Canon 24-70mm f2.8

johnc24

Hi all

Im off to new york in a matter of a few hours.

This lens is 50% YES 50 bloody percent cheaper in new york.

I have my mind pretty much made up about getting it, but does anyone have any comments or thoughts or ideas on it?

does anyone have it?? whats it like IYO?

Thanks all

regards
John

challengemaster

Yeah, not surprised at all. Irelands prices are complete rip off ( no change from usual)

I have it, find it great

For people with full frame, its serious wide-angle. a good example of this would be fajitas' shots, eg.

This shot, taken in Howth

I was with him at the time, really amazing wide angle tbh.

I generally have mine on all the time, it's a great general walkabout lens imo..

johnc24

Hi challengemaster

Thanks for the info

I would be using it on a 400D so I have the 1.6 crop factor. (that makes it 38-112mm)

I dont think thats going to make a major difference to me at all.

What do you think?

regards
John

challengemaster

I use the 400D also, if you want, check my flickr for examples.. most would have been taken with the 24-70L

link in sig

johnc24

Ok great ill have a look now

thanks for your all your help...appreciate it

regards
John

mikeanywhere

Fantastic lens, its on my camera 90% of the time. You will not be disappointed!!

elderlemon

Hmmm. Am in the same boat. I am getting a 40D and looking at either the 24-70 or the 17-55 2.8 EF-S. I've heard the this lens is really good and almost equal to the 24-70 in terms if IQ.

The problem with the 24-70 on a crop is that 24mm is maybe just not wide enough and the only fix is to get the 10-22 EF-S to plug the gap. Just a lot more $$$'s needed!

Paulw

The 24-70mm f/2.8 L is a brilliant lens. High quality glass and probably my most used lens.

I do also have the EF-S 10-22mm lens for wide angle.

I doubt you'll regret getting the 24-70mm lens. It's well worth the cost.

Thirdfox

Just a little note about prices - it'll probably end up being 40% cheaper than prices here - NY has a sales tax of around 8% on items (they put the tax on at the counter instead of the display). Just in case you didn't know (40% off is still a great deal cheaper than here though )

Fajitas!

Right, the 24-70 is an amazing lens, but I really really don't think you'll get the full use out of it on a crop body. You're getting about a 45-105mm lens, which isn't the most practical of lengths.

The 17-55 2.8 IS EF-S is another fantastic piece of glass - Sharp, gives you wide angle on a cropped body, 2.8 throughout the range, and it has IS - The only place it falls behind the 24-70 is build quality/weather sealing - But then again, if you're not using a camera with weather sealing, you won't be getting much benefit from that anyways!

Check the reviews on www.fredmiranda.com for more peoples experiences.

elderlemon

Fajitas - this is exactly the torment I've been going through. The 17-55 2.8 is great and works really well on a crop but should I/we be investing in EF-S lenes now when eventually full frame will be available for the masses. In other words invest in the glass now and change the body when needed.

Paulw

Fajitas! wrote: »

Right, the 24-70 is an amazing lens, but I really really don't think you'll get the full use out of it on a crop body. You're getting about a 45-105mm lens, which isn't the most practical of lengths.

Isn't it more of 40-112mm?? It's a great range for portraits, and general use.

Paulw

That's the unfortunate side - you can't use EF-S on a 5D or 1D body.

EF-S is only for the 1.6 crop bodies.

Fajitas!

It's not that great a range for portraits - I think 40mm is a murky, horrible length tbh. Especially, for a bit cheaper, you could get the 17-55. I guess I'm tainted by the fact I use the 24-70 on a full frame - And whenever I see it on a cropped body, I think "Eugh, why bother?" - The option of going from wide angle to a reasonable portrait length is the reason behind buying the 24-70, imo.

There'll always be crop bodies and full frame bodies - Do you feel you need to upgrade to full frame in the near future? If you do, then yes, the 24-70 is a good idea - But if it's in the near future. If you're thinking about upgrading in a year or two's time, I'd be going with the 17-55.

440Hz

i had this problem last year, and chatted at length to poor Faj about the FF frame issue and the 24-70 (sorry again Al hehe, and thanks again Al ). Anyway, I had narrowed it down to the same two lenses, both of which I had used and liked. The 17-55 is a great lens, no doubt about that. For me, one of the swinging factors was that I already owned the 17-85 IS and was reluctant to part with it. In the end I went with the 24-70 and I couldn't be happier. It took a bit of getting used to what I'd call an 'odd range' rather than a 'bad' one. It just doesn't feel right at first, but once you get going and get to know the lens you know what'll you want it for and what you need to change. Like most on here, that lens rarely comes off my camera since I got it. I have nothing negative to say about it at all.

One of my major concerns, which most likely wont be an issue with you, was the weight of the lens. I have a long-term injury to my right arm which is very limiting in terms of weights I can carry, and also my arm shakes A LOT! I was worried that this lens would be too much, but thankfully it turned out not to be too bad, I doubt I could manage it on a FF though unfortunately!

Anyway, I'd go for it, you most certainly will not regret it.

CH3OH

Uses This Item Number To Save A Few Dollars:


Ps1107wpejx