Sending back the 24-70 f/2.8L

usayit · Dec 15, 2008

soylentgreen said:
Package a 5D Mark Ii with a EF 24-105 f/2.8L IS for $4500 and people will still buy it IMO.

For $4500 you can buy both...

$1150 24-70L
$3500 Canon 5D MarkII w/ 24-104L package.

I'd rather have both than a single overweight lens.

Overread · Dec 15, 2008

usayit said:
If I wanted Canon to invest some R&D money in some lens, it would be to update the 100-400L. Common Canon! It was one of the first lenses to have IS and was introduced in 1998!!! At the very least, update the IS to the current version for more stops. Still... the 100-400L was the one long zoom that I kept.

that is the only downside to Canon having IS first - they got them out early in the market, but now that better IS tech is around companies now moving to it are getting 4 stop and better whilst many Canon lenses are still back on fewer stops IS. Considering that their big lens was the surprisingly usable 800mm IS L I really hope that they turn their eye to upgrading the other longer lenses
*hopefully any update to the 300mm f2.8 will happen before I try to buy one*

keith204 · Dec 15, 2008

JerryPH said:
Dammit. Ok, I definitely lost that one.

But really, I see exactly what you're saying. Having them separate would be nice. Maybe I'll just have to get another

just kidding.

JustAnEngineer · Dec 15, 2008

With two set up side-by-side, you could shoot stereoscopic images or video.

usayit · Dec 16, 2008

Overread said:
that is the only downside to Canon having IS first - they got them out early in the market, but now that better IS tech is around companies now moving to it are getting 4 stop and better whilst many Canon lenses are still back on fewer stops IS.

Not true.... Canon's latest version of IS is between 3-4 stops as well. Canon continues to improve their IS technology and incorporate them into their newest line of lenses. IIRC, some lenses have also been updated but the 100=400L remains the same as it has when it was first released.

You can't deny that Canon's early out to market move in the 90s with IS won them a HUGE HUGE HUGE early market lead.....

Overread · Dec 16, 2008

sorry I wasn't clear - I didn't mean to say that their current IS was not up to standard, but more that many of their older lenses need to be upgraded to new standards of IS in order for them to keep the market now.
Its not denying that getting IS first was a massive advantage for them - especially in the telephoto area

ksmattfish · Dec 16, 2008

keith204 said:
*though I usually don't mind heavy lenses, the 24-70 seemed unreasonable for its size

Maybe try the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8? I have and use both. The Tamron seems half the size and weight (and 1/3rd the price), it's just as sharp even wide open, and it doesn't flare as easily. I've been using the Tamron for almost 3 years, and the Canon for about 1.5 years. Even when pixel peeping I can't tell a difference. I hear many people claim that there's an AF difference, but I shoot both in low light all the time, and the accuracy is the same.

usayit · Dec 16, 2008

Overread said:
sorry I wasn't clear - I didn't mean to say that their current IS was not up to standard, but more that many of their older lenses need to be upgraded to new standards of IS in order for them to keep the market now.
Its not denying that getting IS first was a massive advantage for them - especially in the telephoto area

Ah.. agreed... but I the same could be said about early VR lenses from nikkor and OS lenses from other manufacturers. The same could be said for technology in general.

Overread · Dec 16, 2008

Yep - my only worry for future upgrades is the metal prices.
I know that the new canon 800mm is very light (heck its 2kg lighter than the 600mm) but I wonder if that is due to better glass and technology alone or if Canon are cutting back on the metal content or starting to use lighter (possibly weaker) alloys with cheaper metals.
I don't mind lighter lenses, but I don't want to see the tanklike quality of the L lenses being lost either - might be handy for lighter lenses, but if you suddenly lose out on the build strength then its going to be a problem if it ever takes a drop!

keith204 · Dec 16, 2008

ksmattfish said:
Maybe try the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8? I have and use both. The Tamron seems half the size and weight (and 1/3rd the price), it's just as sharp even wide open, and it doesn't flare as easily. I've been using the Tamron for almost 3 years, and the Canon for about 1.5 years. Even when pixel peeping I can't tell a difference. I hear many people claim that there's an AF difference, but I shoot both in low light all the time, and the accuracy is the same.

That may be something to try again - I bought a Tamron 28-75 when I was using 40Ds, and sent it back for the range and AF issues (mine actually had an AF problem at 28-35mm). Other than that it was slow AF, but a very very sharp lens with some stunning bokeh. You do bring up a good point though - this could easily be a reasonable lens to add to my bag, to have the 2.8 when I need it. Not to mention the price is a joke, and would make a fine mid-range lens to hook up to the XSi.

keith204 · Dec 16, 2008

Matt, how does the Tamron 28-75 perform on a full-frame near the edges?

ksmattfish · Dec 16, 2008

keith204 said:
Matt, how does the Tamron 28-75 perform on a full-frame near the edges?

Excellent. There is no doubt in my mind that it matches or surpasses the Canon L in image quality. I'm looking at a 12x18 landscape print in my living room that has fine grasses right up to the edges, and they are as razor sharp right on the edge as in the center.

There is an obvious build quality difference, but lets face it the 24-70 L is a freaking tank. After several years of almost daily use I did have to send my Tamron in for repair (that's when I picked up the Canon) of an internal part, but since it has a 6 year warranty it was no big deal.

I'm not trying to say the Tamron's AF is great, but I haven't found the Canon to be any better.

keith204 · Dec 16, 2008

ksmattfish said:
Excellent. There is no doubt in my mind that it matches or surpasses the Canon L in image quality. I'm looking at a 12x18 landscape print in my living room that has fine grasses right up to the edges, and they are as razor sharp right on the edge as in the center.

There is an obvious build quality difference, but lets face it the 24-70 L is a freaking tank. After several years of almost daily use I did have to send my Tamron in for repair (that's when I picked up the Canon) of an internal part, but since it has a 6 year warranty it was no big deal.

I'm not trying to say the Tamron's AF is great, but I haven't found the Canon to be any better.

Interesting to hear you say you didn't find the Canon 24-70's AF any better - because at least compared to my 24-105, the 24-70's AF felt slower, for some reason. Not sure why - but I was shocked to see that. It seemed to hunt more than my other lenses.

Thanks for the advice.

Iron Flatline · Dec 17, 2008

Actually, the 28-135 mm IS is a fun walk-around lens.

I have the 24-70 L and find it to be a wonderful lens for family shots. It's pretty heavy though, and I don't like walking around with it.

I wish I had the 24-105 IS. Just to show you how subjective these things are... I find the Holy f/2.8 to be overrated... On one hand I have much faster lenses than that for my various cameras, and on the other I consider f/4 sufficient for isolating a subject from the background. This is particularly true at the longer end. 105mm at f/4 is usually good enough. And for a lot of shots, 70mm is just not long enough on my full-frame Canons.