Canon 28-70 2.8 or?

Hey everybody,

I recently switched to a full frame body, and now I'm looking to get a solid zoom in the 24-70 range. The 24-70Ls are out of my budget by a bit, so I have been looking at the old 28-70L. I don't mind using old equipment and from what I've read a lot of people feel its on par with the 24-70 mk1. My problem is I keep reading how its not supported by canon anymore and some copies start to have a problem with haze inside the lens as they get older. I have a budget of $600-$700 right now for a solid mid range zoom. Mainly just a walk around lens. I was looking at the 24-105 too but I feel like the f4 limits me a lot with my 17-40 as I find myself shooting in lowlight often.

Any recommendations on a solid, full-frame, mid range zoom in my price range? Or opinions on the 28-70L?

Thanks.

If you're budget is $700, wait a little bit longer and get the version 1. There really isn't a ton of difference between the two lenses, but as you mentioned, Canon doesn't support the 28-70mm.

What do you find yourself shooting? The 24-105mm f4 is an AMAZING value and if you're not shooting in dark venues (or crafting your own light), that's the way to go IMO.

I used to own an excellent copy of that lens. I replaced it with Canon's 24-105. For me the increased range of focal length was worth the slight reduction in image quality.
IMO the 24-105 is perhaps the most "bang for the buck" lens available today.

I shoot portraits, landscapes/outdoors/hi​king, and a decent amount of street shooting in the city. The city shooting I do is a lot more at night and thats what I was planning on using this lens for. Thats why I was trying to stick to something with a 2.8 aperture. Does anyone have any experience with the 24-70 tamron? I saw those are on ebay for close to the price of the 28-70/24-70mk1.

The IS on the 24-105mm might be more valuable to you over the 2.8 if you're doing landscapes and night cityscapes. If you're doing night portraits, I would assume you're making your own light so the f4 shouldn't be an issue.

Ive never owned a lens with IS before, so you guys could be right. I just like the option of having the 2.8 I guess. The only thing I worry about is I've read a lot of people are disappointed with the IQ of the 24-105 compared to the 2.8 zooms.

BrodyBPhoto wrote in post #18017517
Hey everybody,

I recently switched to a full frame body, and now I'm looking to get a solid zoom in the 24-70 range. The 24-70Ls are out of my budget by a bit, so I have been looking at the old 28-70L. I don't mind using old equipment and from what I've read a lot of people feel its on par with the 24-70 mk1. My problem is I keep reading how its not supported by canon anymore and some copies start to have a problem with haze inside the lens as they get older. I have a budget of $600-$700 right now for a solid mid range zoom. Mainly just a walk around lens. I was looking at the 24-105 too but I feel like the f4 limits me a lot with my 17-40 as I find myself shooting in lowlight often.

Any recommendations on a solid, full-frame, mid range zoom in my price range? Or opinions on the 28-70L?

Thanks.

Heya,

The 28-70 F2.8L is an awesome lens, sharp, and really great. You can get them around $400~500. But, as you pointed out, they are hard to find in good shape without haze or fungus or something because they're 20 years old, and totally unsupported. Granted, I don't care about support in the $400 range or so, for the most part, but with an old lens like that, you have to consider it is a mechanical device and it's really old and used, so it could fail and there's no service for it except third party and it will cost as much as the lens did. A lot of people go to the 28-70 because of budget and they take the gamble of having an amazing lens for cheap, or they get a great lens that either has issues or develops issues and they are shopping again shortly after. Personally if I were getting a 28-70 it would have to be from someone in the country I live in, and hopefully someone from a community like this with good standing history to have good odds of the lens being cared for and without haze, etc.

That said, the 24-70 MK1 isn't that much more anymore, often $700~800 used, and supported and serviceable.

The Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC is better than the MK1 canon in a lot of ways, and in the same price range. It's worth exploring. It's the only one stabilized, and that's a big deal for low light--something you claim you shoot a lot in.

There's also the venerable Tamron 28-75 F2.8. Very cheap these days, still quite a good lens, fast, on the order of $200 pretty often.

As for the 24-105 F4L IS, the 1 stop of light isn't that big a deal in "low light" because it has IS, which makes up for it in many ways. I wouldn't discount it for the idea of having F2.8. When shooting at telephoto focal lengths (70mm / 105mm) you will want IS more often than just having faster aperture in real world use.

