24-70's are all crap

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.

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.

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?

CanonYouCan wrote in post #17736474
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.........​...

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

I just used my "crap" 24-70 mk I to shoot a portrait session last weekend. 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.

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.

davesrose wrote in post #17740625
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.

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!

Sir_Loin wrote in post #17741396
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.

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.

Was Ken Rockwell a contributor to the article?

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 Arbogast wrote in post #17741823
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.