24-70mm2.8L Pros-Cons

Hi everyone

I'm close to rushing out and buying the 24-70mm2.8L for my 20D.

Is it as good as it is cracked up to be?

Is it too heavy to hump around as a standard lens?

I sure need a high quality standard lens - but?

Should I save my money?

Regards to all

Ray


20D 18-55 -- 70-200 f4L -- 35-105 f3.5-4.5 -- (28-70macro old style but very good)
All sorts of other bits.

well, if you gotta save money, go w/ the tamron 28-75/2.8 for sure.

ditto that... the Tamron is a lighter lens that won't "lighten" your wallet. It's not an "L" lens... you get what you pay for, but it's pretty good for what you pay.

If you got the money and the skill to use it the way it's supposed to be used, GO FOR IT!

If you're in the camp of those who expect the lens to be razor sharp irrespective of the shutter speed, aperture, and focal length you're likely to be disappointed.

Used right, the lens produces stunning photographs.

check this image taken with the 24-70mm lens:

http://steve-montoya.smugmug.com/ph​otos/24373640-M.jpg

Cheers!

Steve,

while I agree with you that the 24-70 certainly is a hell of a lens, there are also a lot of images from the 18-55 kit lens that look really great at 600x400 pixels

The most important differences IMO between the 24-70 and the Tamron 28-75 are:

- 4 mm on wide end (if this is *very* important, consider the Sigma 24-70/2.8 )
- Tamron is lighter & smaller
- Build quality of Canon is a lot better, but Tamron is ok (like Canon prosumer lens)
- Canon might be slightly sharper wide open (maybe not if you get a good copy of the Tamron)
- Canon AF is faster, quieter, and has full time manual AF
- Tamron is 1/3 of the price

I only have the Tamron, so take it with a grain of salt.


Best regards,
Andy

Quote 1) ...and the skill to use it the way it's supposed to be used...

Can you please tell me/us wich skills we must have and/or use to obtain the most out of this lens?

Quote 2) If you're in the camp of those who expect the lens to be razor sharp irrespective of the shutter speed, aperture, and focal length you're likely to be disappointed.

Yoy are right that I was expecting this lens to be razorsharp. Is it wrong to expect this of a 1200 Euro lens and from an famous L lens?

Quote 3) Used right, the lens produces stunning photographs.

What is the right way to use this lens so we/I can produce stunning photographs?

Please don't understand me wrong, I don't want to contradict Your input here.
But because I'm a beginner in digital photography I would like to learn as much as possible from it and would apriciate your help.

Thank you.

It is a nice lens, but in my opinion it is not worth the money. I have gotten some really good pictures with it, but many of the other pics seem to look soft.

The Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG Macro is seriously worth checking out as well. I was very impressed with the head to head fstopjojo did last week and from user feedback and posted images. This is a brand new lens. Do a search for the test here and check out the images from the Sigma and the Canon L. You can then decide if you want to spend the extra.

Like Andy I have the Tamron and respect its ability, so worth looking at all three.

I have this lens and it is one of my favorites. It produces razor sharp pictures. Any softness is a result of operator error, such as camera shake.

I used it for portraiture at night after my daughter's graduation last week with my 580 flash and the pictures were stunning. If I weren't such a dolt, I might be able to post one.

Yes, it is a little heavy but not that long.

Heck, at one time I thought I would never want to carry my 70-200 f/2.8 IS around, but not I don't mind that either. In fact, whenever I leave it home, I curse myself.

I was at the Palm Beach Zoo with my 70-300 DO IS recently and longed for the 70-200.

Get it . You will not be disappointed.

There was a thread several days ago discussing the 24-70mm...actually initiated by jimchapin.
here it is:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=80506
That thread is the basis for what I commented on here.

Again, if money is not the main concern, get it. It's a great lens.
Otherwise, get the Tamron. I had the Tamron 28-75mm before getting the 24-70mm and it's also a fine lens.

I have no experience with the Sigma so can't really comment on that.

Thanks for the link and the answer. I have solved my problem
with my copy of the EF 24-70mm 2.8 L lens.

I have the 24-70L and if you get one you'll wonder why you ever considered a 3rd party lens.

Super.
I hope the 24-70 gives you years and years of excellent service.

If a person simply doesn't have the money to buy an "L" lens or doesn't think it's worth the high $ it's not unreasonable to get a quality 3rd party lens. My 24-70mm besides being wider, represented a 10-25% improvement (disclaimer: purely subjective assessment) over the Tamron I owned. The Tamron is 1/3 the cost so that's an excellent cost/benefit ratio for many people.

Regards

The Con in the original question is pretty clear.

The Pro is more subjective. Definitely a pro is the build quality.

The rest is subjective. In fact, very subjective as you have seen.

Given the cost, perhaps it is being judged by standards that are many times the ones used to judge the more economical alternatives. What is clear is that opinion is very polarised.

The best you can hope for is to judge the people making the comments.

Graham

I love it.. it's very heavy for this focal range.. but not really when you consider build quality and aperture.. Canon just likes to make 'em "beefy"