Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L

I have the 24-70 and its my fav walkabout lens... has the perfect zoom i like on my camera and the quick focus and ultra sharp focus is something i've grown to love on all my lenses.

Why don't you trial it for a weekend and see if you feel comfortable with it. Its not light but the quality outweighs that slight issue.
 
I don't mind about the weight, it's more the image quality I'm worried about. On Amazon, there's a few people said that the images are very soft around the edges. Not sure if that's due to the lens, or the photographer?

Have you used it in many low light conditions? I'm after using it for gig photography, and automobile stuff at first, so I need something with low f numbers to pull it off.

I've had a go of it on his 40D, and I quite like it. Don't think there'll be much difference on my 400D, apart from the camera itself.
 
If you don't intend to go full frame in the near future, if I was in your shoes I'd be buying the 17-55 f2.8 IS. To me it's a no brainer. When I had the lens I was confident I'd get sharp shots at around 1/30.
 
The 24-70 is a cracking lens, sharp wide open, very sharp one stop down. It should be ok for gig work as long as you're not too close the band. Auto stuff I'm guessing you'll have more freedom to get further away otherwise you might find it's not wide enough on a crop body.
 
pxl8 said:
The 24-70 is a cracking lens, sharp wide open, very sharp one stop down ....... you might find it's not wide enough on a crop body.
Click to expand...
I agree. The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS might be better for a crop body; the wide end of the range is arguably more convenient, the image quality is similar, and it has the benefit of IS if you want to shoot in really low light situations (1/3rd second hand-held, anyone?). The only real downside to the 17-55 is that the build quality isn't in the same league as the 24-70L.
 
Consider the 24-105 also, they are similar in quality (24-105 only f4 but with IS).

Personally i sold the 24-105 to get a 24-70 as i didnt use the IS much and would prefer the f2.8.
 
I had a similar deliberation last year. I love L glass and wanted more of it. Settled on a 17-55 EF-S instead (I know it's not L glass!!). What a fantastic lens - Glad now that I made th choice I did. Not sure that the others would have been wide enough on a crop body. Also, it's f2.8 all the way (y)
 
The 24-70 is a great lens, as has already been said. Have you already shot some gigs? If so, do you know what the lighting is likely to be like at the venues? It can range from acceptable through to positively coal-cellar like. It might even be the case that the f/2.8 aperture is not enough. I shot a small gig recently, where, at f/1.2 and ISO 3200, was only getting 1/40 shutter speed.

It may end up that the 50mm is better for the gig shots and foot zoom is the order of the day.

I'd still say get the 24-70 anyway.:)
 
The 24-70L is a great lens, there is no doubt, but if the EF-S 17-55 could fit on my 5D then I'd be hard pressed to choose between them.
 
I love this lens and it is the only zoom I use out of the 4 that I have, £600 is a nice price if its a good copy.
 
buy it you wont regret it, the build is fantastic, focus is so fast and silent too. I would love a wider end lens but i wouldnt swop the 24-70 for one.
 
I love mine but I'm going to need something a little wider and the IS will really help me too. I'm selling mine for £600 too and it's a good copy. (not trying to sell you mine, just saying that £600 is a fair price I think).

I will be disappointed about going from the L to the EF-S; the 24-70L feels sooooo good! :woot:
 
I really want a 24-70mm L too. I have considered the 17-55mm 2.8 IS but given the cost of it compared to the 'L', I'm sorely tempted to pay extra for the better build and EF mount (as I will probably go FF at some point).

One or two reviews said that although the sharpness of the 17-55 is 'L' standard, the colour and contrast are not quite as good. Don't know how noticeable it is though.
 
walls said:
If you don't intend to go full frame in the near future, if I was in your shoes I'd be buying the 17-55 f2.8 IS. To me it's a no brainer. When I had the lens I was confident I'd get sharp shots at around 1/30.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I'll be going to full frame eventually when I get some work in, or some cash, but I want to upgrade my glass first, ready for the full frame.

Jayst84 said:
It's a very very nice lens, I've not noticed any real problems with mine as yet. It's sharp, good colour, contrast, etc. and focus is pretty quick.

That said, I don't like it on my 400D, not sure why. The field of view just feels a bit odd. That's probably just me though.
Click to expand...

Awesome. :)

pxl8 said:
The 24-70 is a cracking lens, sharp wide open, very sharp one stop down. It should be ok for gig work as long as you're not too close the band. Auto stuff I'm guessing you'll have more freedom to get further away otherwise you might find it's not wide enough on a crop body.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info!

cosmix3 said:
I have the 24 -70 it is a great lens, her is a link to some shots taken in a dark reptile house with it.

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=77703

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll check it out.

mr_pants said:
The 24-70 is a great lens, as has already been said. Have you already shot some gigs? If so, do you know what the lighting is likely to be like at the venues? It can range from acceptable through to positively coal-cellar like. It might even be the case that the f/2.8 aperture is not enough. I shot a small gig recently, where, at f/1.2 and ISO 3200, was only getting 1/40 shutter speed.

It may end up that the 50mm is better for the gig shots and foot zoom is the order of the day.

I'd still say get the 24-70 anyway.:)
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've done a few gigs, and I need a zoom, tbh. I have the nifty fifty, and that's fantastic for gigs, apart from it's too close sometimes, and othertimes too far away. I shot a gig on Friday, and I was behind the stage, and there was a lot of times that I wanted a wider angle, but couldn't step back any further, so I was stumped!

But either way, I'd take both lenses, just to be sure I can get the shots that I want/need.
 
Matt T said:
Consider the 24-105 also, they are similar in quality (24-105 only f4 but with IS).

Personally i sold the 24-105 to get a 24-70 as i didnt use the IS much and would prefer the f2.8.
Click to expand...

I did exactly the same, Not tried it yet, Hope i don`t regret it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top