5D admirers, assemble!

Sfordphoto wrote in post #6229025
Yea, the IQ is pretty shoddy on these two...I really wouldn't want anyone else to experience how bad they are...



p.s. don't you have the 24-105? jokes aside, you'd want the 24-70 too?

Ha, nah! The 24-105L is an overall great, practical lens...But the 24-70L seems to be more "specialized" and suits my needs, (Faster, shallow DoF).

I may be going crazy, but I'm not exactly sure if my version is sharp enough...I did a test with my 50mm f/1.4 and the 24-105L at f/8 and it's apparent that the 50mm is a lot sharper.

I would like to have 2 dedicated zooms (24-70L & 70-200L) and mold my kit around primes. Well and a 17-40L

I suppose I'll post the 2 lens comparisons side by side for you guys to judge. Though, I think the sharpness factor has to do with me being a little too perfectionist.

Edit: Ok, nvm...I just reviewed my comparison shots and my 24-105L is plenty sharp...I don't know what I was thinking...I suppose at the time when I viewed them I wasn't wearing glasses. Now I know what glasses are for, I thought they were for looking cool...

EOSBoy wrote in post #6229236
Ha, nah! The 24-105L is an overall great, practical lens...But the 24-70L seems to be more "specialized" and suits my needs, (Faster, shallow DoF).

I may be going crazy, but I'm not exactly sure if my version is sharp enough...I did a test with my 50mm f/1.4 and the 24-105L at f/8 and it's apparent that the 50mm is a lot sharper.

I would like to have 2 dedicated zooms (24-70L & 70-200L) and mold my kit around primes. Well and a 17-40L

I suppose I'll post the 2 lens comparisons side by side for you guys to judge. Though, I think the sharpness factor has to do with me being a little too perfectionist.

Edit: Ok, nvm...I just reviewed my comparison shots and my 24-105L is plenty sharp...I don't know what I was thinking...I suppose at the time when I viewed them I wasn't wearing glasses. Now I know what glasses are for, I thought they were for looking cool...

yes, the 24-70L is the choice weapon of the Navy SEALs. its hood alone makes 105% the man you previously were. just ask the womenfolk

i plan on doing the same, getting a few zooms (check!), and then working towards the holy trinity (no check!). and then a 400mm prime for sniper work, and a 100mm macro for close quarters combat.

p.s. comparing a prime that is stopped down 5 stops versus a 4x zoom that is stopped down 2 stops isn't a very fair fight...even though the zoom is L! were you wearing glasses only for looking at the f/1.4? lol

EOSBoy wrote in post #6229236
I would like to have 2 dedicated zooms (24-70L & 70-200L) and mold my kit around primes. Well and a 17-40L

hehe, that's how I started... all primes... now I did a full 180 (full 360 anyone? hehe) and I've got the f/2.8L zooms and only kept the specialist primes (fisheye and macro) and the 85/1.8 for portraits.

Sfordphoto wrote in post #6229297
yes, the 24-70L is the choice weapon of the Navy SEALs. its hood alone makes 105% the man you previously were. just ask the womenfolk

i plan on doing the same, getting a few zooms (check!), and then working towards the holy trinity (no check!). and then a 400mm prime for sniper work, and a 100mm macro for close quarters combat.

p.s. comparing a prime that is stopped down 5 stops versus a 4x zoom that is stopped down 2 stops isn't a very fair fight...even though the zoom is L! were you wearing glasses only for looking at the f/1.4? lol

You're right...The 24-70L's hood is large enough and aerodynamic that if tossed at a child, would demolish his universe.

One day, I'll build a trinity... Who knew being broke was a disease.

Your right about difference in stops. Also, I wasn't wearing glasses during the whole test...Matter of fact, I was butt naked too. Why? Cause I like to party.

tangcla wrote in post #6229345
hehe, that's how I started... all primes... now I did a full 180 (full 360 anyone? hehe) and I've got the f/2.8L zooms and only kept the specialist primes (fisheye and macro) and the 85/1.8 for portraits.

I think I'll stick with primes as my main ammo of choice. They work so well when coupled with the 5D. Although, the 70-200L's white finish and intimidating black contrast hood blow my mind. It's a fact that it does. It's in some science book.

