24-70MM f2.8L Lens

[John Tan]

get a padded camera strap (e.g. Optech USA). it helps to distribute the load better ;p

I used that since the day one...still heavy to me...

 

[John Tan]

I agree with data1ore. Wait till you work like me carrying a 70-200f2.8L. That is heavy!

Work around lens with 70-200L???

 

[John Tan]

i have used the 24-70L briefly once on the 1d body. it really feels quite heavy. instead of feeling like a good lens, it feels very fragile because it is a L lens that extends a lot when zoomed to to the wide end. so instead of having the confidence to use it in all terrain and condtions, it gave me the opposite feeling that i really have to carefully handle it like a glass vase. maybe its me or what but i just cannot get used to the idea of top of the line L lens that ironically extends so much when zoomed - kind of an ironic sensation. to me that is a manifestation of sub-standard build quality. it doesn't feel like the old-school styled "rock solid" build that it shound have.

in contrast, the 28-135 IS (likewise the 24-85, 28-105, etc) are much lighter (averaging on about 500 odd grams, which is roughly half the weight of the 24-70L) and thus even though they extend as they zoom, the sense of fragility is not as pronounced as when compared to the 24-70L . ironically, i will be more ready to abuse the smaller and cheaper lens rather than the bigger and more expensive lens

hence as far as i see it, the optimal solution comes in the form of 17-40L for bodies with non-full frame sensor. because the focal length translates back to the all-familiar 28-60mm (effective) and one more thing is that aperture-wise, constant f4 is really not much different than f/3.5-4.5 or f/3.5-5.6 since its just half a stop here and there. and most importantly, the extending mechanism of the 17-40L contained within the outer barrel ie effectively it doesnt extend when zoomed. hence 17-40L is the optimal wide-normal solution to most (canon) non-full frame users. and as well, the price sits nicely between the 28-135IS and the 24-70L. but for casual walk-around shooting, the 28-135 IS (likewise the 24-85, 28-105, etc) are the best compromise for price and weight

Yes IS is useful than 24-70L....that is why I used 50mm fast len to compensate it...

 

[Smurfie]

Work around lens with 70-200L???

I must either be a freak or I'm fat. But the 70-200L IS or 24-70L are my walk around lenses. :sweat:

 

[Sandman77]

Big arms ?? ahah me just use my 70-200 F4 .. Still good ..

 

[taiwanapurasteve]

I owned the 28-135 and currently use the 24-70 as my walk-around lens. I sometimes have regrets about selling off the 28-135, because of its great range and relative sharpness. For $500-600 it is a good 'one-lens' set up.

Weight wise, the 24-70 is heavier than the 28-135, but it doesn't bother me at all. (The 70-200 f/2.8 is even heavier, but the image trade off is worth the weight penalty.) Clearly the 24-70 is the image winner in contrast and sharpness, but that comes at a price that is 3x the price.

If you have the $$$ definitely get the 24-70L. It will hold it's value and give you stunning results. If $$$ is an overriding factor, then it's the 28-135.

 

[birdie01]

Do you have problem in using IS of 28-135? It does not seem to work well in dim light condition when the shutter speed dropped to 1/8. The picture taken is blurr.

 

[weekh]

The Canon 24-70 / 28-70 never appealed to me.
Too BIG and BULKY!!!

The Tamron 28-75 is much lighter and almost as good but feels a little filmsy.

For solid and best images, tried the Carl Zeiss 35-70mm f3.4! Comes with macro feature too!

 

[dennislim]

The Canon 24-70 / 28-70 never appealed to me.
Too BIG and BULKY!!!

The Tamron 28-75 is much lighter and almost as good but feels a little filmsy.

For solid and best images, tried the Carl Zeiss 35-70mm f3.4! Comes with macro feature too!

does carl zeiss have a range from 24-70 mm with a higher aperture say 2.8 ?

