Canon 24-70mm 2.8...?

Tyler138

Tyler138

Messages
1,320
Name
Alex Tyler
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok so atm i am looking at grabbing a mid range zoom along the lines of 24-70mm as this is what i am missing from my current lenses.

I have been looking at grabbing the Canon 24-70mm 2.8 second hand as i have heard great stuff about it.

Is there any other lenses i should consider for this focal range..? Thinking of grabbing a Sigma second hand and saving money for other stuff later on but will i still crave the Canon version..? Also with the Sigma's i have heard a lot of back/forward focusing and soft copies. Know i no this can be people not getting a good copy that goes with there body or the lack of knowledge with DoF etc... so anyone have anything good to say about the Siggy 24-70mm 2.8, whats the focusing speed like on it..?

Also is there any other makes i should consider for this focal length..?

Cheers,

Tyler
 
Whilst not in that exact range the EF-s 17-55 f2.8 IS, is often recommended for a crop over the 24-70.
 
AndyB1976 said:
Whilst not in that exact range the EF-s 17-55 f2.8 IS, is often recommended for a crop over the 24-70.
Click to expand...

Yeh, i did consider that but i think i would rather the extra zoom. I currently have a 10-22mm 50mm 1.4 and the 70-200mm f4 so i think it ending at 55mm, especially with the 50mm, would leave a bit of a gap and as i shoot sport i think i would notice it to much.
 
I've got the 24-70 on my full frame camera, and I love the lens. So sharp, fast and well built. Heavy, but I like that. Obviously expensive though, but I've not regretted the purchase.
 
Yeah I know what you mean. I also have the 10-22 and have the 70-200 on the buy list yet can't decide between the 17-55 and 24-70.

24-70 wins on build quality yet the 17-55 seems to outperform it optically and has the preferred width as a walkabout lens, benefits from IS and is cheaper.
 
AndyB1976 said:
Yeah I know what you mean. I also have the 10-22 and have the 70-200 on the buy list yet can't decide between the 17-55 and 24-70.

24-70 wins on build quality yet the 17-55 seems to outperform it optically and has the preferred width as a walkabout lens, benefits from IS and is cheaper.
Click to expand...

Gnerally not to bothered about the IS at those focal lengths as i will have the shutter fast anyway as i do sports but it would be nice for when i shoot video :thinking:
 
Here is a Flickr discussion on it (one of many I should say)

http://www.flickr.com/groups/canon_17-55mm/discuss/72157600052758339/

Test image on that link
4543725315_e7df509fa3_o.jpg
 
FWIW, I changed from the 17-55 to the 24-70 and don't regret it.

Main reasons were weather sealing and better build quality. The 17-55's build quality isn't shoddy but isn't very impressive for what it costs and the 24-70 is in a different league.

Was concerned about losing IS but can't say it's really bothered me at all. Only other thing I'd say is that I wouldn't have done it had I not had the 10-22 to cover the wide end as 24mm isn't wide enough on a crop a lot of the time.
 
Vertigo1 said:
FWIW, I changed from the 17-55 to the 24-70 and don't regret it.

Main reasons were weather sealing and better build quality. The 17-55's build quality isn't shoddy but isn't very impressive for what it costs and the 24-70 is in a different league.

Was concerned about losing IS but can't say it's really bothered me at all. Only other thing I'd say is that I wouldn't have done it had I not had the 10-22 to cover the wide end as 24mm isn't wide enough on a crop a lot of the time.
Click to expand...

There is talk of IS being incuded in an updated 24-70 for release with the new FF bodies but looking back the same talk seems to have been around for years but Nikon have updated theres recently so perhaps Canon will finally follow suit?

As far as third party lenses go I'm guessing using the sweet spot will do something to narrow the gap between them and the Canon with reguards to edge sharpness.
 
I've found the 24-70mm perfectly usable at 2.8, certainly better than the Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 I used to have.

It's a great day to day lens, doesn't do anything amazing but is solid throughout the range.

I have issues with 'test' image shots though. They're fine assuming you're shooting baseballs on top of tripods in shop lighting all day long but, I'm guessing, you're not. That first 24-70mm shot looks out of focus it's so soft (and the lens isn't soft in my experience).

The only alternative I can think of is the 24-105mm L IS (which I've found a bit softer wide open and towards the 105mm end). On the plus side though the IS is great for handheld video.
 
My favourite lens.

maz3sq.jpg


not even sharpened for web (taken at 2.8)
 
Mine needs micro-adjusting bad, I guessed that it was about -10 out and that sorted it to some extent. Still needs doing properly though; however when it does nail focus its an amazing lens.

I preferred it over the 17 - 55 on my 7D, just feels so much better. It not being wide enough is lies imo, if im going to shoot wide im REALLY going to shoot wide.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top