24-70mm2.8L Pros-Cons

Glad it has the CDS seal of approval , but I am not sure that the aperture is that special these days, in the light of the opposition.

Graham

By all accounts, don't expect sharpness like your 70-200 f4L. But that you have an L lens as well as non-L glass should give you a feel for it's value - or lack of it.

I have the 24-70 as my only lens, currently. I was concerned with it's softness at the edges especially as in a 20D you're not even looking at the edge of the frame designed for a 1x crop(!), but I have no problems carrying it about. At the end of the day, every lens (even an L) is a compromise in design. It may be a little soft, say, wide open @ 24mm but I think you have to consider:

- If another ~ 24-70 f2.8 lens from someone else will be any better or even quite equal
- Don't forget other benefits such as bokeh, colour, and other stuff that gives the results 'punch'
- The joy of using it
- If you can afford it!
- Wide open, you're often (not always) using it that way to deliberately get shallow DOF, when sharpness at the edges is NOT what you're trying to acheive.

For sure we're into the law of diminishing returns. You may well get better *value* if not *quite* the same mechanical and optical quality and robustness looking at a 3rd party lens.

I decided to "go for it". I, for sure, do have to remind myself to just enyoy it and stop pixel peeping. Same sort of story worrying about 'banding' on the 20D itself Problem is after spending that much we feel it ought to all be perfect. But you can spend an awful lot more and still not get perfection... just less imperfection.

At the end of the day I found myself actually wanting to know that my copies of camera and lens were at least typical (as good as it gets) rather than perfect...

J

Heard and read lot´s of good things about this lens. If i were you, i´d go for it! I´m sure you won´t regret it.

It´s still on my shopping list. Sooner or later i will have one also. Just can´t make up my mind which lens (24-70L, 70-200L f4 or 70-200L IS) to get first. Awful... decisions, decisions...

ED

I understand that with the pop-up flash on the 20D, the 24-70 casts a shadow. Since I find having convenient fill flash to be worthwhile, especially for my main "walk-around" lens, I wouldn't want the lens.

Does the sigma alternative 24-70 have HSM?

I'm very fond of the Tamron, having learned to tolerate the loud focus motor and the rotating front ring.

Here's my take.....and I have this lens

The Tamron is about 300 bucks, and if you get a soft shot that you think should have been sharp you think...."heck it's a 300 dollars lens" and think of all the other shots that looked great and feel like you got a deal. On the other hand when you pay 1200 dollars and get that same soft shot, that you feel should have been sharp then your down right pissed and feeling you got ripped off.

......just depends on how you want to feel.....LOL

IMO I would get the Tamron. In most all test I have seen it's is very close to the Canon 24-70L.....close enough to not spend the extra 900 buck. Hell I'm thinking about get the Tamron just to check it out, and have a lense of that focal length that dosen't weigh 15 pounds.....LOL. Just for Family stuff.

Canon makes some great L lenses, this one IMO just isn't one of their best. So far my best one is my 70-200 2.8 non IS............razor sharp all day long!!

Ray.
As a satisfied 24-70 f/2.8 L owner, the biggest difference between this and the Tamron is speed of focus and focus lock accuracy in lower light, not sharpness.

If you have not used both in this environment, they "appear" similar in f/stop, sharpness specs, etc. It's when you're doing PJ or event work in fast-paced lower light, and you NEED focus speed and focus lock accuracy that the 24-70 L distinguishes itself from the Tamron. There just is no comparison in this setting.

The Tamron is a fine lens, a little plasticy (is that a word?), but fine for many uses and users. Even for studio portraits on a tripod the Tamron is fine. If you want a light two lens travel kit with the Canon 70-200 f/4 L, get the Tamron because it shares the odd 67mm filter with the Canon f/4 L zoom.

BUT, if you find yourself in lower light fast event situations I described above, get the Canon L. THAT speed of focus lock is its strength. That's why it's worth what I paid for it.

I'm one of the few people that really likes the way the lens barrel moves inside the hood on the L, rather than the hood moving on the front of the extending lens body. Very innovative.
J.

Well Ray
I am probably more of a beginner photographer than you. I was able to pick up the 28-70L from Ebay and had shot with it over the Fathers day weekend. It's like what people said you need to apply yourself if you want to take sharp pictures and its normal for beginners to expect SHARP pictures for that price no matter what.

For me the weight was a bit much and it wasn't as sharp as my 70-200 f4. Granted its the older version I still said to myself..." I gotta get my money back" so back to Ebay it went and I got myself the

Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 Lens which I find to be Excellent. Colour is on par with my 85mm 1.8 and 50 1.4 its sharp enough for me and the price was right on

If I were you I would get the Tamron for you normal lens. you can surround it with cannon glass like i did

Tamron 17-35mm f2.8
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8
Canon 50mm f1.4
Canon 85mm f1.8
Canon 70-200 f4

PS: Professionals, please don't kill me for selling the 28-70mm L I'll get it back
later

Thanks for your replies guys - I'm still undecided - but I will most probably go for it - where do you stop?
I was interested in the comment regarding the fill flash casting a shadow though - any further comments on that on though.

As a point of interest - I have had the 60mm 2.8 macro about a month now - WOW - great - I highly recommend it.

Ray.Petri "...regarding the fill flash casting a shadow..."

I have a 550EX, 420EX...AND, a 220EX. The latter is small, light and easy to carry (for me) and gives a bit more light if needed. It also gets the light above any lens obstruction.

Flash Shadow

Ray. Yes, depending on where you are zoomed (FL mm) with the 24-70, using an on-board flash will cast a quarter moon shadow in the frame, ruining the photo. If you can afford this lens, you should afford not be using the on-board flash. Same with the 17-40L and other f/2.8 77mm pro lenses.
It's a costly disease.
J.

I have to say I never use the on-board flash (after testing it actually worked). I try to use no flash first (esp. given the 20D high ISO performace and a f2.8 lens is such a killer low light combination), and resort to a 420EX if I must...

I think it's sufficiently difficult to get good flash shots using a single flash, I'd rather be using 3200 ISO wide open if I can, especially if I can't use bounce flash (as will always be the case with the built-in flash)

J

Hi Guys
Wow! That certainly drew some comment. Well, I went to my local Jessopps emporium today and had good play with the 24-70mm 2.8L They were most eager to let me play. 10 out of 10 to their staff for their patience.
My initial conclussion is that it is too big and heavy for a standard lens - although I like the idea very much - I have put it on hold - I dunno how long I can hold off for though - I know, some of you will disagree with me and say I should have gone for it.
Thanks for all your encouraging comments though - by the way - what does one have to do on this forum to get promoted to a more senior grade of membership - do I have give a funny handshake or something more sinister?
Regards
Ray.

I think you need to sell a kidney or some other vital organ on E-Bay

Ray, you might want to go back to your Local Jessops and give the Tamron a play too. This way you can get a better feel for what others are talking about regarding the differences in the two lenses.
I did that with both and purchased neither. I ended up not liking the Tamron and feeling the Canon was too much money at the time. I ended up buying another lens that I am not to thrilled with either but it was cheaper and did almost what I wanted it too for the weekend I used it. I will sell that lens in the future but am unsure what I will replace it with. Unfortunately Canon doesn't make a L in the focal lengths I want.

I've owned both the Tamron and the Canon, I sent both back due to softness on one side or the other. The other problem with the Tamron is it hunts very badly indoors with artificial lighting or at least the two copies I've tried. I liked the feel of the Canon, but I fear there is,or has been some serious quality control issues. Like a couple of other people have mention, the several copies I tried out all had very bad edge softness, some extending nearly a third of the way into the center. That is something that would be hard to swallow on a 300 dollar lens, but for me, imposible, on a 1200 dollar one. I've heard of sharp copies, but I'm still looking. I've heard some good things about the Sigma, but once you have full time manual focusing and USM, it's hard to use a lens that the focus ring spins on when you are holding it. I'm not saying it's impossible, just rather annoying. Like I said the feel and build quality of the Canon is really good, almost as good as the shorter L zooms, but getting a soft copy can be discouaging. Good luck. And by the way the Sigma does not have HSM.