Canon 24-70mm f2.8 Dunno!

Delete

I think you make a very good point that I've been thinking alot about lately. People tend to judge lenses by the quality of their best picture, but if you're a pro, which I'm not, missed shots are just as important if not more so. You gave a great example of why it may be worth every penny to a pro. It focuses more reliably than any lens I have(and quicklly too) --indeed I find the focusing ability correlates strongly with the cost of my lenses. The kit and 50 1.8 are most suspect. The 28-135 is significantly better and the L's are better yet(I won't include the 100-400, different class of lens). I also find that price differentiates the lenses as to how unfiorm they are across the frame. Again, consistency which is critical if you're putting food on the table. So don't be too quick to say it's not worth it. But for me it may not be. I have the Tamron on order, so I'll see. If the lens was 700-800$ I'd have no problem saying it's worth it. Judgement call. The size and weight and attention factor(significant) are considerations for me too.

If the lens had so many issues, pro photographers wouldn't be using them. But they do, so what's up with that? I bet if you look in any photo journalists bag. The 3 essential zooms he'll have are:

70-200 mm f/2.8L
16-35 mm f/2.8L
24-70 mm f/2.8L

I have a 24-70 2.8L and find that it's a fantastic lens. Very sharp and great build. Personally if I kept buying one and they kept giving poor results I would think something is wrong with the camera body, not the lens.

Or the photographer.

Hi Guys

WOW - that started something - didn't it?

The Pictures posted above are fairly typical of what I am getting.

On reflection, it must be the pixels determining the final image sharpness and what I am looking for is not possible with an 8MPix camera anyway?

The 28-135 IS is mentioned here in posts - maybe this could be a more practical solution in view of it's longer focal length and price.

I may try using the 24-70 2.8L a bit longer, though, as I do see qualities in it and don't really want to part with it.

Regards

Ray

As was stated earlier, all press men seem to have have one, so thaey cannot be that bad. My viewpoint is the weight, and maybe people use to low a shutter speed. I found that once I found the best settings for me the results are excellent, its just too heavy and don't like carrying it around. For the weight of this lens 1/FL as lowest speed is out.

I'm sick of lens comparisons. Lets talk about cars. .

This thread looks like comparison of Ferrari("L") and Mercedes(Third Party ).
And somebody who bought Ferrari complains that car is too stiff, horrible gas milage, too expensive, and so on and on.
And yes, Mercedes can build faster(in some cases), more reliable, more comfortable car. But hey, if you've got money.... you want to have Ferrari.....

Otherwise, just to get from point A to point B get a Honda and be happy.

Now I'm waiting for flames

Hi Guys

Re REMO's comments on cars - Well the feedback gained here is meant to be serious and informed. Only this type of serious natter/feedback can help us make an informed decission based on combined knowledge.

I bought my Jaguar S Type based on many things - It performs better than I expected - I need not try to compare it to other S Types or even a Lada.

I bought m 24-70 2.8L based on its expected perfomance - It does not perform as expected!

Thanks for all the serious comments contributed to this request for info.

Regards

I've looked extensively at the Canon, Tamron and Sigma and have owned the latter two and handled and tested the Canon on my ex 300D. When someone buys this lens with every expectation of being delighted and keeping it, but then is clearly disappointed, then as a wider community we perhaps need to take their views seriously. It's not the first time we've seen similar user comments and won't be the last I expect.

Maybe we just need to accept the lens is overpriced in context of the competition that has appeared more recently. Some will buy a Canon 24-70 L without considering anything else, but they're perhaps the minority. Most would prefer to spend less if we can get similar performance.

I have no agenda with any brand and nor do I have any need to maintain the value of any lens I already own by talking it up. I may get panned for this latter statement but, being as objective as I can be, I cannot understand why some owners defend it so much unless they are now concerned about their investment.

Canon know this is the default pro 'standard zoom' and so they continue to charge a premium. It is in the wider interest for us all to force Canon into reviewing how it is pricing this product. The advantages of USM and weather sealing, for me at least, would make me take it seriously at £450-500, but not at £900+. At that price, as a non-pro, I can do happily without either.

I have seen many, many superb images from the 17-40 and 70-200 L's, which are significantly cheaper and with excellent build and handling. The sample 24-70 photo's shown in this thread do nothing for me and are typical of the many, many shots I have seen from many users on many image web sites. A thread of a month or so back also featured many good but not stella shots. So, why is it so much more expensive than those two other L's which produce stella images consistently? Yes, I know they're both f4. The 70-200mm 2.8 L is superb too and still it's cheaper!

Why are such good longer zooms and good wider zooms (lets add in the 16-35 2.8 too) so much cheaper than the 24-70mm? Simple, in the old days Canon could sell the lens at big money as there was no real alternative and the pro's needed to cover that range as a priority. These days the Canon is fighting against lenses that compete in optical output but are costing just 30-35% of the price.

Fstopjojo summarises the reasons why some may still want the Canon, and good luck to them, but for many more the Tamron and Sigma will meet all their needs and save them a very large amount of money. Canon hasn't reacted to changes in the market on this lens because I guess it's mainly pro's who buy them with company cash, not people like many here who pay out their own pocket.

From what I have read it seems it is much more difficult to make a great wide angle to telephoto zoom that is sharp through out it's zoom range than it is to make a great wide to wide or tele to tele zoom, something about the # of elements/groups and how much they have to do/move.

You are correct. The 24-70L is also a f/2.8 unlike the 17-40L and one of the f/4 70-200Ls. The 70-200L f/2.8 is in the same $$$ ballpark as the 24-70L and the 16-35L is even a bit more. Considering all things, not just image quality but certainly including image quality, the Canon "L" lenses focus faster and more accurately than the 3rd party lenses and are of a higher quality build and overall performance.

I agree with Condyk in much of what he says. There's a lot of L snobbery and I just don't understand it. There are some truly epic L lenses and there are some that just don't cut it. Sigmas EX range in particular has some tremendous lenses in it yet many will dismiss them on the brand alone.

IMHO, Canon need to seriously look at some of their pricing. Here in the UK, many L prices are bordering on the damn ridiculous, the 24-70 being a case in point. I mean who can honestly say a three times premium is justifiable over the Sigma given the EX is well made as well?

Delete

Well, a lot of good points here...but I just tested the Tokina ATX Pro 28-80 and the Tamron side by side with the Canon - I mean who doesn't want to save serious coinage?

I bought the Canon. It is built great, super-quiet, super-fast, super-accurate and my shots this afternoon (technically, not composition wise) were as good as my 50 1.4 (in other words, color and sharpness were amazing). They really don't need post processing at all. The other lenses seemed pretty good too, particularly the Tokina (the build is amazing), but these other factors all weighed into the Canon's favor...oh, and I will be able to sell it for need be for almost what I paid.