Canon 24-70mm f2.8 Dunno!

Hi Guys

Had the 24-70mm2.8L for a week now - cannot decide how to evaluate it - tried comparison shots with my old 28-70mm F3.5 macro and I'm sure I'm imagining the difference, if any. Peraps I'm flipping my lid or something.

The scenery shots only seem as sharp as eachother - lens to lens.

However - the closer shots of my grandchildren etc: seem a bit better - mainly due to the creative effect of the larger f2.8 and the way it deals with the out-of-focus areas of image (The bokeh - is this the correct word).

Has the gain jusified the £900 spent consideing the lack of reach i.e. 70mm max?
The quality of this lens - IMHO - does not seem to compare with my 70-200 F4.

I will however do a few more tests - I really like its creativity at 2.8 and Bokeh.

Sorry for such an uninformative posting.

Try to reassure me - please - or recommend a good Shrink.

Before I make a decision on the lens - has anyone any comments.

Regards to all.

never used the 24-70L. From what i've read here and other reviews. it's one L glass that isn't as sharp or give the wow factor that the other L glass does. Thats why some people that are canon lens fans go for the tamron or sigma route for that zoom range. But you are paying for good build quality.

I think you're seeing just what I'm seeing. When I take "scenery" type shots, i.e. small aperture at a long distance, my 28-135 and 17-40 are both (slightly)sharper than my 24-70L, and the kit lens is frighteningly close. Particularly at the wide end. I'm convinced that this lens just doesn't stand out for it's sharpness, though it's very good. In other words, you don't get $1200 worth of sharpness and while I like the lens, I'm still trying to decide whether it's worth sitting on that much cash. I disagree about the WOW factor, I've seen it in spades with this lens but it tends to be more apparent in portrait type photos where it's lush colors and bokeh stand out. Mine is also exceptional in its consistency from corner to corner--the best lens I own in that respect. It's also very consistent in focusing.

As for the 70-200 f/4, I'm not sure you'll find any Canon zoom sharper than that so it doesnt surprise me. Really not a fair comparison with a lens that goes down to 24mm. But my 17-40L is sharper than my 24-70L at all overlapping focal lengths and apertures except f/4, though the 24-70 wins in the corners.

If it sounds like I've done a lot of testing, I have, because I just wasn't getting the pop I wanted from this lens. Much of that is probably due to the guy looking into the viewfinder.

i hate the 24-70, ive used three different ones at work now, one was new...and i didnt like them, maybe they didnt like my 20d, but my results with the other lenses during those times were better and more consistant

but my boss at job #3 wont take his off the camera...so i guess in the end its all personal choice. I really wonder how picky we are though.

Ed2day - You are dead right. This lens is'nt wort the price. It is wort the price of a Tamron or a Sigma.
Even in the picture quality it's absolutly not wort the L on it.
For me it was not wort sitting on that much cash so I sold mine and I'm glad I did.
It was my first L lens and it was the biggist dissappointment in my 45 year as photographer.
In my personal opinion it's nothing worth as a lens for that $$$.

Its a nice lens as far as build, but the price is too much for what it actually really is... Im gona get the tamron instead.

You won't regret it if you buy it. It's up to you to determine how much its worth. If you are going to use this lens most of the time, I think the cost is justified a little more, if you are depending on it.

If you are going to be running around with it, its very durable and take some beating. It has weather sealing for dust and moisture, not to mention the great colors, saturation and sharpness that you get out of a quality L lens.

Is that the Tamron 28-75f2.8 Madmesh?

To bring some balance into this thread, the 24-70L is still the best standard zoom available. By "best" I mean overall build, handling, focal range, and optical performance. While I have had 3 24-70Ls (and 3 Tamron 28-75s and 3 Sigma 24-70EXs) and have ended up keeping the Sigma 24-70 EX DG Macro, for many (especially pros) the L is "worth it". Take a wedding, for example, which often flash photography is not permitted, and you're about to grab the exchange of rings, or the first kiss, waiting behind the altar, and your noisy Sigma 24-70 zips zips zips or your slow 28-75Di AF can't lock focus because of the low light and it hunts from MFD to infinity and back. This is where $700 means nothing in price difference because the 24-70L will LOCK focus quickly and silently. It is the best low-light AF standard zoom around, and the Sigma and Tamron can't do that as well. Now, for most people, this is not a big deal, but try to see that optics isn't the ONLY reason why this lens is 3x more. The handling and design is beautiful, and I know why most wedding pros use it. That said, I'm sticking with my Sigma EX until someone comes out with a IS/OS version.

I'm no doubt missing something here but if the autofocus is integeral with the camera body, then focussing indecision may be a incompatability issue. What camera body were you using in the above scenario? At what f stop did it clear up? Which end of the zoom were you at?

I'm curious as I was planning to buy a Tamron 28-75/2.8 for a 20D rather than a 24-70/2.8L as there is a 3 times price factor between the two in Australia and the optics of the Tamron by review seem to match the Canon.

If the focus indecision is apparent at all f stops and focal lengths then it seems to indicate that the lens autofocus motors' precision does not match the camera body accuracy of focus resolution. If the indecision is only apparent in certain situations i.e. at 2.8/60mm low contrast low light, or at f11/28mm high contrast then the problem could be body related, or a basic incompatability between the two.

Cheers DFH

Well focusing is partially body dependant and lens dependent however, I beleive fstopjojo is refering to the USM on the "L" being far superior to the other brands focusing motors which can cause slow, noisy or generally poor focus.

Return it, get the Tamron 28-75 or Sigma 24-70, both F2.8.

I agree, not one of Canon's sharpest L lenes. After 3 copys I am finally happy with this one. The funny thing is......it started putting out better shots when I got my new 20D body ( the other was a 20D also)........hmmm. I have gotten over the "ripped off" feeling and am now starting to enjoy the lens. It's a great focal length, but if your expecting anything like 70-200 2.8 sharpeness you will be VERY unhappy. It is what it is.......a great focal length that isn't one of Canon's shapest L's. However it will blow your socks off once in a while.........about f8. Also I truely think this lens loves bright light......strange for a 2.8 but IMO some of my best shots (sharpest) seem to be with flash (studio) or in very bright conditions. Just seems to get softer than others (sometimes) in muddy lighting.

I really don't understand it-the complaints about the 24-70L. I have one and love it. Yes, near $1200 was a bitter pill to take but then my other "L" (135) was $900. I hope to use them for many, many years and consider the money well spent when compared to what else there is out there.

Delete