What is the use of the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L?

Rooster

Rooster

Messages
683
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok, so I got the 24-70 meaning to replace my 24-105 f/4 L. First impressions - lovely lens, sharp, nice contrast, fast. Good one.

However I can't find enough use for it to justify keeping it. As a walkabout lens it lacks focal range and it's very heavy. I tried it for portraits and at 70mm on full frame it subtly distorts the face so not for me as a portrait lens. So what is it for? It's currently gathering dust while the 24-105 lives in my camera bag.

Pros - sharp, fast
Cons - expensive, heavy, lacks focal range
 
Its not even that sharp imo, or at least mine isnt. Its pretty much my go to lens at the moment though. Hoping to pick up at 24/35 prime and fix this however...
 
Rooster said:
Ok, so I got the 24-70 meaning to replace my 24-105 f/4 L. First impressions - lovely lens, sharp, nice contrast, fast. Good one.

However I can't find enough use for it to justify keeping it. As a walkabout lens it lacks focal range and it's very heavy. I tried it for portraits and at 70mm on full frame it subtly distorts the face so not for me as a portrait lens. So what is it for? It's currently gathering dust while the 24-105 lives in my camera bag.

Pros - sharp, fast
Cons - expensive, heavy, lacks focal range
Click to expand...

Hi John

Can't help you directly on this one, unfortunately, but you might be helping me make a decision - I'm looking to get one of these 2 in a couple of months and can't make my mind up.

You list the pros and cons of the 24-70, how does it match up to your 24-105 which you seem to be using more ???

Thanks for any advice...
 
Rooster said:
I tried it for portraits and at 70mm on full frame it subtly distorts the face so not for me as a portrait lens.
Click to expand...
Eh? The 24-70 has very little distortion at 70mm. Surely not enough to be noticeable on an irregular subject such as a face. And no more distortion than the 24-105 either....
 
It's a stop faster, which means....

- More accurate focusing;
- Faster focusing (possibly);
- Brighter viewfinder image;
- Shoot at half the ISO or twice the shutter speed;
- Shallower DOF if that's the bag you're into;
- Getting a usable shot in poor lighting vs one that fails to meet IQ goals (e.g. wedding or sports).

If you want more length that's why there are a whole bunch of 70-200 and 70-300 options available to take over the heavy lifting. There are plenty of primes too - 85/1.8, 100/2, 100/2.8 macro, 135/2. Some people would prefer the option to maintain f/2.8 (or faster) for their shooting needs/style while others are willing to sacrifice speed for a larger zoom range or lower price. I prefer the f/2.8 option. The only lens I have in regular use slower than f/2.8 is my 100-400. Everything else is f/2.8 and faster.

Why would you choose to shoot at 70mm for headshots and tighter on full frame? I'd be at about double that focal length ideally, maybe even 200mm. Just because it isn't the best choice for tight portraits does not mean the lens serves no purpose. Pick the right tool for the job. Don't complain that the wrong tool is not as good. Quelle surprise!
 
I love mine :) On my 5D it was recently the perfect holiday lens, fast, accurate, sharp, wide enough, long enough and just about perfect for "architectural" shots. Since then I've taken close up flowers and mid range garden sculpture, shots of my moggy indoors at stupid Isos because its 2.8 and tbh I cant fault it as a lens.
Conversley for the same money last year I bought a 70/200 F4 IS L and its hardley been used since, but I wouldnt call that a "bad" lens, just not particularly useful for what I wanted, which was my fault, not even when coupled to the 1.4 TC I bought to lengthen it when used on a crop body. Oddly enough though I'm now finding it more usefull on the FF when taking shots of said moggy at longer distances so it too is becoming more useful but that is because my "needs" have changed. Maybe you bought the wrong lens too.

Matt
 
I rarely use mine now for most of the reasons you mention. I've an 85mm which is better for portraits. I've a 17-40 which I pick up when I need wide-angle shots as 24 isn't always quite wide enough. And I've a 50/1.4 which is even faster than the 24-70 when dof or low light issues matter.

But having said all that, if I don't know exactly what lens I'll need and cannot take my entire kit along, it is the lens I would reach for. Lovely and sharp, good focus performance and a decent bokeh. It is a luxury keeping such an expensive lens for such rare occasions but I wouldn't be without it.
 
I love this lens. Don't know how you can say its no good for portraiture, it is, and has lovely bokeh. Great for model shoots in general. SO SHARP.
 
i had the same dilema as the OP.

Didn't have anything against the lens but it never did anything for me and the weight was too much.

Sold it, bought a 35mm 1.4L and a 135 f/2 and together with my 85mm i never regretted it
 
When switching back to a 5D2 recently I tried the 24-70 alongside the 24-105 and found that the extra reach, lower weight and stabilisation of the 24-105 outweighed the extra stop of the 24-70. I didn't find the 24-70 to be noticeably sharper (your mileage may vary). 24-105 plus 135mm F2L - for portraits and bokehlicious moments - is the ideal combo for me.
 
Last edited:
Oops. Sorry accidentally quoted met own post. Ignore me, everyone else does.
 
Last edited:
Wouldn't it be nice if Canon read the contents of this thread...

Personally, I'd like 'em to make a 24-105mm F2.8 L IS USM ;)
 
I love this lens, I'd rather have the benefits of f2.8 as a lot of what I shoot is moving so IS is pretty much redundant and f4 can be too slow in those extreme conditions. The weight of it's never bothered me either.

It's all 'tool for the job' stuff, if you find your 24-105 better for what you do than the 24-70 then keep it and sell the other on to someone for whom it's the tool they want.
 
StewartR said:
Eh? The 24-70 has very little distortion at 70mm. Surely not enough to be noticeable on an irregular subject such as a face. And no more distortion than the 24-105 either....
Rooster said:
I tried it for portraits and at 70mm on full frame it subtly distorts the face so not for me as a portrait lens.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I suspect that the OP is yet another of those unaware that perspective and apparent distortion is controlled by the camera to subject distance rather than the focal length of the lens.
 
I have a rental one here and tbh, I wouldn't buy one now, but I think I'm just a fan of prime lenses
 
i love mine and it does what i need it too. i can see how it would fail others though. different togs need different tools i suppose.
 
andyred said:
Hi John

Can't help you directly on this one, unfortunately, but you might be helping me make a decision - I'm looking to get one of these 2 in a couple of months and can't make my mind up.

You list the pros and cons of the 24-70, how does it match up to your 24-105 which you seem to be using more ???

Thanks for any advice...
Click to expand...

I would say the 24-70 is marginally better in terms of sharpness and contrast. Howver the versatility of the 24-105 makes it the winner in my book. And if you want more sharpness and contrast then you can add as much as you like in Photoshop. If you really need f/2.8 then go for it otherwise the 24-105 has IS to make up for the lack of speed.
 
Bear in mind the 24-105 distorts more at the wide end.
 
I loved my 24-70 on my old 1D3, it was practically glued to the camera! I've changed bodies around a lot since then and sold the 24-70, I'm now using primes a lot more and don't really have the need for an expensive standard zoom that I wouldn't use heavily. I've been thinking more of the 24-105 for it's versatility and I have primes for DoF etc. I just can't get my head around f4 though...! I'll probably end up getting the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 as I'd be far more comfortable have a less expensive lens like that sat in the camera bag for the vast majority of the time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top