EOSBoy wrote in post #6229463
I think I'll stick with primes as my main ammo of choice. They work so well when coupled with the 5D. Although, the 70-200L's white finish and intimidating black contrast hood blow my mind. It's a fact that it does. It's in some science book.

Did you just say you wanted the 300mm f/2.8L IS?

p.S. your lens lineup is like what I had - except I had more

28/1.8 is really nice on the 5D.

EOSBoy wrote in post #6229463
You're right...The 24-70L's hood is large enough and aerodynamic that if tossed at a child, would demolish his universe.

One day, I'll build a trinity... Who knew being broke was a disease.

Your right about difference in stops. Also, I wasn't wearing glasses during the whole test...Matter of fact, I was butt naked too. Why? Cause I like to party.

I think I'll stick with primes as my main ammo of choice. They work so well when coupled with the 5D. Although, the 70-200L's white finish and intimidating black contrast hood blow my mind. It's a fact that it does. It's in some science book.

Ammo? I hope you reuse your ammo...don't want you blazing through a case of 85mm f/1.2Ls...

I think it would hurt to get shot by one. Probably rip a hole through you. And wow, we are officially way off subject. Here let me fix that:

It would hurt more to get shot by a 5D, unless we're talking photos, of course.

tangcla wrote in post #6229496
p.S. your lens lineup is like what I had - except I had more

28/1.8 is really nice on the 5D.

I do want a wide prime...Just not sure. How does the 28 f/1.8 fair? I was sort of eying the 24L or the 35L...I definitely want to get the 85L.

Sfordphoto wrote in post #6229570
Ammo? I hope you reuse your ammo...don't want you blazing through a case of 85mm f/1.2Ls...

I think it would hurt to get shot by one. Probably rip a hole through you. And wow, we are officially way off subject. Here let me fix that:

It would hurt more to get shot by a 5D, unless we're talking photos, of course.

It would hurt even more if a bully stomped my gear right in front of me...

^^ 35L


i just sold my 28 1.8 because it was just a bit too wide, 17mm crop equivalent which was the widest i had on my 400D

35mm seems to be a very useable and versatile focal length

35 and 135 next, for me...not sure when, though. Selling the 70-200 f4L soon, though.

I personally liked the 28/1.8. Never tried the 24L or 35L, but the 28/1.8 had a nice and short 25cm minimum focusing distance compared to the 50/1.4's 40cm and 85/1.8's 85cm. Was my club photo companion lens

I have a Sigma 24-70/2.8 and it's one achillies heel is flare. It comes with an utterly useless hood, that is smaller than my 17-40L's hood....like that's gonna realy work on a 70mm! Where sharpness and QC is concearned, it's embarrising to say that in this case the Sigma is slightly better than Canon. The Sigma AF system is a lot weaker and the Canon is in a different league.
My 2nd Photographer uses a sharp version of the Canon and it's a far nicer lens to use. The Canon hood actually does something to combat flare. but when I compare images in Lightroom, I can't realy tell them apart. In fact, I'd give a very slight sharpness nod to the Sigma, but it's very slight and it might be my AF point placement more than optical sharpness. I use an Ee-s VF screen in my 5D, Leanne uses the stock screen.
I'm waiting for the new Canon 24-70mm f2.8 IS L to come out and then I'll upgrade. Assuming that I can find a sharp one

I guess that after next month we can start a "5DII admirers, assemble!" thread?

It also has another achilles heel, no HSM and therefore horridly slow AF

tangcla wrote in post #6231263
It also has another achilles heel, no HSM and therefore horridly slow AF

Agreed. I did own the Sigma and said it was a real "L" competition lens. In ways it is but then going back, I could not see my shooting with it again.

The AF was "whirry" rather than noisy and had a habit to hunt in low light conditions (this will vary depending on conditions and user) and never seemed to be accurate enough since it lacked HSM so by the time it locked, there was an issue where the shot was either slightly different or I had missed timed.

Sharpness was impressive even wide open but I could only see this properly when using my 400D. After switching to my 5D, it just did not seem up the same job. I am not sure what it was but it didnt behave in the same way.

If I compared photos side by size without cropping, yes it was hard to tell. My reason for ditching the Sigma was not simply down to sharpness or flare but accuracy and speed to which the L just nailed.

I have had reports of 24-70L owners reporting it is pretty soft wide open, have any of you guys?