If your budget is $700, you can afford a Canon MK1 24-70 or a Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC. I'd get the Tamron with that budget. F2.8 and 4 stop VC, that's excellent.

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #18017601
Heya,

The 28-70 F2.8L is an awesome lens, sharp, and really great. You can get them around $400~500. But, as you pointed out, they are hard to find in good shape without haze or fungus or something because they're 20 years old, and totally unsupported. Granted, I don't care about support in the $400 range or so, for the most part, but with an old lens like that, you have to consider it is a mechanical device and it's really old and used, so it could fail and there's no service for it except third party and it will cost as much as the lens did. A lot of people go to the 28-70 because of budget and they take the gamble of having an amazing lens for cheap, or they get a great lens that either has issues or develops issues and they are shopping again shortly after. Personally if I were getting a 28-70 it would have to be from someone in the country I live in, and hopefully someone from a community like this with good standing history to have good odds of the lens being cared for and without haze, etc.

That said, the 24-70 MK1 isn't that much more anymore, often $700~800 used, and supported and serviceable.

The Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC is better than the MK1 canon in a lot of ways, and in the same price range. It's worth exploring. It's the only one stabilized, and that's a big deal for low light--something you claim you shoot a lot in.

There's also the venerable Tamron 28-75 F2.8. Very cheap these days, still quite a good lens, fast, on the order of $200 pretty often.

As for the 24-105 F4L IS, the 1 stop of light isn't that big a deal in "low light" because it has IS, which makes up for it in many ways. I wouldn't discount it for the idea of having F2.8. When shooting at telephoto focal lengths (70mm / 105mm) you will want IS more often than just having faster aperture in real world use.

If your budget is $700, you can afford a Canon MK1 24-70 or a Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC. I'd get the Tamron with that budget. F2.8 and 4 stop VC, that's excellent.

Very best,

Thank you! That was very informative. I think I'll look around for a cheaper 24-70L mk1 as I'd like to stick with a canon lens. But if a tamron pops up in that price range I might just grab it. Thanks for your help guys.

No, avoid the 24-70 2.8MKI, it's not sharp wide open!
I had it in past, I also had the 28-70 which was great, but the difference between 24 & 28mm is big.
Now I have a secondhand Tamron 24-70 2.8VC and it's tack sharp, the difference in sharpness with the expensive canon 24-70II is negligible and it has image stabilisation, also interesting for filming, couldn't be happier!

CanonYouCan wrote in post #18017969
No, avoid the 24-70 2.8MKI, it's not sharp wide open!
I had it in past, I also had the 28-70 which was great, but the difference between 24 & 28mm is big.
Now I have a secondhand Tamron 24-70 2.8VC and it's tack sharp, the difference in sharpness with the expensive canon 24-70II is negligible and it has image stabilisation, also interesting for filming, couldn't be happier!

Ive heard the tamron has a LOT of focus problems. Is this true? If I cant get the frame in focus, it doesn't matter how sharp the lens is I would imagine.

BrodyBPhoto wrote in post #18018611
Ive heard the tamron has a LOT of focus problems. Is this true? If I cant get the frame in focus, it doesn't matter how sharp the lens is I would imagine.

that's really up to internet hyperbole. One man's focus problem is another's hardly ever. Sure it would get slow in really low light but I found it fairly functional for even the most challenging occasions. The 6 year warranty is great to have, and I'de side with a lens with warranty. I've had about half dozen lenses go bad on me, all were zooms.

low budget, even the 28-75 tamron is fine on a 5dc, but it starts to lag behind when you increase megapixels to 20. That's where lenses like a 24-70VC or 24-70ii start to shine. If you're just shooting people, the 28-75 is a fine lens.

Megapixels can affect AF speed? I wasnt aware of that, alright. I think ill stop in a shop and try the tamron out before I make a decision then.

Nevermind. I realize youre probably talking just about resolution, but I'm looking for something a little better in quality over the 28-75

The Tamron has a 6 year warranty if you buy it new so there's that.

sourcehill wrote in post #18019602
The Tamron has a 6 year warranty if you buy it new so there's that.

If I wanted to spend $1300 I wouldnt get the tamron lol