Anyone got a Canon 24-70 L f2.8?
Discussion
If so what's your verdict? How sharp is it.
The reason I ask is that my 28-135IS is going back(for the second time) to the repair shop. It's not a particularly sharp lens anyway, and is definatly the weakest link in my equipment.
I know it's expensive, too, but I've got to keep up with Phil Brett!
Martin.
>> Edited by V6GTO on Friday 6th May 16:02
The reason I ask is that my 28-135IS is going back(for the second time) to the repair shop. It's not a particularly sharp lens anyway, and is definatly the weakest link in my equipment.
I know it's expensive, too, but I've got to keep up with Phil Brett!
Martin.
>> Edited by V6GTO on Friday 6th May 16:02
Cannons never were that accurate.....
Oh - you mean one of these?
Should have got a "Knee-con"
>> Edited by beano500 on Friday 6th May 16:35
Oh - you mean one of these?
Should have got a "Knee-con"
>> Edited by beano500 on Friday 6th May 16:35
Fred Miranda's a bit of a Primes Luddite (as am I), but there's a review here...
www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/
...that finds the 24-70 better than the previous lens again.
www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/
...that finds the 24-70 better than the previous lens again.
Bee_Jay said:
That lens forms part of my dream line-up which is:
16-35L
24-70L
70-200L
100-400L
50 1.4
85 1.2L
1.4x tele
2x tele
You have cheap dreams!
The 24-70L looks really good, but I've been lucky with my 28-135IS. It seems to be a corking copy. What's been going wrong with yours Martin?
I've got it - very nice lens, as you'd hope for the price!
It's a lot more solid than the 28-135, which I also have, although I've not been
and compared the two, so can't say if one is sharper than the other.
It feels very nicely balanced on a 1D-type body, although it's noticably heavier than the 28-135. I've not had any complaints with my 28-135, and I've taken many pleasing photos with it, but the 24-70 is another next step up.
The 70 end is a bit short though, which is where the 70-200 f2.8 comes in
- again, another very nice lens, complements the 24-70 perfectly, and the IS is fantastic! It is quite heavy though, and when you're lugging the 24-70, 70-200 and a body around, you do sometimes yearn for the 28-135 again
It's a lot more solid than the 28-135, which I also have, although I've not been
and compared the two, so can't say if one is sharper than the other. It feels very nicely balanced on a 1D-type body, although it's noticably heavier than the 28-135. I've not had any complaints with my 28-135, and I've taken many pleasing photos with it, but the 24-70 is another next step up.
The 70 end is a bit short though, which is where the 70-200 f2.8 comes in
- again, another very nice lens, complements the 24-70 perfectly, and the IS is fantastic! It is quite heavy though, and when you're lugging the 24-70, 70-200 and a body around, you do sometimes yearn for the 28-135 again ehasler said:
I've got it - very nice lens, as you'd hope for the price!
It's a lot more solid than the 28-135, which I also have, although I've not been
It feels very nicely balanced on a 1D-type body, although it's noticably heavier than the 28-135. I've not had any complaints with my 28-135, and I've taken many pleasing photos with it, but the 24-70 is another next step up.
The 70 end is a bit short though, which is where the 70-200 f2.8 comes in
I hear what you say, ED, but I can't help thinking It's the right replacement for the 28-135, considering the other lenses I have. (12-24 Sigma DG HSM, 100mm f2.8 macro and 100-400L IS.
Phil...in answer to your question, the lens was never right from new, in as much as it was very notchy on the zoom. I put up with it rather than have the hassle of getting it sorted immediatly because at the time it was the only lens I had. Last year it seem to dimantle itself on the inside, which took an age to get fixed. Now, three months ish after getting it back the auto focus works going from close to far but it won't come back again. I'm going to demand it's fixed FOC but I know I wikk not have the lens for at least 10-12 weeks. I'm fed up with it now, hence my plan to get the 24-70L and sell the 28-135 when it's fixed.
Martin.
