Lusting After a 24-70mm L

Mike K · Nov 30, 2011

For my 60D. Realizing that this is a cropped sensor (1.6) lens (and that I hope to graduate to full frame down the road) does this seem to be a good pick? I don't want to buy any more lenses that aren't compatible with full frame cameras.

Is the lack of IS a problem at all?

Overread · Nov 30, 2011

The only problem people have with the 24-70mm on crop sensor is when they compare its performance to it on full frame, where 24mm is a decent wide angle; whilst on crop sensor its not quite so wide. This results in many who've previous experience with fullframe moving toward the 18-55mm and similar type crop sensor lenses because of their wider focal length offering.

Provided that 24mm is wide enough for you or that you are also willing to carry a separate wide angle lens for when you want that extra angle of view, then the 24-70mm is a very good quality lens to have.

As for the IS, most lenses under 200mm don't have IS - its a feature of more use with longer lenses where the handheld shutter speeds are much faster because of the increased shake; with shorter lenses this is less of an issue. However if you want a walkaround lens with IS you could consider the 24-105mm f4 IS L.

Mike K · Nov 30, 2011

Thanks. I have the Canon 10-22mm which covers me for super wide (too bad this won't fit on a full framer, oh well) and the 18-55 kit lens so I'm pretty well covered on the wide end.

Big Mike · Nov 30, 2011

The 24-70mm F2.8 L, has been the workhorse of Pro Canon shooters for at least the past decade. For the most part, it's a very good lens. Although, I know one or two photographers who don't like it at all....saying that it's prone to focus issues. One of them has had 5 or 6 different copies of this lens before finding one that focused accurately enough for him...and he still doesn't like using it.

But it's hard to disagree with the many thousands of pro photographers who swear by it.

Also, it's a really big & heavy lens. It's nickname is 'The brick', as it's about the same size & weight.

The price is typical for a lens of this quality/category....but it's a fairly high price to most.
Cheaper options would be the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 or the Tamron 28-75mm F2.8. Sigma has a new(ish) version, which is about $900 while the Tamron is still less than $500.

Derrel · Nov 30, 2011

The 24-70 L replaced the 28-70 in late 2002. It's optically better than the 28-70 was. If 24-70 on 1.6x is your cup of tea, it is a very good zoom lens. And it will migrate forward to FF Canon. It is a "lifetime" lens in some respects, hence the price. If you look at it as a 10- to 15-year investment, the price is fair.

FM Reviews - Tamron AF 28-75MM F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF)

dom yo · Nov 30, 2011

I have this lens, and I must say I really do enjoy this lens. Like Mike said though, a lot of people have had focusing issues. Mine got to a point where it wouldn't focus at all, or if it did, it was extremely slow. After doing some research, I saw that a lot of people had problems with it focusing. Luckily, I only had the lens for 3 months at that point. I sent it to Canon for repair on a Monday and got it back on Thursday.

Image quality of the lens is pretty good. The focusing is fast and quiet. I recommend this lens. Just be warned that some people have had issues with it.

ghache · Nov 30, 2011

I use my 24-70 (Nikon) alot, I think its the best multipupose lens for portraits in studio or any location. The thing is with this lens is that the 24mm (even on a crop sensor) can be use for portrait as there is basicly no distortion. My studio main shooting area is around 30 ft long by 18 large and never felt the lens was too long to shoot in there. I get full body shots without any problem and i am pretty sure that would be the same even in a 20ft long space.

I like to shoot in studio with that lens just because i can get a full body shot. walk 2-3 step towards the subject, zoom at 70mm and get a headshot without really using much space and the most important, use the 24mm and the 70mm end without having to worry about sharpness and quality because we all know that this lens is sharp all over the zoom range at any aperture. This is why its so expensive.

Outdoor, in humid place, rainy days, mountains, waterfalls, lake and rivers, beach shoot and depending on the shoot, I prefer to bring my extremely light tamron 17-50 VC over the 24-70 just because its alot less to carry around, really sharp, lightweight, less expensive to replace if something happends and it does the job quite well if shot betwen 24-50mm (pretty much no distortion in that range)

This was taken 24-70
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/26030058#26030058

and this with the tamron 17-50.

http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/25863600

As you can see, there is other less expensive alternative to the 24-70 that works.

gsgary · Nov 30, 2011

Got one and they are great, it's on my 5D most of the time

DCMoney · Dec 5, 2011

I just bought one last month when the price dropped to $1199, and have been 100% pleased with it. Only had a change to take a few pictures with it at the zoo and was extremely happy with the results. Was a huge upgrade from my canon 18-200, image quality, sharpness, focus speed all greater than anything I've ever used.

24-70 was a little short for most of the animals at the zoo but there were a few good picture opportunities of some birds and I got what I consider for my skill level excellent shots of some penguins. Ill post some examples later tonight.