24-70MM f2.8L Lens

[bigberd]

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!

I think many people share the same idea as you when it comes to the quest for the perfect image quality but many do not share the same deep pockets. True the "L" lens may be superior in terms of quality compared with the "non-L" lens. Eversince I bought my 1st "L" I have not looked back since.

Whatever lens you are using currently, know the quirks and drawbacks and try and work around them. They can still give very good and unforgettable pictures. I've used them previously and still enjoy those images.

 

[John Tan]

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

Ya la I know...when compare your 300 f2.8...all other lens is walk around...hehe...

 

[John Tan]

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.

Might due to cam shutter vibration...

 

[John Tan]

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!

Is your carl zeiss len autofocus?

 

[leef]

Is your carl zeiss len autofocus?

Yes,agreed.
Tried canon last 8 yrs,then last yr tried zeiss and lately try leica.
In certain area in absolute term leica beat zeiss,zeiss beat canon L,L beat non L,my personal experience.
BUT leica and zeiss is MF,I go back to canon now for USM AF,best in world,while foregoing certain finger print of exotic lens.

 

[XenoBaka]

Sorry for borrowing the thread, I was also thinking of an upgrade fromt he kit lens in the near future. I was thinking of either:

1) EF S17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS + EF 70-200mm f/4L USM which will give me a range of 17-200 (x1.6).

2) Or the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM + EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS which will give me a range of 17-135 (x1.6).

Both sets would cost below 2.5K. Any advice?

 

[lightning]

Do you intend to use any flim camera? cos EFS cannot work with 1D(s) and flim. Also consider which range you shoot at most often.

I will think configuration 2 will give you better result most of the time. :think:

 

[mpenza]

Sorry for borrowing the thread, I was also thinking of an upgrade fromt he kit lens in the near future. I was thinking of either:

1) EF S17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS + EF 70-200mm f/4L USM which will give me a range of 17-200 (x1.6).

2) Or the EF 17-40mm f/4L USM + EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS which will give me a range of 17-135 (x1.6).

Both sets would cost below 2.5K. Any advice?

Depends on what you shoot more and go for the L lenses in that range. 17-40 F4L+70-200F4L could be an alternative option and will cost below 2.5k too. The gap between 40 and 70 could be filled by a cheap and fast 50/1.8.

 

[Belle&Sebastain]

Is your carl zeiss len autofocus?

:bsmilie: :bsmilie: :bsmilie:

 

[XenoBaka]

Depends on what you shoot more and go for the L lenses in that range. 17-40 F4L+70-200F4L could be an alternative option and will cost below 2.5k too. The gap between 40 and 70 could be filled by a cheap and fast 50/1.8.

Now why didn't I think of that. Thanks... :thumbsup:

 

[limlien]

Or if you dont mind the weight you can try the 35-350 worth 1.6k second hand!

 

[Sandman77]

Got money

10-22 and 24-70 F2.8 and 70-200 is f2.8..

what u guys thinks ?

 

[Smurfie]

Looks like you left almost no mm untouched. Only thing is, is that necessary?

I would go this route though, if I want to cover my bases.

10-22, 24-70mm f2.8L, 135mm f2L, 200mm f2.8L.

 

[Sandman77]

ajahaha ..
Too many lens to carrie .. will die ..

 

[srisaro]

how much does the Canon 24-70 and Canon 17-40 lenses cost ?

 

[dennislim]

how much does the Canon 24-70 and Canon 17-40 lenses cost ?

24-70 $2450
17-40 $1220

 

[fleek]

I used to use the 28-135 on the 10D and had great results. But after getting the 20D, the 24-70F2.8 is my defacto lense on my 20D coz it gives amazing focusing speed besides the wide aperture and the superb color rendition.

Now the 28-135 sits permanently on my 10D only.