Canon 24-70mm f2.8 Dunno!

I tried three copies of this lens (mail-order) until I found one that hit the mark. Once you get a good copy, is a great lens, no doubt about it.

I do think it's overpriced, but Canon can probably do this because it certainly beats the competition. In England its £900, where I think it should be more reasonably priced at at £700.

I couldn't see any similarity between the shots of the little boy and the swimming goggles shots etc and the women talking one from another lens, posted earlier. Image-quality wise, the 24-70 runs circles round that shot. I don't just want a lens thats sharp etc, I want one that can deliver on textures too.

For me the 24-70 is wonderful between 35 and 70mm, and is hardly off my camera. I'm not so keen on the wider angle shots tho'. But in any case 24-30 mm isn't wide enough on my 20d for landscape/building shots, so I'm looking for a wider lens to cover those kind of shots.

Here's one of the first shots (f/2.8 ) I took when trying this copy. Anything that can make an image of an old boat this creamy (with no editing at all) can't be bad.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

suse wrote:
I tried three copies of this lens (mail-order) until I found one that hit the mark. Once you get a good copy, is a great lens, no doubt about it.

I do think it's overpriced, but Canon can probably do this because it certainly beats the competition. In England its £900, where I think it should be more reasonably priced at at £700.

I couldn't see any similarity between the shots of the little boy and the swimming goggles shots etc and the women talking one from another lens, posted earlier. Image-quality wise, the 24-70 runs circles round that shot.

For me the 24-70 is wonderful between 35 and 70mm, and is hardly off my camera. I'm not so keen on the wider angle shots tho'. But in any case 24-30 mm isn't wide enough on my 20d for landscape/building shots, so I'm looking for a wider lens to cover those kind of shots.

Here's one of the first shots I took when trying this copy. Anything that can make an image of an old boat this creamy can't be bad.

looks good to me.

Nice boat shot. Suse, do you know was there a certain time frame that these lenses went out bad? Or is it more of a random thing?

Jule, you really do deserve a good break.

Hey Weasel, thank you for the kind words. At first I wanted to choke every customer service represented from Canon and Interfit, now I think the whole situation is funny. If you can't laugh at it eventually, you'll go to your grave an angry old coote!

I don't know about the batches, although I do wonder....

The first three copies I tried all came from one online retailer. I then gave up on them thinking it might be a bad batch, and decided to try somewhere else (a camera shop that also sells on line).....it was a keeper straight off.

I had already had a fantastic 100 macro copy from the same online retailer, so it did make me wonder whether they had just had a bad crop of 24-70s. (and I had written down the lens numbers, so they weren't sending me the same one each time!)

I think I would have to agree the canon L lens is probably superior in every way, except price unless you get one from a bad batch. I haven't used one personally; however looking at sample pics it's hard to argue the results. It is possible those who have the cash and the motivation to spend it on this lens are professional or very talented amateur photographers and have the know how to produce superior images.

This aside, I am not a professional and try to pick and choose what I spend my money on. I don't use this focal length very much. I shoot wildlife and sports predominately. I will most likely go for one of the 3rd party lenses; Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina. Is anybody aware of any reviews or comparisons of these companies' offerings in this focal range? Does anybody have any personal experience?

I have a lead on a used Sigma 28-70 2.8 EX DF(?) for cheap. Is this the Sigma lens mentioned earlier in the thread or is there a Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX that is better?

Any info or advice would be very much appreciated.

The dg macro version is the newest version of Sigma's midrange zoom. It seems to be better than the older version.

I've handled and used all three. Personal choice and either will satisfy depending on your own priorities. For me the Canon is too big and has a massive hood too. The Sigma and Tamron are both nice buys and optical quality is up there. the Tamron is smaller and lighter and less obvious. The Sigma is mid way between the other two in size and weight, tho' it doesn't have a silly hood so much less obtrusive. It has fast AF but noisier than the other two. The Canon has silent and fast AF, but wasn't important to me at the price premium. I seems to be for others.

As mentioned, the Sigma to buy is the EX DG Macro. The others will not have the same resale value should you decide to sell. I am very happy with mine and I was also happy with the Tamron. The 4mm on the wide end worked for me.

Fstopjojo has done some excellent tests on these lenses. Do a search via Google for his name.

I got my replacement 24-70 2.8 today, I am happy. I now realize that even my closeups were not as clear as they could have been with my original 24-70. Definately a bad lens. I will now stand behind the Canon 24-70.

Jule