Canon 24-70mm f2.8 Dunno!

Well said.

Just bought the Canon.
I've tested sigma, tamron, and tokina (all of them from at least 3 different stores), and the quality from the Canon is miles away...
If you can afford it, go for the canon

this canon is 90% on my camera, and its best equipment overall. whether its worth the 1,000 is like any decision to get best quality of anything.

If you can afford it, keep it.

try this review -

http://www.fredmiranda​.com …ct=5&sort=7&cat​=27&page=1

Hmmm, interesting to say the least.

I've been doing a lot of photojournalistic style wedding shooting with the 24-70 lens as well as food and interiors. In my opinion this lens is very sharp, great colors and contrast, distortion is minimal and it's sharp at the wide end as well as the long end.
Ai-servo tracking is extremely fast and accurate. Your getting sharpness wide open or at f4 equal to mid-priced consumer zooms stopped down to f8 or f11.

People who say this lens isn't sharp I think either have defective copies, slightly miscalibrated cameras, overly high expectations or middling skills ( the best lens in the world can't save a mediocre eye )

I also have the 35 1.4, 85 1.2 and had the 70-200 2.8 L IS, the 24-70 can definitely hang in this crowd. It's no one's ugly sister that's for sure.

Focus is fast and accurate, build quality is stellar, stopped down to f4 it's as sharp as most of Canon's prime lenses.

Your also paying for intagibles like the best build quality, weatherproofing, longevity, future assurance of compatibility and higher resale value.

If your a weekend or advanced amateur shooter then seriously get the Tamron or Sigma, optical quality is good and build quality is satisfactory, the extras you get for casual shooting simply aren't worth it.

But if your using your lenses to make a living then do yourself a favor and splurge extra for the 24-70, you cannot go wrong.

What, 24-70L not sharp? Come on guys this lense is a stellar performer.

I got this lense couple of days ago and I have to say it's my best lense (zoom) so far.
AF is very accurate and fast, even at low light.
Pix are sharp and need very little or none prosessing - colors are great and contrasty.
My previous lense was 17-40L but I have to addmit that this new one is sharper and suites better for my shooting habits.


Regards
Pentti

Hi, I am new to the forum and was hoping I could get guidence, advice, or reassurance that I am not going crazy.
In November I purchased the Canon 20d, Canon 24-70 2.8 and 16-70 2.8. I had a severe backfocus issue at 5 feet or further. I am shooting Interfit 300 strobes in studio (needless to say, interfit had a bad run of strobes that would blow up, took me 5 tries to get good lights). I am shooting at 125, 4.5 raw image with custom white balance. Photos are fabulous otherwise.
Canon CPS borrowed me their 20d and their 28-70 2.8 lense. What a breath of fresh air to see sharp images at the 5-6 foot distance, I knew it had to be possible. I sent my lenses and camera in for calibration and firmware update. Recieved all items back and I saw no difference. Sent my camera and lenses in a second time to see if it was an autofocus issue. They tested adjusted and sent all items back. Still not clear focusing on the 24-70 2.8 lens at 5 feet or farther.Canon CPS sent me their 10d and 28-70 so I could send the camera in a 3rd time. The 10d had a more severe focus issue then my camera. I returned the 10d and Canon CPS sent another 20d and 28-70 2.8 lens. Nice clear photos at the further distance. Sent my equipment in a 3rd time. Recieved them back Monday, August 15th, shot 3 sessions yesterday. Focusing at the further distance SUCKS! I am sending John at Canon Repair an unedited version of my 3 sessions to show him that this lens and camera is not focusing properly. In the midst of all of this I purchased a used Canon 10d for a back up. Tried it with my lens and it was horribly blurry. I resold it.
Is it the 24-70 2.8 lens that I spent way to much for?
I need a back up camera and I am now looking to possibly invest in a Nikon D70. Please advise or console.

For the price of the Tamron.. I don't see why you would get the canon!?!?

Commandment #1: Thou shalt not criticise Canon L series You're all heretics and you're gonna burn!

There are valid reasons beyond simple image quality and these have been discussed several times over the last several weeks ... to the point of abject boredom in my case. It helps people to know there are alternatives and what the positive and negative elements might be in making a choice. There is no right answer, only personal choice. As I said before, if my income depended on it and/or I was in a war zone I would probably buy the Canon. As neither apply, I am very happy to save cash and don't feel in any way deprived. Others may disagree with my priorities when applied to them ... and they're right too

i directed my comment at the poster.. he obviously is only looking at the image quality...

One concern that's always in the back of my mind is future compatability. As many owners of certain third party lenses have learned, they won't always work on the latest Canon bodies. Sigma was re-chipping some of their lenses to make them compatible, but even that is a pain in the neck.

So far, I'm not aware of any EF lenses that can't 't work on any EOS body.

well as it was metioned over and over, I don't much to add to this topic. it is our choises which one to buy Canon, Tamron or SIgma ~24-70 range. My personal experience and it is depend in situations where lense where used. Canon has lots of great feautures that other don't, as far as images quality, may be Sigma is sharper, but in really quiet church wedding, no flash I would prefer use Canon in other situation where flash allowed and lots of noice I would use Sigma 24-70 (no experience with Tamron)
there is nothing perfect, and if want, we can find problem in any camera or lens IMHO

I had one for about 3 months and wasn't impressed at all. I got a 24-85 and found it to be a better lens in all respects. seems crazy to me that a lens so much cheaper could at least match if not surpass the L series lens.......dunno....
I think the 24-85 is a sleeper and much overlooked lens....don

You can't be serious - or can You - or was that weight too much for street shooting?

Pentti

p.s. I saw few weeks ago in TV (Finland) a documentary of a street shooter. He had very hmmm peculiar way to lurk his targets and having merely a snap'n'shoot camera of small SLR with small wide angle. I might think that 24-70 isn't ok for "all" street shooting.