24-70 2.8 L Question

I'm pretty close to purchasing a Canon 24-70 2.8 but was wondering if there are better alternatives? I've considered the 24-105 but the (reputedly) slight edge in IQ and 2.8 give the 24-70 the edge for me. I'm looking for the best walk-around; I am looking for IQ, AF speed & accuracy & bokeh. Any thoughts?

24 isn't wide enough on a crop, 17-55 is the answer.

Oh sorry forget to add that I have a 10-22mm so not worried about the 24-70 not being wide enough. Also, from reviews I've read it seems that there are more reviewers that receive "soft" copies of this lens than other Canon lens or are those reviews just jumping out at me.

I'm the one who's sorry, I should have checked your sig.

24-70 is an excellent lens, if a bit large... particularly the lens hood. Serves well as a walk-around lens. Just get it, enjoy it and if you have any issues rest assured that Canon or the store you purchase from will correct any problems.

It's possible that the reason you see some softness "issues" reported about the lens is that there are so many sold to relatively demanding pros. It's a pretty common lens to find in pros' camera bags. So, what I'm saying is that if a lot are sold, and those are often to demanding buyers, I think it more likely that there will be some reports of QC problems.

24-70 was my only lens on a crop camera for years. Yes, it would be nice if it was a little wider, but I'd be sad if it lost any reach--that's one of the reasons the 17-55 never interested me. I have both the 24-70 and the 24-105 and honestly, I don't see a difference in the two for most things. The 24-70 MAY have a bit better creaminess to the bokeh, but I'm really pleased with the 24-105. You can't go wrong with either of these, though the 24-70 really is a pretty big lens with a REALLY BIG hood.

I shoot with 1.6x bodies and I own both the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the 24-70mm f/2.8L lenses. Both of these are excellent lenses. I have an older copy of the 24-70L. I have noticed that there seems to have been more complaints about this lens in the last several years than when I purchased it. All reports were, at that time, glowing regarding the 24-70L.

As I said, both my 24-70L and my 17-55mm IS lenses are excellent but, I tend to use them in two different ways. However, I seriously doubt that in real-life, day-to-day use; you will notice any great difference in the image quality between these two great lenses in the final resulting image.

I first owned the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens and used this lens in combination with 70-200mm f/4L IS and Tokina 12-24mm f/4 ATX lenses. I would use this combination with at least two 1.6x cameras and sometimes carry a third camera with lens mounted. I absolutely hate to switch lenses during shooting and since I cut my teeth on film cameras with prime lenses, using multiple camera bodies is second nature for me.

The three lens system gave me an unbroken focal range of 12-200mm and excellent IQ and autofocus capability throughout the range. It was, however a fairly heavy kit to carry and, even if dispensed with the third camera. The 24-70L upon which I based this kit is a pretty big and heavy lens. I never considered an extreme range zoom such as 18-200mm since these zooms do not provide the image quality I demand, are slower in auto-focus and will have a considerably slower maximum f/stop.

I wanted to cut down the weight of my system for travel purposes and decided that the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens might just about cover both the 24-70L and 12-24mm lenses. Obviously, I would not be as wide as with a 12mm focal length but, I thought that I could make do with 17mm as my wide side since I am not a great fan of UWA shooting. When I shot film, 28mm was the widest that I wanted or even needed.

The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lens combination has become my go-to travel and general purpose photo combination.

1. I have a very decent focal range and don’t miss the gap between 55mm and 70mm.

2. I have a constant f/2.8 aperture and IS capability in my mid-range zoom. This provides me with a very good low light capability.

3. The two lens/two camera combination is relatively light weight. At least in comparison to the 3 camera and 3 lens combination based on the 24-70L.

However, I like my 24-70L as my main studio lens because:

1. The extra weight doesn‘t bother me because I am not carrying it around for 8-10 hours.

2. The 24mm wide side is not constricting since my studio is rather large and I zoom with my feet.

3. The lack of IS is no problem since I always shoot with studio flash.

4. I like the 70mm long end because IMO it is better for head and shoulder portraits than 55mm.

5. The image ratio I can achieve with the 24-70L is larger than with the 17-55mm and therefore, I can shoot some close up shots without resorting to a macro lens.

That all said; I bought the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens while I owned the 24-70mm f/2.8L and I like using these two lenses for their particular strengths. However, if I had purchased the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens first, instead of the other way around, I seriously doubt if I would have bought the 24-70L.

newhannibal wrote in post #10849192
Oh sorry forget to add that I have a 10-22mm so not worried about the 24-70 not being wide enough. Also, from reviews I've read it seems that there are more reviewers that receive "soft" copies of this lens than other Canon lens or are those reviews just jumping out at me.

I've done the 10-22/24-70 pairing, but honestly, if I had to do it over I'd go for the 17-55 instead. Reason being I found I was doing a lot of lens swapping with those two lenses.

But I suppose it depends on what you are using it for or if you don't mind lens swapping.

jb1911 wrote in post #10849186
24 isn't wide enough on a crop

This is just non sense.

I'll tell you the 17-55 is too wide and has not enough reach...makes sens eh ?

pitabread wrote in post #10849391
I've done the 10-22/24-70 pairing, but honestly, if I had to do it over I'd go for the 17-55 instead. Reason being I found I was doing a lot of lens swapping with those two lenses.

But I suppose it depends on what you are using it for or if you don't mind lens swapping.

This is the reason I had the 17-55 when I was on a crop body...lens changes Hard to do when out with the family (consisting of small children).

wask_ wrote in post #10849449
This is just non sense.

I'll tell you the 17-55 is too wide and has not enough reach...makes sens eh ?

You could tell me that, but you'd be in the minority. He asked for our opinions and I gave mine.

newhannibal wrote in post #10849192
Oh sorry forget to add that I have a 10-22mm so not worried about the 24-70 not being wide enough. Also, from reviews I've read it seems that there are more reviewers that receive "soft" copies of this lens than other Canon lens or are those reviews just jumping out at me.

the 10-22 doesn't help you when you have the 24-70L on the camera. 17mm is a better break for most, which makes the 17-55 a far more useful range for most.

ed rader

I just think it depends on what you shoot the most, if you need the wideness or IS then the 17-55 would be right choice. If you want some more reach, 24-70 or 24-105. Then you can see if you want the 2.8 or IS.

newhannibal wrote in post #10849192
Oh sorry forget to add that I have a 10-22mm so not worried about the 24-70 not being wide enough. Also, from reviews I've read it seems that there are more reviewers that receive "soft" copies of this lens than other Canon lens or are those reviews just jumping out at me.

The 17-55 is the sharpest walkaround zoom Canon makes....
The IS is great to have (yes, even at such short FL's)
The FOV...27-88mm (FF equiv) is perfect (for me anyways)
The FOV of the Brick 38-112 (on a 1.6 crop) just isn't right (again, for me) Although, the Brick is one of my favorite lenses, just not on a 1.6 crop

The 24-70's great. I think it's the right choice. 24-105 isn't fast enough. I don't like the 17-55's build quality and lack of weather sealing. The 24-70 has great IQ. It is really sharp. I have no had a problem with mine yet. The chance of getting a bad copy is most likely less than the forum makes it seem like.