Is the 24-70 f2.8 L a forgotten lens?

[D Thompson]

I got to thinking tonight that in the "what lens" threads that the Canon ef24-70 f2.8 L is hardly ever mentioned. Other than myself a couple of times, I don't really remember or notice anybody recommending or using this lens. I know several people that use it on a regular basis, but it seems to be an orphan on this site. I use it for portraits to landscapes and with the efs10-22 I have great coverage from 10-70mm. Is the focal range, lack of IS, weight, or price the drawback? I know it can't be image or build quality because they are top of the line. I purchased mine soon after the 20D which was before the IS and some of the other focal ranges (16-35, 17-55, 17-85, 24-105) came out and at that time it was IMO the best quality lens available in the range.

Anyway, just curious as to what your thoughts on the 24-70 are.

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

[nqjudo]

"He's not really dead. As long as we remember him"

- Dr. Leonard McCoy

[TheWengler]

Well most people here use cropped cameras and the range isn't that attractive there. However, the full frame lenses do seem to fit well when paired with an ultra wide lens. If I went that route I would rather have the 24-105. The longer reach makes the lack of a wide angle a little more forgivable.

[coldrain]

The 24-70mm f2.8 L is often mentioned here, but in a different role than it was conceived for.

On full frame (it is a full frame lens) the 24-70 f2.8 L is a standard zoom lens of high quality. But that role on APS-C is taken by the 17-55 f2.8 from Canon, or the cheaper lenses like the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and Sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro.

The new role of the 24-70 f2.8 is of portrait zoom lens. And so it only is mentioned in regards to APS-C cameras when people use it for portrait and wedding shoots.

[adam75south]

i LOVE mine! and yea i use it for portraits. did a car dealership this past weekend and used it for their headshots.

[D Thompson]

Well most people here use cropped cameras and the range isn't that attractive there. However, the full frame lenses do seem to fit well when paired with an ultra wide lens. If I went that route I would rather have the 24-105. The longer reach makes the lack of a wide angle a little more forgivable.
Personally, the range works very well for me, especially with the efs10-22 when I do need wider and if 70mm is not enough, then I pop the ef85 on. At the moment, I don't need anything longer for my shooting. I know that will change 3-4 years down the road when my grandson gets into sports. We all have different focal ranges we prefer.

The 24-70mm f2.8 L is often mentioned here, but in a different role than it was conceived for.

On full frame (it is a full frame lens) the 24-70 f2.8 L is a standard zoom lens of high quality. But that role on APS-C is taken by the 17-55 f2.8 from Canon, or the cheaper lenses like the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and Sigma 18-50 f2.8 macro.

The new role of the 24-70 f2.8 is of portrait zoom lens. And so it only is mentioned in regards to APS-C cameras when people use it for portrait and wedding shoots.

It does get mentioned from time to time, just wouldn't say "often", but I guess definition of "often" is relative ;).

Couldn't agree more when you put it on a full frame camera or for that matter even on the APS-C the high quality is still there. The difference between 17mm & 24mm is probably only a step and a half. Yes, there are times when you can't back up that amount. Then the difference in 55mm & 70mm, as you get just a little more reach or a couple of steps or so. Also, with a lot of talk about going full frame in the future, it would seem to make sense to go with the 24-70.

Agreed that it makes a fine portrait/wedding lens as that is my main lens for portraits (the ef 85 f1.8 getting some use as well) and I only used the 24-70 to do the one wedding I got talked into doing. Man, weddings can be good money, but how do you put up with all the crap on wedding day? Takes somebody special and it sure ain't me :eek:.

i LOVE mine! and yea i use it for portraits. did a car dealership this past weekend and used it for their headshots.

Yep, I love it too. Sorry, I forgot about you using the 24-70. Guess I should've checked a few more sig lines.


So far, it seems for some the 17-55mm range is more useful than 24-70. As said earlier, I guess it just depends on your style.

[Rhys]

The 24-70L is a lens that's often overlooked by people with cropped cameras. The thing they forget is that those cameras will be replaced. Lenses tend not to be replaced as they don't age and fail at the same rate that cameras do.

Given that my future camera could well be full frame it would be more sense to buy the 24-70 and use something cheaper to fill in the lower range (which with 1.6 crop would be about 36mm and quite wide anyway).

I actually went another route, myself. I bought the 17-85IS. It's good enough for most things. My 28-75 Tamron is good for the rest. When I go full frame, my Tamron will see me though. The 17-85 is a stopgap. I might splurge for the 24-70L and relagate the Tamron to backup status when that happens though.

Personally I don't think the 17-55 represents good value when it's a lens with obsolescence written all over it.

[michaelb]

If I was to buy in this FL, I would choose the 24-105 over the 24-70. Its lighter and I really want IS. Like the 24-70, it can also be used on FF.

For me, the big decision is between the 17-55 and the 24-105, especially considering I have the 10-22. The 24-70 has never been a contender for me.

[JTL]

If I was to buy in this FL, I would choose the 24-105 over the 24-70. Its lighter and I really want IS. Like the 24-70, it can also be used on FF.

For me, the big decision is between the 17-55 and the 24-105, especially considering I have the 10-22. The 24-70 has never been a contender for me.Like he said....:D

Only the 17-55 was never in contention. No more EF-S lenses for me.

[24Peter]

I was left underwhelmed and somewhat nonplussed (SAT word of the day) by the 24-70 L. Not sure what's so great about it. IMO, I found it too big and heavy for everyday use. Definitely too expensive. And IQ was just OK on the copy I rented. The Tamron 28-75 F2.8 that I once had seemed sharper and a much better value.

[FlashX83]

I ended up with mine because I got a great deal on it through a relative who was switching to primes, but I am totally glad I did it. I sold my 17-85 IS shortly thereafter. It's a great range for what I shoot, and pairs exceptionally well with my Tokina 12-24.

I find that when I want wider than 24mm, I want really wide, to the point that the 17-55 wouldn't cut it. I also find that in these situations, I'm typically able to use a flash if I need to. The 24-70L is great for larger indoor settings where a flash might not be appropriate or have enough push, or outdoor settings where the f2.8 lets you control background very effectively.

If Canon were to re-release the 24-70L and make it slightly lighter and include IS, I would absolutely upgrade.

The only problem I have is now that I'm getting used to the lightning fast true USM, amazing colors, non-rotating front element and sturdy (ridiculously sturdy!) build of the 24-70, I'm finding my 70-300 IS to be quite inadequate!

[michaelb]

The 24-70L is great for larger indoor settings where a flash might not be appropriate or have enough push, or outdoor settings where the f2.8 lets you control background very effectively.

I hear this as a common theme.

It seems that people who have the 24-70 and the 24-105 prefer the former for indoors and the latter for outdoors.

Indoors without flash you are much more likely to need the f/2.8 as you are more likely to be shooting moving people and thus need the higher SS from a f/2.8 lens.

However, people like me who shoot primarily outdoors are often more interested in the IS than f/2.8 since our subject matters are more likely to be stationary.

[jwhite]

If Canon were to re-release the 24-70L and make it slightly lighter and include IS, I would absolutely upgrade.


I keep hoping Canon will release a second version of it with IS. I love mine, and its on my 5D probably two thirds of the time. I can see how on a crop sensor it might not work so well. I used on my 10D for the most part, but I missed the wide angle shots. I had the Tamron, but wanted something built better and focus a lot better.

Jason

[RichNY]

Go over to the POTN forums and it is probably the most common lens owned by members.

I found it interesting that when Nikon just announced their new comparable lens that they didn't include VR on it either. I love having IS on my 17-55 and if I were to go FF I'd miss having image stabilization at this focal length.

[michaelb]

....I found it interesting that when Nikon just announced their new comparable lens that they didn't include VR on it either.

I agree with you Rich, I'm not sure what Nikon was thinking here.


I love having IS on my 17-55 and if I were to go FF I'd miss having image stabilization at this focal length.

On a 5D, the 24-05 f/4 IS would be like a 15-65 f/4 IS on an XXD, which would be perfect for me. Damn 5D!!

[D Thompson]

Go over to the POTN forums and it is probably the most common lens owned by members.

I don't frequent POTN, but did take a look and I see what you mean. It gets much more mention than here. Interesting.

Thanks to all who have responded.