Canon 24-70mm L
- Thread starter romeo21
- Start date
cuthbert
Pugh Pugh Barney McGrew Me Dibble and Grubb
- Messages
- 2,043
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
the lens is fairly short so using the good old 1 over focal length rule means i can handhold it at 1/70 and get a sharp shot at it's longest. in reality i can handhold it at 1/50 or a wee bit slower.
for me personally,IS makes no difference - i wouldn't really want to take a photo with a shutter speed slower than that due to subject movement anyway.
i see you've got a crop camera, maybe for you the 17-55 2.8 IS is a better choice as the 24-70 on a crop body is sort of in no mans land - not very wide and maybe a bit too long. the 17-55 has almost the same field of view on your camera as the 24-70 does on a fullframe body.
but as far as the lens itself goes, very sharp, great colour/contrast, fast focussing etc etc. basically, it's a great lens that i wouldn't be without.
but personally i don't see the point of IS on short lenses (for what i shoot anyway).
for me personally,IS makes no difference - i wouldn't really want to take a photo with a shutter speed slower than that due to subject movement anyway.
i see you've got a crop camera, maybe for you the 17-55 2.8 IS is a better choice as the 24-70 on a crop body is sort of in no mans land - not very wide and maybe a bit too long. the 17-55 has almost the same field of view on your camera as the 24-70 does on a fullframe body.
but as far as the lens itself goes, very sharp, great colour/contrast, fast focussing etc etc. basically, it's a great lens that i wouldn't be without.
but personally i don't see the point of IS on short lenses (for what i shoot anyway).
Last edited:
Thanks for your reply, i already have a 17-55mm and iv also got a 70-200mm f4
although i like the focal lenth off the 17-55 i'm not impressed with the picture quility, the 70-200 f4 is an amazing lens, 8 out off 10 pic i take with it is very sharp and the colours are just amazing!!! i find that i have to do minimal PP on the pictures i take
I'm just looking for a lens that will give me the same picture quility as my 70-200mm
although i like the focal lenth off the 17-55 i'm not impressed with the picture quility, the 70-200 f4 is an amazing lens, 8 out off 10 pic i take with it is very sharp and the colours are just amazing!!! i find that i have to do minimal PP on the pictures i take
I'm just looking for a lens that will give me the same picture quility as my 70-200mm
cuthbert
Pugh Pugh Barney McGrew Me Dibble and Grubb
- Messages
- 2,043
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- Yes
i can't comment on the picture quality of the 17-55 although many people on the forum claim it's very, very good.
now it could be that your 17-55 does have a minor front/back focus problem or it's possible that you are comparing a f2.8 lens with f4, that later of which gives you more depth of field and so it's going to mean more shots are nailed.
i think that you should do some test to confirm whether your 17-55 has a problem.
however, when i look at the crops on the digital picture, it seems that the 17-55 is at it weakest optically at the wide end:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
it's actually noticeably softer the corners wide open in the corners and the 24-70 gives better performance, but the 24-70 on your camera won't give an identical field of view so it's hard to say that the 24-70 would be the best move for you.
but as an aside i do have the 70-200 2.8 and the 24-70 2.8 is about equal to it in terms of sharpness/colour/contrast etc, the 24-70 is an excellent lens optically.
now it could be that your 17-55 does have a minor front/back focus problem or it's possible that you are comparing a f2.8 lens with f4, that later of which gives you more depth of field and so it's going to mean more shots are nailed.
i think that you should do some test to confirm whether your 17-55 has a problem.
however, when i look at the crops on the digital picture, it seems that the 17-55 is at it weakest optically at the wide end:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=474&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
it's actually noticeably softer the corners wide open in the corners and the 24-70 gives better performance, but the 24-70 on your camera won't give an identical field of view so it's hard to say that the 24-70 would be the best move for you.
but as an aside i do have the 70-200 2.8 and the 24-70 2.8 is about equal to it in terms of sharpness/colour/contrast etc, the 24-70 is an excellent lens optically.
- Messages
- 11,116
- Name
- And
- Edit My Images
- No
Have you thought about the Canon 24-105 IS lens, is F4 (same as your 70-200) not 2.8 but has IS and gives a little longer focal range, nicely crossing over the 70-200 ??
There are numerous threads about the 24-105 and 24-70 and I think it is reasonably even split over the threads of which people go for.
Good luck with your search ...
- Messages
- 517
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Like cuthbert I really don't see the need for IS in what I shoot, or the need for it at all really. In fact none of the lenses I own have it. I like the 24-70 on FF and crop, yes it is a little long on the crop for a walkaround but it produces wonderful images.
- Messages
- 9,438
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, I agree.
That's 24-70 on full frame vs 17-55 on crop.
This: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-S-15-85mm-f-3.5-5.6-IS-USM-Lens-Comparisons.aspx is a really good real world comparison of the Canon lenses for EF-S format. Does your 17-55 tie up with that?