Topic: Giving in to temptation: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

[jpschust]

well played sir.

mattd used to use the 70-200 on his rebel (i think he still does).

[MattD]

well played sir.

mattd used to use the 70-200 on his rebel (i think he still does).

Yup, first the 4, now the 2.8. If I hold it up by the body, it feels like the lens will snap the mount off. Any lens that has the tripod collar is telling you to hold it and not just the camera.

[dmonterisi]

well, with any lens, you need to hold the body with your right hand and the lens with your left.  so i don't think that means anything.  I do think the 24-70 is rather large and heavy, there is pretty much no lens in this focal range that comes close to that size.  sure it's not as heavy as the 300, but let's be reasonable about what we compare here.  I didn't have the 24-70 when i had the drebel so i'm not speaking from experience, but i would imagine that having such a heavy lens on a light body would be a little weird.  the balance would certainly be off a little bit in my hands, as the weight of the lens would be pulling the body forward a bit.  that is not to say that this means you can't use the 24-70 with the drebel, it just means you would have to get used to a somewhat heavier lens and be prepared to adapt your shooting method.  i certainly don't think this would be a reason not to get the lens if it's what you want.

[ditto]

Comparing to the 300/400 is extreme!  Perhaps I should have said 85L, 135L or 200 2.8L.  Pardon me...


I might be in the minority here but I liked the 17-85 IS lens.  It balanced nicely on my XT and took nice pics.  Samples vary unfortunately.

[twoheadedboy]

I'm not sure why anyone needs a fixed f/2.8 in the midrange.

Just get a f/1.8 or even f/1.4 50mm that will be an order of magnitude sharper and a full stop (or more) faster, and back up or move forward with your feet, then get (or keep in this case) a slower (and lighter in weight) zoon in the not-very-wide to not-very-telephoto range if you choose.

I have a 50mm f/1.8 (less than $100) and a 24-85 f/3.5 - 4.5 (less than $400, meaning the total for both lenses combined is less than an f/2.8 in this range by about half), works good for me and everyone else I know who uses this setup.

I do want a wider f-stop at the bookends of that range, but that's why I have an 80-200 f/2.8 and a 17-35 f/2.8 (well, don't have the latter yet, but we'll get there ).

Then again, Canon blows, Nikon all the way! (j/k don't take it seriously!)

[jpschust]

I'm not sure why anyone needs a fixed f/2.8 in the midrange.

Just get a f/1.8 or even f/1.4 50mm that will be an order of magnitude sharper and a full stop (or more) faster, and back up or move forward with your feet, then get (or keep in this case) a slower (and lighter in weight) zoon in the not-very-wide to not-very-telephoto range if you choose.

I have a 50mm f/1.8 (less than $100) and a 24-85 f/3.5 - 4.5 (less than $400, meaning the total for both lenses combined is less than an f/2.8 in this range by about half), works good for me and everyone else I know who uses this setup.

I do want a wider f-stop at the bookends of that range, but that's why I have an 80-200 f/2.8 and a 17-35 f/2.8 (well, don't have the former yet, but we'll get there ).

Then again, Canon blows, Nikon all the way! (j/k don't take it seriously!)

on the 2.8 reason, there are multiple reasons:

first- on your 50 f/1.8 you really need to stop that down to 2.8 to get a decent focus on it.  shooting at 1.8 leaves the image flat and due to poor qc on those lenses you usually get a lot of crap focus on the edges.

on the 24-70 f/2.8 it is one of the few zooms that is really sharp at 2.8 , but it's an L lens and you get what you pay for.

Sometimes you don't have the option of foot focusing a lens- think about shooting a concert with a photo pass where you are stuck in one location to shoot- foot zooming doesn't work there. 

Also, the 24-85 is not even nearly as clean a lens as L glass.

[Ed.]

L glass is sexy!

I hope to be out of sigma and into L IS glass by fall.

[twoheadedboy]

on the 2.8 reason, there are multiple reasons:

first- on your 50 f/1.8 you really need to stop that down to 2.8 to get a decent focus on it.  shooting at 1.8 leaves the image flat and due to poor qc on those lenses you usually get a lot of crap focus on the edges.

Crap focus? It's f/1.8. Nearly everything is going to be out of focus. That's the point.

If you have a specific problem with a specific piece, you return it or junk it. It's a $100 lens and when it's right (and honestly, I've seen no QC issues any more than any other lens, unless Canon is significantly worse than Nikon here), it's sharper than any zoom is ever going to be, stopped down or no. Even if you DID have to stop it down to f/2.8, well, you're still at the starting point for that 10x plus price zoom.

on the 24-70 f/2.8 it is one of the few zooms that is really sharp at 2.8 , but it's an L lens and you get what you pay for.

I'm sure it's the same as the AF-S Nikons. The real ones, not the one I have alluded to above which is "AF-S" but isn't really. The one I have is an incredibly sharp lens with a bit of distortion at the ends.

I'm not denying your lens is great, but in that focal range, you're not talking about differences that are not actually going to matter. That range is not telephoto enough for portraiture (you want at least an 85 f/1.8 for half the price or 85 f/1.4 for about the same, if not longer), not telephoto enough for sports, and you don't need super-low f-stops at the wide end anyway (amount of light needed at 24 f/3.5 is roughly equal to that of 50 f/1.8; 24 f/2.8 = 50 f/1.4)

Sometimes you don't have the option of foot focusing a lens- think about shooting a concert with a photo pass where you are stuck in one location to shoot- foot zooming doesn't work there. 

I have done concert photography before, actually, though not on a photo-pass basis. Generally pass holders are way up front, so I'd want  two bodies - one with a 17-35 (stage/area/crowd shots) and one with an 80 - 200 (head/bust shots), the range in between is simply not useful. 35 - 80 range is the "birthday party" lens, and you're going to be using flash, 400 speed film, and want lots of DOF so no way is f/2.8 wanted or necessary in such a situation.

Also, the 24-85 is not even nearly as clean a lens as L glass.

"Clean"? Are you talking about sharpness or distortion? Because from all accounts, the 24-85 f/3.5 - 4.5 AF-S is as sharp as it gets for a zoom (I'm sure the Canon equivalent is equal), though again there is significant distortion, but that is what Photoshop is for. For any potentially "award winning" photography you are shooting slide film, and all slide film is now printed digitally anyway, so you will have ample opportunity to run it through PS first through a correction process you can pre-set for every lens you own and then apply in less than a minute per pic. All for a quarter of the price and less than half the weight! Besides, if quality is your drive, shoot medium format

But don't take my word for it; see what an actual professional thinks of such lenses: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/2870afs.htm

[Ed.]

You can't judge Nikon Glass and Canon Glass the same.  What is good on one, might not be good on the other.  The 50mm f/1.8 prime is a good cheap lens for both cameras.  I know canon used to make a different version which is a bit more expensive and harder to find, but the build quality was better.  Still, if you're shooting wide open at f/1.8 and are anywhere near the subject your focusing on, your DOF is just going to be too small.  You could be focusing on the persons head, and the guitar in their hands would be out of focus.

The canon 24-70mm f/2.8L USM, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM, and the prime would probably be my three choices for concert photography, with the 70-200 being my work hourse, cuz I'm back my stand in most cases.

[Chrisedge]

Well I'm gonna be shooting this weekend a club in L.A. and using my Canon 50mm f/1.4 so I will post once I get back what kind of shots I got. (Provided they actually turn out) 

[Chrisedge]

My first "concert" with my new DSLR! (I'm quite happy with the pics I got)