Question regarding the 24-70 Canon lineup

Charlie wrote in post #17823830
IMO, 2.8 zooms zap the fun out of photography. Some folks swear by them, and I swear those folks have sore shoulders

I own a 24-105 F/4 IS and have used the 24-70 f/2.8 II. I honestly don't find the 24-70 much heavier. I have a 5DIII and very often shoot with the 580EXII flash onboard, either for indoor bounce or outdoor fill. In such a configuration, the overall package with the 24-70 is less than 7% heavier compared to the 24-105. At that focal range, f/2.8 makes a difference in subject isolation and the 24-70 has better low-light autofocus.

I will agree with you about the weight of the 2.8 vs f/4 versions of the 70-200. That's like an extra 2 pounds for the 2.8. For what I shoot, f/4 is fine and I don't have to hesitate whether or not to bring it.

IMO, the 24-70 f2.8 is a nice tool, good at all, master of none. It's a great dinner table lens, but it doesnt inspire me at all. I've been shooting a variant of the combo for a long time, it's more of a utility than anything. Not great at low light, needs flash, separation is just ehh. I transitioned from 24-70 to 50... and while 50 is a little tight for most folks, 35 would work for 99% of all table scenarios the 24-70 is good for.

as for the assessment of the 70-200, yeah, I really hate carrying it around, and hard to replicate that lens. What I mean is that you've got the 85 1.2, not nearly as long as the 200, 135 f2, long enough in most situations, but not stable, so that extra stop is lost to shutter speeds. 200 f2 is simply out of reach for most photogs. The 24-70 on the other hand, many can split the difference with a 35mm and pair it up with a 70-200, and done deal. Weight issues.... the 24-70 is much heavier than the 50L that I switched to, and 2 stops slower. 35 f2, 50 f1.8, there's some options in that field that makes the zoom easier to replace.

I shot some events with the 50/135 combo, and that's what I considered light compared to 2.8 alternatives, although that may not work with some shooters

nfoerster wrote in post #17824885
Thanks Tommy and Matthew. Really in love with this lens right now. Going out later to hopefully get some nice sunsets. For now, you can see my four legged wonder that is Lenny

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/CivD​eh Lenny by Nicholas Foerster, on Flickr

Nice shot of Lenny! That pic has a good look to it, with just enough background separation to make him pop. You're already making this lens sing!

Did you happen to purchase brand new or refurb?

nfoerster wrote in post #17823731
I have had the 24-70 II for a week now and I absolutely love it, but I am beginning to think that the lens is way too much for me at the moment. When I say too much, I mean too expensive and too heavy to be comfortable mentally and physically as a walk-around. I miss having the IS that I had on my 24-105, and I just cannot justify spending an extra $1000 for an extra stop, and an extra $150 just to buy 82mm filters.

I was curious to know from those who exchanged the 2.8 for the 4 and if they were satisfied or not, loved it but had buyers remorse, etc.? What were the major differences noticed? If I do exchange, Im going to be applying part of that difference towards some accessories, mainly a new set of legs and a flash.

Just wanted to say thanks to you and all the others that step up to the 2.8 and then come back to earth. When I got my 6D and 24-105 I was convinced that I would be getting the 24-70 2.8 II very soon.

But I then decided to add the Tokina 16-28 for its pretty much distortion free 20 to 28 range and sharpness at all FL.

Then I decided I wanted another prime and after testing the Sigma 35 and 50, went with the 35 1.4 A.

Shooting at 400 ISO is almost indistinguishable from 100, if you expose properly, so the one stop 2.8 to 4 difference is not a big deal. Even at 800 and 1600 it is easy to get great images. I need to do something about a better 50mm, then maybe upgrade my 70-200 to the MkII or get a 135, then maybe get a new body, and maybe, just maybe, a few years from now step up my standard zoom game. I really see no hurry.

Can anyone else comment on the focus shift issue? Photozones review says that its been fixed?
http://www.photozone.d​e …f/798-canon2470f4?start=2

Tommydigi wrote in post #17826855
Can anyone else comment on the focus shift issue? Photozones review says that its been fixed?
http://www.photozone.d​e …f/798-canon2470f4?start=2

Wow, that's a promising revelation! If they fix the focus shift issue, I'm 100% sold on this lens. If true, Canon either fixed it via lens firmware, or the manufacturing process after a certain date was adjusted. If the former, then I can't corroborate Photozone's statement (review was from 2013) because I had two refurb copies of the lens about 2 months ago, and they both exhibited focus shift. I'd be doubtful of a manufacturing change though, as we probably would have heard about it, right?

There is no way anybody is going to get my 24-70mm f2.8L II from me unless it is from my cold dead hands.
I had had all three, the first version and the f4 version. You can have them. They are not even in the same zip code as the version II.
There was a time when no lens had IS. We managed just fine.

And there were times when we did not have Color Television, air conditioning, heaters and the likes.

ebiggs wrote in post #17827300
There is no way anybody is going to get my 24-70mm f2.8L II from unless it is from my cold dead hands.
I had had all three, the first version and the f4 version. You can have them. They are not even in the same zip code as the version II.
There was a time when no lens had IS. We managed just fine.

I'm right with you. between the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 70-200mm f/2.8 II I couldn't be happier (for what I photograph). I couldn't, wouldn't do without either one.

I really don't see the weight being a big factor with the 24-70mm. Maybe people need to throw out those Canon camera straps, because this is not an uncomfortable lens to carry. The 70-200mm f/2.8 is a different story, but even so its IQ and flexibility can't be beat, so the weight never bothers me.

For those who don't need it, I'm happy for you. Those that do, well, we're pretty darned lucky. Thanks Canon.

Please add me to the "cold dead hands" list . Even I have Sigma 35A and Sigma 85 f/1.4, the Brick 2 is my most go to.

I rarely shoot slower than 1/100 unless im on a tripod since my subjects usually move. So for me, f2.8 is more valuable than IS especially in the shorter focal lengths

Nethawked wrote in post #17827534
I really don't see the weight being a big factor with the 24-70mm.

I am not in a position to complain about weight either. Since I use mine on a 1Ds Mk III. And just to make it heavier, I usually carry my 1D MK IV with my Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM on it. Not to say I don't look for places to set it down when I can, though!

PS Look at it like, all the money you are saving not going to the gym for weight training.

PPSS Black Rapid

MatthewK wrote in post #17826712
Nice shot of Lenny! That pic has a good look to it, with just enough background separation to make him pop. You're already making this lens sing!

Did you happen to purchase brand new or refurb?

Bought it new, was the last one they had fortunately. Hate waiting for stuff like that to ship. But yeah, definitely sold on this one. Doesn't make me miss any previous standard zoom that I had. Having way too much fun with it!

I gave myself a Christmas gift and just placed an order for the 24-70 F4 IS.

nfoerster wrote in post #17828770
Bought it new, was the last one they had fortunately. Hate waiting for stuff like that to ship. But yeah, definitely sold on this one. Doesn't make me miss any previous standard zoom that I had. Having way too much fun with it!

Same here, just don't have the patience when it comes to waiting for a lens to arrive!

Tommydigi wrote in post #17828941
I gave myself a Christmas gift and just placed an order for the 24-70 F4 IS.

Congrats, glad you pulled the trigger on it!