sharp -24-70 en even better 17-40

slawi_3000 wrote in post #2071633
I have 16-35 and 24-70. I love both. But please, there is something that makes 24-70 a unique, great lens. It is the general IQ impression.
24-70 is tack sharp and color-saturated from 2.8 on. If it is not the case with your lens, let Canon check it. Lenses produced before 2006 had some quality control issues.
16-35 is also sharp at 2.8, but the image is a little foggy. Regardless from this it is an excellent WA zoom.
If you want to compare, what a difference in IQ should be betwen 17-40 and 24-70 check the tests done by Johannes Huwe:
http://www.pbase.com/l​emonbase/review_canon_​24mm

i agree. i think the longer focal length gives the 24-70L that special IQ impression.

andthe larger aperature doesn't hurt either .

the 17-40L and 24-70L complement each other very well.

ed rader


ed rader

You make a good point Ed...I've been thinking I don't use my 10-20 nearly enough to justify keeping it...Thinking 10-20 for 17-40 swap...Hmmm...And gaining a stop at the long end...

Quick question:

Do you use a filter (haze/UV) on the 24-70? and if you do.. is a different brand than the one maybe on your 17-40?

I found that cheaper filters produce softer results. I try to use b+w's on all my lenses as they've been the sharpest for me. (tried the tiffens,..not so much!) Also have had great success with Hoya SMC's

D

Unless I'm in some pretty rough conditions, you'll never see me with a filter on any of my lenses. If I had to use one, they'd be Hoya Pro Super Multicoated.