 

[user111]

the 70-200/2.8 is about 1 and a half times the weight of the 24-70L

however psychologically the long lens does not feel that "heavy" , rather, the 24-70 does feel quite "heavy".


probably its because

(i)we unconsciously expect that for a lens in the range of around 24-70mm, it should be lightweight but the real weight of the 24-70L, contradicts our pre-conceived stereotype that it should be small and light and be able to be used with the right hand holding the camera only, hence it feels "heavy"

(ii)we unconsciously expect the for a lens in the range of 70-200mm at f2.8, it should be heavy. and real-life handling of any actual copy of a 70-200 complements our preconceived notions about its weight, hence do not take the weight too unexpectedly

hence i ifnd the weight of the 70-200 to be nothing un-usual, but otherwise for the other lens

 

[henavs]

the 70-200/2.8 is about 1 and a half times the weight of the 24-70L

however psychologically the long lens does not feel that "heavy" , rather, the 24-70 does feel quite "heavy".


probably its because

(i)we unconsciously expect that for a lens in the range of around 24-70mm, it should be lightweight but the real weight of the 24-70L, contradicts our pre-conceived stereotype that it should be small and light and be able to be used with the right hand holding the camera only, hence it feels "heavy"

(ii)we unconsciously expect the for a lens in the range of 70-200mm at f2.8, it should be heavy. and real-life handling of any actual copy of a 70-200 complements our preconceived notions about its weight, hence do not take the weight too unexpectedly

hence i ifnd the weight of the 70-200 to be nothing un-usual, but otherwise for the other lens

I do agree somehow, thats why we feel 70-200 f/4L is really really light. Although 24-70L is heavier only by about 200g, it does feel really heavy after a while.

 

[jodie_tan]

How many use this lens as a walkaround lens or even full time lens? I find it too bulky and heavy. Still wondering whether to get this or the 28-135mm IS. I read alot of review about the 2, most ppl regret buying the 28-135mm coz the picture is not sharp most of the time.

Which model will u guys choose?

Please take weight, size, contrast, colour and sharpness into consideration and also take it that u walk for 8 to 10 hrs a day with your cam and the lens attach to it.

24-70...btw...sigma oso offers the 28-135...non IS...
i borrowed the IS 28-135 and it sux! Everything is so soft...but in terms of focal range, the 28-135 is still better. Can capture a more versatile range of things. Suggest* you should get the 28-135(non-IS)

 

[David]

Here are some of my personal opinions...

I've used expensive L lenses and consumer ones, even the cheapo 28-80mm.

At the end of the day, there is no doubt that L lenses are superior in images. The question is by how much to justify your (assuming amateurs) spending hundreds or usually thousands $ more. With digital, very often post-processing is needed. And moreover, when you use mid-range bodies like the 10D or 20D and shoot RAW, the images that appear suck in terms of contrast, sharpness and colour. You definitely have to tweak them afterwards.

So whether you use an L lens or not I feel is not an important issue if you are not concerned with microscopic details. Our naked human eyes are not made for observing that kind of difference in images anyway. Which means.. although in the lab, we can say L lenses resolve better than consumer ones, have less distortions and all that, I find at the end of the day, a picture well-composed with magical lighting and all that determines the final icing on the cake. I've used both L and consumer lenses... Never once has anyone told me Wow... Your pictures are so sharp and contrasty, must be an expensive (or L) lens! The truth is... they never know what lens I used. It could come from a much cheaper lens. Serious.

Why buy L lenses then? Cos for amateurs, we usually want to feel good and got money to burn away...unless you have specific intentions such as sports, low light photography or want bokeh. For pros, they have no choice. they never know when they need that f/2.8. One perfect shot may be all it takes to determine if they will get that fat pay cheque. No compromise. L is the way to go.

Heck, after saying so much, I still love L for their solid build quality and image quality! It makes me feel good. But to get that good shot? I would think twice carrying a 24-70L. (I'm not a low light photographer!) A 28-135mm IS (assuming I don't need the 24mm too much) will do the job for me.... what I want is to concentrate on the compostion of shots. After post processing, who cares much whether it came from a 24-70 or 28-135? Or can anyone really tell with confidence the difference all the time? I seriously doubt so.

 

[lightning]

Bravo! Bravo!

Totally agree with David. I think as consumer, not using photography to earn a living, spending so much on just one lens is not justifiable.

I have taken many wedding shots, and using kit lens(18-55mm) to shoot at times. People cannot tell the diff, cos most of the time they either see it via the internet or via a 4R print. Hence, the extra details that the "L" lens gives is lost!

