Canon 24-70 f/2.8L - thoughts?

Freester

Freester

Messages
1,602
Name
Mark
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi,

A weekend in London with my crop Canon camera has made me feel I am missing a 'walkabout' lens.

Currently I work with a 10-22, 50mm and 70-200. I have always found this enough but was finding the 10-22 a little short, the 50mm a little restrictive and the 70-200 a little long.

The obvious choice is the 24-70 f/2.8L just looking at the gap in focal lengths. Opinions on other lenses (24-105?)? Don't think I'll be going full frame any time soon. Other options? Any experience on the 24-70?

Thanks in advance
 
24-70 is a cracking lens but 24 isn't always that wide as an only lens on a walk around. I ended up settling on the EF-s 17-55 having tried both the 24-70 and 24-105
 
I'm just waiting for the release of the 17-200mm f2.8L IS :D

Until then I'll stick with the 24-70, looked at the 24-105 because of the IS, but it's f4, I don't need IS and I don't want to lose f2.8 so I'll stick with that.
 
I'm on a crop body (30D) with the intention of going full frame in a year or 2, so I recently upgraded from a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 to the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L.
The quality is stunning - super sharp! I can see the improvement in clarity, colour and contrast even on the camera's screen.

Quick sample:


While I haven't sold the Tamron yet, I haven't used it since I got the Canon either. I haven't found myself missing the wider end yet, and if I need the extra width I've still got a Sigma 10-20 on hand
 
Simply, it's an absolute cracker. Some people say it isn't quite wide enough for them on a crop body but I've not had a problem with that yet and you've always got the 10-22 if you need it. Also, since I got the 24-70 I haven't used my 50 at all and it will probably be going in a batch of things "to sell" in the near future to fund some more shiny lens shaped objects.

Tom N.
 
I'm with grumpybadger, I would check out the EF-S 17-55. It is a belting lens on crop and makes a great partner to the 10-22 (I had this combo when I had my 40D). The IS and the F/2.8 make for a winning combo for low light shots without flash too.

Even if you were intending to go FF in the future, I wouldn't let this deter you from the 17-55 as (like the 10-22) they hold there value like the good L glass and are always in demand second hand. I lost virtually nothing on mine when I sold it on.
 
I have the older 28-70 2.8L version, and I think it is a cracking lens - my all-round shooter that I always have on as a rule.

Obviously the newer version goes that bit wider, so should be even more usable.

I have never regretted buying mine :D
 
This is the lens that I'm thinking of getting next so have been very interested in the feedback.
 
Thanks all for the feedback. No one has talked me out of this one yet. Maybe it's the way to go (for me at least).

Unless an affordable and light Canon 10-400 f/2.8 IS USM is on the horizon soon. LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top