I don't get it - Are my expectations too low of the 24-70?

I've had my brick for a while, and have always loved it. I have some darn good lenses, and almost every day, someone is starting a thread on here about how they can't wait for the 24-70 v2 or about how they think that theirs is unacceptably soft.

My youngest has started to talk, and one of the things that he has started saying is "Cheese" and insists on my taking a picture of him. Ripped out the 5D and brick and just took a shot of him yesterday when he walked into my home office. Far from the best composition in the world, but definitely shows that this is far from the worst lens in the world I think....


f/2.8, ISO 1600, 1/100, 50mm, and *drumroll* No sharpening

That is sharp, similar to the results I can get from all of my Canon lenses.

I have owned and used some lenses that were not capable of that kind of sharpness and most of them are gone now. The only lens I have that will not produce a sharp image is my 50/1.4 when I use it wide open.

So your 24-70 is sharp. Perhaps some are not.

My 24-105L is doing the same in low light with flash. Or I would say just a little bit more but without f2.8

This lens is just great. it's sharp wide open has great FL and can do almost everything - Portraits, Landscapes, Macro etc. Bokeh is very good; AF is fast. Here is one at 70mm f2.8 - no sharpening

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

They are wankers, don´t listen to them. 99 % of people who spread rumors about new lenses have something like 450D with kit 18-55 and will never buy a single L lens, neither a current one nor a future one. There´s nothing wrong with the current 24-70 L and if someone can´t take a sharp photo with this lens, he´s probably doing something wrong (maybe his hands are shaking or so).

I've never been disappointed with mine--but then I don't own the latest uberpixel wondercam--and I actually make prints

MMX wrote in post #10272316
They are wankers, don´t listen to them. 99 % of people who spread rumors about new lenses have something like 450D with kit 18-55 and will never buy a single L lens, neither a current one nor a future one. There´s nothing wrong with the current 24-70 L and if someone can´t take a sharp photo with this lens, he´s probably doing something wrong (maybe his hands are shaking or so).

There are some 24-70Ls floating around that are soft wide open. I have had 3 to compare in the past, and 2 of the 3 were less than stellar wide-open.

MMX wrote in post #10272316
They are wankers, don´t listen to them. 99 % of people who spread rumors about new lenses have something like 450D with kit 18-55 and will never buy a single L lens, neither a current one nor a future one. There´s nothing wrong with the current 24-70 L and if someone can´t take a sharp photo with this lens, he´s probably doing something wrong (maybe his hands are shaking or so).

Wow thats pretty harsh. You know someone doesnt need to be a food connoisseur to know if something tastes good. So i think someone should be able to also know if something is in focus or not. Or if a photograph is sharp or soft.

As for me I will still wait for the mark II. I dont see any impelling reason for me to get the Canon L when the tamron 28-75 and Sigma 24-70 are very close to Canon in pic quality and are sooo much cheaper.

elitejp wrote in post #10272490
I dont see any impelling reason for me to get the Canon L when the tamron 28-75 and Sigma 24-70 are very close to Canon in pic quality and are sooo much cheaper.

May be this not that much true.

It's a good lens.

And that's all there really is to it. It doesn't excel in one area - which is why people love it or hate it.

elitejp wrote in post #10272490
As for me I will still wait for the mark II. I dont see any impelling reason for me to get the Canon L when the tamron 28-75 and Sigma 24-70 are very close to Canon in pic quality and are sooo much cheaper.

If you want something, you always find an excuse why it´s worth buying. If you don´t want something (or can´t afford it), you always find an excuse why it´s not worth buying.
Just look at you current gear. When the new 24-70 L comes, it will probably cost more than all your lens together. Are you sure that you´re gonna purchase it, or will you find another "reason" why it´s not worth the money?

I hope that is not directed toward me, but I will answer anyways. Some people just think because there is a red ring and an L on the lens, it is automatically perfect. Unfortunately Canon has many duds in the "land of L". I have had the privilege of having bought and tried several L lenses. There is much to be said about the L series, but there are some bad ones out there, and usually they are in a certain line of L lenses. Other lines have hardly any bad ones at all.

And sadly for some, there are 3rd party manufacturers of glass that just on IQ alone, compete with L lenses. Now if you want to bring in weather sealing, AF speed, etc, yes, the competition gets a bit thinner, but there are still contenders.

To go around touting how you have the funds to buy the "best" and others cannot, or cannot hold a lens still, etc is in VERY BAD FORM (ie. rude and pretentious).

I can say with certainty that coffee mugs that have the red L ring is much better in all regards than any other 3rd party lens coffee mug though. I love my 24-105L hot chocolate mug.

I think if someone gets a bad copy of 24-70mm that hurts so much; you know much more than if you get a bad copy of e.g. 24-105mm or any other lens. I know some people on this forum who have had bad experience with 24-70mm and they are quick to slam the lens WHENEVER topic comes or even indirectly. I am sure % of bad copies of this lens is much less than it seems on this forum. It's NOT Sigma 50mm f1.4.

I love mine!

elitejp wrote in post #10272490
As for me I will still wait for the mark II. I dont see any impelling reason for me to get the Canon L when the tamron 28-75 and Sigma 24-70 are very close to Canon in pic quality and are sooo much cheaper.

Couple things. I had the Tammy 28-75, and I agree that optically, it gives the brick a run for its money. For me, I needed to go 24-70L because of the AF speed. The weather sealing was a nice benefit, but the AF speed between the two lenses is night and day. Whenever I have the time for set shots and don't need to worry about AF speed, I use the 85L, which blows both lenses out of the water.

Now, saying that you're waiting for the Mark II and then bringing up price don't quite belong in the same sentence. I bought the Mark II of the 70-200 because, while I loved the versatility of the zoom range, I wasn't overly happy with it wide open. Wanting that cost me a pretty penny. The Mark II of the 70-200 is an $800 premium over the Mark I. I would figure that if the Mark II of the 24-70 were to come out, that the price would be around $2,000, which would then make it 5 times the price of the Tamron. How would you justify a 5 multiple cost for anything short of it producing holographic images?