I guess to get more lens to cover the range you want is much better then having one "super" lens.

Cheers....it is the photographer that matters most, not the lens!

 

[kayaro888]

Work around lens with 70-200L???

hehehe, i see many people walk around with their 1D2 with 500/4 or 600/4 .....

 

[Belle&Sebastain]

Here are some of my personal opinions...

I've used expensive L lenses and consumer ones, even the cheapo 28-80mm.

At the end of the day, there is no doubt that L lenses are superior in images. The question is by how much to justify your (assuming amateurs) spending hundreds or usually thousands $ more. With digital, very often post-processing is needed. And moreover, when you use mid-range bodies like the 10D or 20D and shoot RAW, the images that appear suck in terms of contrast, sharpness and colour. You definitely have to tweak them afterwards.

So whether you use an L lens or not I feel is not an important issue if you are not concerned with microscopic details. Our naked human eyes are not made for observing that kind of difference in images anyway. Which means.. although in the lab, we can say L lenses resolve better than consumer ones, have less distortions and all that, I find at the end of the day, a picture well-composed with magical lighting and all that determines the final icing on the cake. I've used both L and consumer lenses... Never once has anyone told me Wow... Your pictures are so sharp and contrasty, must be an expensive (or L) lens! The truth is... they never know what lens I used. It could come from a much cheaper lens. Serious.

Why buy L lenses then? Cos for amateurs, we usually want to feel good and got money to burn away...unless you have specific intentions such as sports, low light photography or want bokeh. For pros, they have no choice. they never know when they need that f/2.8. One perfect shot may be all it takes to determine if they will get that fat pay cheque. No compromise. L is the way to go.

Heck, after saying so much, I still love L for their solid build quality and image quality! It makes me feel good. But to get that good shot? I would think twice carrying a 24-70L. (I'm not a low light photographer!) A 28-135mm IS (assuming I don't need the 24mm too much) will do the job for me.... what I want is to concentrate on the compostion of shots. After post processing, who cares much whether it came from a 24-70 or 28-135? Or can anyone really tell with confidence the difference all the time? I seriously doubt so.

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: just my 2 cents, if you are a low light photog, f2.8 is slow as well.

 

[David]

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: just my 2 cents, if you are a low light photog, f2.8 is slow as well.

My discussion pertains to the original topic posted, that is comparing 24-70L and other consumer lenses not of the f/2.8 genre. For standard zoom lenses, f/2.8 is considered fast.

 

[David]

Bravo! Bravo!

Totally agree with David. I think as consumer, not using photography to earn a living, spending so much on just one lens is not justifiable.

I have taken many wedding shots, and using kit lens(18-55mm) to shoot at times. People cannot tell the diff, cos most of the time they either see it via the internet or via a 4R print. Hence, the extra details that the "L" lens gives is lost!

I guess to get more lens to cover the range you want is much better then having one "super" lens.

Cheers....it is the photographer that matters most, not the lens!

Hee... Thanks for the support...

Yup, the bottomline is, I'd think it's better to ask what are one's needs first b4 splurging the $$ on the f/2.8L. The diff in price and performance betn an L and a consumer lens may not be justified for some photographers' intended purposes.

 

[Belle&Sebastain]

My discussion pertains to the original topic posted, that is comparing 24-70L and other consumer lenses not of the f/2.8 genre. For standard zoom lenses, f/2.8 is considered fast.

yes i agree.

 

[data1ore]

I admit there is a hint of wanting the best equipment for my hobby, even though I'm not earning my living off it. Yet a larger part of the reason why I buy the best, is also because I believe in having the best in whatever I do. Why go halfway when I can go all the way? Apart from letting myself enjoy this hobby better (aka, more shiok to use), in a funny kind of way it also forces me to become better all the time (otherwise how to warrant using a USD 1k+ lens?). It also gives me the option to freelance and yet not look unprofessional.

I admit the cheaper Tamron is a good alternative - yet it is never going to be L. The 24-70 is also not without its issues, I've seen QC problems (sharpness, red fringing), so once you have a good copy, hang on to it like I am doing!