Any thoughts?: Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

bbaker35 · Nov 20, 2006

I know that the Canon Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM may be a dream lens for many (me too,) but it sems that this dream may become a reality this year. I am thinking about throwing my whole Christmas (returning all the crap I don't want) and putting the rest down to get this baby. I am really working on impoving my photography and am thinking that this would be a great step in the right direction.

I have read the reviews on Fred Miranda (and they are almost all positive) but I just thought I would ask if anyone here had any real experience with the lens. From other reviews I get the feeling that this is one heavy lens, but I'm a big boy and I think I'll be able to manage it.

Thanks Again for all your help.

Ben

bitteraspects · Nov 20, 2006

i own both the 24-70 and the 14-40, and i definately use the 14-40 more.

Big Mike · Nov 20, 2006

bitteraspects said:
i own both the 24-70 and the 14-40, and i definately use the 14-40 more.

Did you mean the 17-40? I've never heard of a 14-40.

Everyone that I know, who has used a 24-70 F2.8 L...absolutely loves it. Sure it's heavy...but well worth it.

What camera are you using? On a crop sensor body...the 24-70 is not really a wide angle lens anymore. On a film or full frame digital (5D, 1Ds)...it would be a great focal length. If you are on a crop digital body (Rebel, 20/30D etc)...then you may want to consider the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS. It's said to be as good as the L lenses...it's fast and it has IS.

bitteraspects · Nov 20, 2006

hahahah. yeah i didnt even notice the typo. lol. but yes, i mean the 17-40 f/4L

bbaker35 · Nov 20, 2006

Hey Mike-

At this time I am using a 350D. I would however consider upgrading to the 5D (or its predecessor whenever the next great camera comes out) in the next year and a half or so. I previously took the crop factor into consideration before setting my heart on this lens, but thought that if I could afford one of the better lenses out there now then I should probably go ahead with it (and thank myself later.)

I guess you might be able to give me a little better advice by knowing what I plan to do with this lens:

At this time I have no plans to use this lens for weddings or any other event professionally. I plan to use this as an "every event" lens. I use the word every event instead of "everyday" lens because I use my camera quote often to take pictures of houses and buildings for my job, but would never consider taking out a $1,000+ lens when I have a perfectly good kit lens to use for that. "Every event" means every family outing or other occasion I might actually want to get good shots at.

In addition to this lens I would still have my:
50mm 1.8
Kit Lens (18-55)
Crappy Canon (75-300)

My line of thinking with this lens would be to buy the best low range lens I can for now (the 24-70mm 2.8L) and buy the 70-200mm 2.8L IS later. This way I would have a pretty good range for most all occasions.

Any advice is appreciated.

Thanks Everyone

bbaker35 · Nov 20, 2006

Hey I also wanted to throw in the fact that the reason I decided to go with the 2.8 is the fact that I shoot indoors and in low light alot and really want to be able to get the best shots at these birthday parties and the like.

Thanks,
Ben

bitteraspects · Nov 20, 2006

i use my f/4 for most of my weddings. it does the job fine. and in the case of extreme low light, a bounce flash will usually do the trick.
other then that i take my 50mm f/1.4

Big Mike · Nov 20, 2006

I'm in a similar situation...I have a 20D but I may want to upgrade one day (to the next 5D)...so I'm leery to buy any expensive EF-S glass. On the other hand, I'll still have my 20D and lenses can be resold for a good portion of the purchase price...well good lenses anyway.

The 24-70 F2.8 L will certainly be a great lens for all around use. The only problem I forsee...is that if you are using it indoors...it's not very wide. Put on your kit lens and set it at 24mm...then see what it's like indoors. If you can live with that...then go for it.

The 17-40 F4 L would be a great all around lens for your camera. It's an L lens, so the build quality is superb. The sharpness & color rendition are great too. The only issue I have is that F4 is not fast enough for some situations (weddings)...but for personal use, it should be great. And the bonus is that it will make a fantastic ultra wide zoom on a full frame camera.

Personally, I'm planning on getting the Tamron 17-50 F2.8 to replace my kit lens. It's supposed to be pretty sharp and the F2.8 speaks for itself. I'd really love the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 IS...but it's $1300 CDN.

Iron Flatline · Nov 21, 2006

I love my 24-70 on my 5D, it's my favorite lens. Trust your instinct to buy good glass as a long lasting investment.

I bought the 16-35 L before the other lens, and had it on my D60 - an earlier version of the 20D (I don't get Canon's naming convention either.) On my 5D it is almost too wide - people are very distorted if you get too close, and architecture needs to be adjusted for distortion a lot.

If you like shooting people an environments, get the 24-70, and buy a full-size sensor camera next. Get the 70-200 (or the 70-300 DO) next.

Mad_Gnome · Nov 21, 2006

Have you tried the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG by any chance? You should compare it to the L lens and see what you think. It may be just the bargain you're looking for. It's an extremely high-quality lens, and you'd have to pry mine from my cold, dead fingers! :lol:

Compare the $325-430 for the Sigma to the $1050-1350 for the Canon, then take into account that many professional industry reviews have stated that the Sigma is nearly as good as the Canon L, and it may get the old gears turning. I can honestly vouch for the quality of both lenses, by the way, as I have used both. The Sigma is nearly the equal of the L lens for about 1/3 the cost. I use mine almost exclusively, only changing it out occassionally for my 50mm f/1.4 prime.

bitteraspects · Nov 21, 2006

Mad_Gnome said:
The Sigma is nearly the equal of the L lens

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH :lol:

thank you. i needed that. that is hilareous.

+1 for funniest post of the day

Mad_Gnome · Nov 21, 2006

Think what you will, I love my Sigma. It also cost me about $800 less than a Canon L lens.

bitteraspects · Nov 21, 2006

my geo metro cost me thousands less then my is300. doesnt make it comperable. its great on gas though

bbaker35 · Nov 21, 2006

Ha Ha Ha...That is funny. Honestly, here is rural WV, we don't have any camera stores to go try out much of anything.

Since making my original post I have made a few other considerations and Big Mike has really got me thinking...The 17-55 2.8 IS may serve my needs a little better for the time being. I honestly do see myself moving up as far as cameras go in the future, but I think I would like to get the 30d before I drop $2000+ on a full frame camera. The 17-55 2.8 IS would give me the speed indoors plus the IS bonus! I think that this would be a better fit for me, and if I decide to move up to a full framed body I could think about L lenses later.

What do you think about that??

Thanks,

Ben

Mad_Gnome · Nov 21, 2006

The Sigma may not be the equivalent of a Lexus, but it's closer to that than to a Metro. It's a far cry from being a piece of junk. I simply wanted to suggest a high quality lens that could save him a lot of money. All I suggested is that he take a look at it. If he doesn't like it, he doesn't have to buy it. If I could have afforded it, I probably would have bought a Minolta 28-70mm f/2.8 G lens, but I didn't have $1000 burning a hole in my wallet. I COULD afford $400 without breaking the bank, however, and ended up with a high quality lens that barely sees any downtime. It's sharp, AF is fast, color accuracy is great and it's inexpensive enough that I don't hesitate to carry it anywhere. It also still allowed me to money to buy Christmas presents for everyone. Sorry if I tried to suggest a quality piece of glass that may save the guy a few bucks.