Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM - The Brick

ScarySquirrel wrote in post #8981209
Some shots from the weekend of the sea in Pevensey Bay, East Sussex, and my lovely girlfriend who is always a willing model

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …scarysquirrel/4​087704410/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …scarysquirrel/4​087568980/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …scarysquirrel/4​086772655/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …scarysquirrel/4​087406750/

This is beautiful work bud. And stunningly demonstrates what great DOF control this lens has. I've commented a number of times about this lenses abilities on various forums and I get flamed by muppets who have no technical or creative understanding of just how good this lens can be.

I've only had this lens for a few days but I think we're gonna get along just fine!!

Just look at that swwet out of focus rendering! Most people think that you can only get this look from fast primes....but the 24-70L is a portrait machine. It has a crazy min focus distance, plus it's focal range, plus it's usefull f2.8 aperture...you just can't get this kind of look from a 24-105 f4 so easily.

GMCPhotographics wrote in post #8990907
Just look at that swwet out of focus rendering! Most people think that you can only get this look from fast primes....but the 24-70L is a portrait machine. It has a crazy min focus distance, plus it's focal range, plus it's usefull f2.8 aperture...you just can't get this kind of look from a 24-105 f4 so easily.

Yes, a sweet lens it is. I actually bought the lens for 2 reasons- to replace a lens that I'm giving to my son along with my old 40D and to do portrait work for a local clothing line. The Macro is a great bonus feature and just plain fun to experiment with. This is the first Macro shot I took...

Nice ^

Nice work, everyone.

I am seriously considering purchasing one of this. Probably before the rebates expire. Likely sooner. (and I thought I was done..!)

Can someone help me decide though: For my wedding work, looking at my gear, do you think I should go after this, or 70-200 2.8 IS..?

TIA, everyone.

pratman64 wrote in post #8999511
Nice work, everyone.

I am seriously considering purchasing one of this. Probably before the rebates expire. Likely sooner. (and I thought I was done..!)

Can someone help me decide though: For my wedding work, looking at my gear, do you think I should go after this, or 70-200 2.8 IS..?

TIA, everyone.

I would say the 24-70 first, I would not find the 24-105 usable for wedding work. That being said, you do have fast primes (100-135-200) to cover the telephoto - I'd run with either those or replace with the zoom, I couldn't see owning 4 telephotos myself.

Hey all,

I've had some fun doing closeup photography with the 24-70. Then, a shot today taken with the 16-35 (a close flower shot) got me curious.

I have the 16-35, the 24-70, and the 24-105. The MFD of these three lenses is spread out, from the 16-35 the closest at less than a foot to the 24-105 the farthest at 1.48 feet. I decided to check them each out wide open at the MFD and at their maximum focal length (except for the first shot with the 24-70 taken at 24mm, and found that the MFD/focal length combo actually produced quite similar image sizes, although the 24-70 had a softer background.

Anyway, the set is here:

http://www.pbase.com …g/nov_11_09_wid​e_closeups

And here are the two from the 24-70:

Thank you, Brad. I am leaning towards getting 24-70L as well. I prefer its focal length over that of 70-200 2.8 IS.

I love the telephoto trinity of 100-135-200, and I don't want to part with it. (plus, I'd like to stay away from the white lenses as much as I can)

I might just keep 24-105, for its conveniency on the road.

The [BRICK] has made many of my house, land, car and insurance payments.
If you magnify a razors edge far enough, it to becomes fuzzy at some point. However it will still cut and that is, what it was made for.

here are few shots from me...

1.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE