Canon 24-70L on 1.6 cropped body - yay or nay?

Necronomicon

I've been feeling the need for a new 'walkabout' lens for a while now. My current lens that fits the bill is my EF-S 17-85mm, but I'm starting to notice its limitations which are grating on me a little. While I've always been happy with its sharpness, chromatic aberration is far too abundant on the vast majority of its output. Also, for low light situations I could really use an extra couple of stops of light. I've found myself opting to use my 50mm 1.8 a lot lately, even when I'm compromising on focal length and making life more difficult.

The 24-70L seems to be the standard bearer for mid-range zoom lenses. Part of me wonders if I have any business getting a lens which is the default working lens for so many professionals. The other issue is focal length; on a 40D the focal length effectively becomes 38-112. Does anybody here use the lens on a cropped sensor body? I'm not sure if I'll miss the extra width or not. I like taking the occasional landscape shot, but for this I could hang onto the 17-85.

Reading other forums, people seem to suggest the EF-S 18-55 2.8 as a substitute. I'm not so keen on the idea I have to say - I think I'd miss the longer end slightly more than I would the shorter end. Also, I have full frame ambitions for the future so I'd like to limit my investment on EF-S lenses.

If anybody could help talk me into/talk me out of taking the plunge I'd be most grateful Also, I'd love to see people's shots taken at both ends on a 1.6 crop body (I've had trouble finding examples).

Thanks in advance everyone.

Borderfox

For me 24-70L is really nice on full frame but even on a 1d (1.3x) it loses a lot of width and the gain in length doesnt work for me. 16-35L would be a better bet if you dont like the 17-55 f2.8 IS (superb lens for a non L)

5uspect

I use a 24-70L on my 7D and I it. It's supersharp, fast and built like a tank.

I agree that it's not terribly wide but it really compliments the 70-200 and I've a Sigma 10-20 for the wide stuff.

This was taken wide open at 70mm through a window and has been cropped on the left.


70mm f/3.2


38mm f/5


24mm f/8


24mm f/2.8

loads more on my pix.ie

Necronomicon

Thanks for the responses.

@Borderfox, I'm not familiar with the 16-35L, must go check it out.

@5uspect, is the 7D a 1.6 crop also?

5uspect

Yes, it is. Canon have been splitting their lineup recently. So now where you had xxxD xxD and xD you have a greater range of cameras in those three segments.

It started with the introduction of the 1000D and the 450D to replace the 400D.
Then the 50D wasn't much of an upgrade of the 40D and they effectively split that into the 60D and the 7D. Some would argue that the 60D is a downgrade of the 40/50D and the 7D is the upgrade since the 60D doesn't have the build quality of the xxDs before it.

I use the 17-85 at the moment, and I do a lot of indoor stuff, where space can be tight.

I, too, find CA to be a bit of an issue with it, though I generally shoot RAW and if the CA is overly bad, it can usually be somewhat reduced in Adobe Camera RAW. Truth be told, I think the 17-85 is a fine lens, although even when I bought it i knew i was going ot upgrade from it.

For me, my choice was going to be between a 17-40L, or a mix of two lenses.

I decided that 40mm wasn't enough zoom, so went with the idea of mixing two lenses. I picked up the Sigma 10-20 for the very wide stuff, and then I was in a bit of a pickle trying to decide between the 24-70 f/2.8 or the 24-105 f/4 IS.

I read a lot, thought thourougly about the two, and eventually decided on the 24-105 IS.

The reason I'm posting it to also recommend this lens. Now, admittedly, i haven't received it yet (though i have used a friend's 24-105 for a couple of days so I do have a feel for it), but theoretically speaking, having gotten by fine using the 17-85's maximum aperture of f/4 (or f/5.6 if i decided to zoom) with flash (I rarely, if ever, shoot indoors without flash, and if i need to i have a fast prime for that work).


My argument was; Will I really use f/2.8 enough to justify the price difference, and how often have I used the IS function on the 17-85?

Truth be told, I never shoot at f/2.8. Unless it's a music gig, when i'm usually using 1.8 or 1.4, I have no use for 2.8. I use primes for portraiture and stuff, and this lens will be a lens needed to cover a lot of general photo types (usually people, and group shots) and 2.8 is too shallow a DOF to be useful in these situations in my opinion.

In the event that I do decide to be creative, I can get a shallower DOF with f/4 at 105mm than I can with f/2.8 at 70mm.

Add to this the ability to get motion/night shots without a tripod (which I've done the odd time, though admittedly not a whole lot of) and I found the 24-105 was a much more suitable choice for me. It also worked out a small bit cheaper, too, so that's a lovely bonus.


I realise this isn't what you asked, but I just thought I'd throw the idea out there at you incase you hadn't considered it at all.


If you're in enclosed spaces, 24mm is quite long on a 1.6x body, but with any decent bit of space to work with, you should be fine, and you won't get the noticeable distortion that the 17-85 can give you when shooting at 17mm or thereabouts.


Everyone's different though.