okay for now without any calibration.

How much did that cost for Canon to do that?

warranty work. They also replaced a focusing screen as well.

dirkkristen wrote in post #12751207
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...

yea you won't get a 200% improved IQ just because you bought a 24-70. the 18-55 is that great of a lens in terms of IQ. what you WILL notice right away is the shallower DOF which you can't get as easily on the 18-55. even stepped down it should be sharper though, but unless you're looking at 100% crops prob won't be too noticeable.

I have a T1i and the 24-70L is awkward on the T1i (and it looks funny). The 24-70 is a HEAVY lens (hence the 'BRICK' nickname). That said, the T1i/24-70L combo will give good results.

Thanks for the feedback everyone!!

Sorry, I've been meaning to put a proper response in but works been a little hectic lately...

In any case, appreciate all the comments - am hoping to get out this sunday and do some shooting, so will keep everyone updated with my feelings after then!

ciao for now....

Dirk