Is the 24-70 L the bets standard zoom?

J

joescrivens

Suspended / Banned
Messages
15,052
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
If I ended up going full frame to a 5d mk 2 is the 24-70 l kit lens the bet standard zoom you can get for it? Or should I buy body only and something else?
 
its a cracking lens, but a bit useless at 24mm due to corner softness and distortion. but it is probably the best in those focal lengths. ive never tried the 24-105 but it may be worth looking at if f2.8 is a must for you.
 
joescrivens said:
If I ended up going full frame to a 5d mk 2 is the 24-70 l kit lens the bet standard zoom you can get for it? Or should I buy body only and something else?
Click to expand...

I got the 24-105 with my 5D2, I know it's not quite up to the 24-70, but it's far cheaper. I'm sure canon would have not bundled it with the 5D2 if it was not that great either. Also there have been rumours of a new 24-70 With IS.
 
I don't need the range of the 24-105, I have the 70-200 now. I'm looking for the best image quality
 
joescrivens said:
I don't need the range of the 24-105, I have the 70-200 now. I'm looking for the best image quality
Click to expand...

Well, in that case, you need this:

17598776.jpg
 
joescrivens said:
I don't need the range of the 24-105, I have the 70-200 now. I'm looking for the best image quality
Click to expand...

There's no harm in a little bit of overlap.

The 24-105 suffers from barrel distortion at the wide end, and the horizon can look a bit wobbly in other areas as well.

But if you have Lightroom 3, that can be corrected very quickly.

i have no experience of the 24-70 but I believe it's quite heavy.
 
If you want a canon lens and not Sigma etc and you must have a zoom, then in that range the 24-70 must be the choice, that is if money is not an issue
 
The 24-105L is a better bet.

Reason being, whilst a lot of folks rave about the 24-70 for it's 2.8 aperture it's heavier, not as sharp (I've had 2 of them) and the 5D mark 2 has superb high ISO performance as opposed to those that use it on a crop camera.

You'll find that due to the sensor of the 5D2 that you'll need to stop the 2.8 down to 4.0 anyway because if you don't take a picture of, say, a couple at a wedding dead on then one will end up out of focus.

So may as well save yourself a few hundred quid at the same time.
 
hsuffyan said:
but a bit useless at 24mm due to corner softness and distortion.
Click to expand...

Disagree completely. The 24/70 is far from useless at 24mm, in fact I find it to be absolutely fine! It's not soft, not even at f2.8 (at least my copy isn't) and the distortion is easily fixed in ACR or Lightroom.
 
Trixster said:
Disagree completely. The 24/70 is far from useless at 24mm, in fact I find it to be absolutely fine! It's not soft, not even at f2.8 (at least my copy isn't) and the distortion is easily fixed in ACR or Lightroom.
Click to expand...

What would it matter anyway? :shrug:

Unless you're shooting test charts, or placing the subject right at the corner of the image, a little softness in the corners would barely be noticeable because who realistically looks down there? Besides, wide open the corners are probably going to be in OOF bokeh areas anyway ;) If anyone actually used the corners, camera focus points would extend all the way to all of them :lol:
 
trencheel303 said:
What would it matter anyway? :shrug:

Unless you're shooting test charts, or placing the subject right at the corner of the image, a little softness in the corners would barely be noticeable because who realistically looks down there? Besides, wide open the corners are probably going to be in OOF bokeh areas anyway ;) If anyone actually used the corners, camera focus points would extend all the way to all of them :lol:
Click to expand...

Well if you're shooting a landscape and your foreground interest extends across the length of the shot (like a wave on the beach) then you want the whole thing to be as sharp as you can get it including the corners.

I can't vouch for the 24-70 as I've never used one but if you don't need the extra reach go for it. If you do fancy a bit more reach, look at the 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM. Really there is no "best standard zoom" because each lens will be better adapted for some situations more than others. 24-70 has better bokeh and works better in low light, 24-105 has extra reach and range to make it more of a walk-about type of lens.
 
Bendihossan said:
Well if you're shooting a landscape and your foreground interest extends across the length of the shot (like a wave on the beach) then you want the whole thing to be as sharp as you can get it including the corners.

I can't vouch for the 24-70 as I've never used one but if you don't need the extra reach go for it. If you do fancy a bit more reach, look at the 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM. Really there is no "best standard zoom" because each lens will be better adapted for some situations more than others. 24-70 has better bokeh and works better in low light, 24-105 has extra reach and range to make it more of a walk-about type of lens.
Click to expand...

yeah I guess when I said best, I meant to say the one with the highest IQ. I don't need the range to go above 70 so I guess the 24-70 with the 2.8 makes sense
 
joescrivens said:
yeah I guess when I said best, I meant to say the one with the highest IQ. I don't need the range to go above 70 so I guess the 24-70 with the 2.8 makes sense
Click to expand...

Sounds good, hope you enjoy it! I think the image quality difference between the 24-70 and 24-105 is almost negligable. This test shows the 24-105 to be marginally sharper but suffers from a little more CA than the 24-70, but there's not really much in it: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...p=355&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLI=0&API=2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top