Bummer on your 28-135IS Martin although I'm not that surprised. Large range zoom, a good version of 'IS' all for less than £300 is going to throw up the odd Friday afternoon job.
The 28-135IS has always been a talking point. Remove the 'IS' and it's argued to be an average zoom that feels a bit cheep that is a bit prone to CA in the corners. But 'IS' for £300? Total bargin. Handheld at 1/15sec anyone? If you can consistantly do better than that without 'IS' I contend you're actually dead.
The other thing is it's the perfect walkabout lense. Light, handles low light, good mm range. Zoomed out the internal flash doesn't get shadowed by it, even on the 10D which is notorious for that.
Is the 24-70IS the perfect replacement? Well if it was at 24-120IS say it'd be no question. But only out to 70? Hhhmmm if you don't mind the lense swaps to the 100-400IS it's great. F2.8 everywhere is very handy too. But sneeking the odd candid shot isn't going to be half as easy (almost exactly half in fact!). Depends on your photography I guess. With the nice shots you achieve Martin, I'd say the 24-70IS is a winner. I think for me it's a little short.
The 28-135IS has always been a talking point. Remove the 'IS' and it's argued to be an average zoom that feels a bit cheep that is a bit prone to CA in the corners. But 'IS' for £300? Total bargin. Handheld at 1/15sec anyone? If you can consistantly do better than that without 'IS' I contend you're actually dead.
The other thing is it's the perfect walkabout lense. Light, handles low light, good mm range. Zoomed out the internal flash doesn't get shadowed by it, even on the 10D which is notorious for that.
Is the 24-70IS the perfect replacement? Well if it was at 24-120IS say it'd be no question. But only out to 70? Hhhmmm if you don't mind the lense swaps to the 100-400IS it's great. F2.8 everywhere is very handy too. But sneeking the odd candid shot isn't going to be half as easy (almost exactly half in fact!). Depends on your photography I guess. With the nice shots you achieve Martin, I'd say the 24-70IS is a winner. I think for me it's a little short.
V6GTO said:If you won't miss the extra focal length from 70->135mm, then the 24-70 would be a great upgrade for the 28-135. If the extra focal length @f2.8 is important to you, then all you need to do is add the 70-200 to your stable as well
I hear what you say, ED, but I can't help thinking It's the right replacement for the 28-135, considering the other lenses I have. (12-24 Sigma DG HSM, 100mm f2.8 macro and 100-400L IS.
100-400 is an ok partner for this lens, but I personally prefer the 70-200 for "normal" type shots, and will generally only fit the 100-400 if I'm using the 300-400 end of it.
ehasler said:
I hear what you say, ED, but I can't help thinking It's the right replacement for the 28-135, considering the other lenses I have. (12-24 Sigma DG HSM, 100mm f2.8 macro and 100-400L IS.
If you won't miss the extra focal length from 70->135mm, then the 24-70 would be a great upgrade for the 28-135. If the extra focal length @f2.8 is important to you, then all you need to do is add the 70-200 to your stable as well
100-400 is an ok partner for this lens, but I personally prefer the 70-200 for "normal" type shots, and will generally only fit the 100-400 if I'm using the 300-400 end of it.
Maybe I'll have a look at the 70-200 in a litle while..when I can't control my "PhilBrettSyndrome" any longer and need to buy something!
Martin.
V6GTO said:
(It's Phil's fault, he made me do it!)
Ah but you see, I'm helping you all really! Deep down you all want this stuff, but lets face it, you all make some 'excuse' not to save or go straight out and buy it. You think there's something more important to buy.
The killer statement is 'I can't justify buying it'. You can't justify speeding some of your hard earned cash on some thing nice for yourself that'll probably last for years?
Martin's getting the right idea
Oh bugger. I was really quite happy with my 28-135IS. But after playing with it yesterday up against the 120-300 (ok not fair pitching £300 lense against £1700 in know but hey, lifes a b1tch) I think a go with this a 24-70IS may well be on the cards. I've been PhilBrett'd by Martin! Hats off to you sir
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff