Canon 24-70L - Worth It?

Hello. I have been going around and around with lenses and I have

yet to find a perfect set-up.

 

Right now I have a 10D, and use the following lenses:

 

17-40L f/4.0

35mm f/2.0

50mm f/1.8 mk1

80-200L f/2.8 (still waiting for delivery of the 70-200L IS from

Dell).

 

I am very happy with the 80-200L. I also like the 17-40L, although

it is a bit slow, and using the onboard flash creates shadows in the

frame (I have the 420EX flash but don't always want to use it).

 

I like taking a lot of indoor portraits, as well as doing macro and

some landscape. I do think the 35mm and 50mm are great lenses, but I

would like to have an excellent, fast mid-range zoom I can use for

most situations. I would also like to simplify my lens selection so

I don't have to keep swapping lenses.

 

I am thinking about the 24-70L f/2.8, but I am not sure I am ready to

spend that much money right now. I think I would probably keep this

lens on my camera most of the time, and use the 17-40L for landscapes

and the 80-200L for telephoto and macro (with the 500D close-up

filter). I am also looking at the Tamron 28-75DI lens which has been

getting great reviews and is only a fraction of the cost.

 

My thought on the cost of the 24-70L is that: 1) Canon is offering a

rebate until the end of the month and I would get a $80 rebate on

this lens (I bought another Canon lens recently so the $40 rebate

would be doubles); 2) the lens would probably retain much of its

value if I ever wanted to sell it; and 3) over the many years I hope

to use the lens the cost will matter less and less.

 

I am one of those people who may compromise at first, but eventually

I trade up to the best possible lens I can afford. At the same time,

I don't want to throw money away for a tiny benefit.

 

I could also consider selling the 17-40L to help pay for the 24-70L,

but I think I would probably regret it, since the 17-40L is a great

landscape lens. I could also sell the 35mm and 50mm lenses, which

might take away some of the guilt of buying the 24-70L.

 

Any thoughts? Is it stupid to get rid of the faster, lighter primes

just for convenience? I have read many great reviews of the 24-70L;

I am just trying to figure out if it is worth it for my situation.

 

Sometimes I think I should stick with what I have and get used to

using the 50mm most of the time (in that regard, is it worth

upgrading from the 50mm 1.8 mkI to the 50mm 1.4 as far as indoor

natural light shots go?).

 

Thanks!

 

Peter M

 

www.pbase.com/peterm1

I just saw a used 28-70L for $700 ($500 less than a new 24-70). Perhaps this would be a good solution and would make a nice match with the 17-40L?

Yes, if you can do without the 4mm wide angle loss, the 28-70mm would be just as good as the 24-70mm. I have also used the Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 and think very highly of that lens (compact, good build, and high image quality at a very good price).

Thanks Rick. Do you see any major reasons to get the Canon over the Tamron?

 

-Peter

I suggest that you go to a store and test those two lenses. Take a few shots. Then look at the results and see it the money difference is worth it for YOU. Logic says the Canon will be better but will it be 1000$ better ? That is a question only you can answer.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

Peter,<BR>

<BR>

I went through the same dilemna. I had (**had**) the 28-70L, it is an awesome bright and sharp lens. However, like you, I found myself enjoying more wide-angles (16-35) and medium tele (70-200, 300f/4). <BR>

So I looked into the subjects and the photography I was enjoying and frankly, there was no real need for that expensive lens. I came to the conlusion that this was an overkill for what I was doing (probably an excess of consumerism too!). I sold it.

On the neg for this lens: it is heavy and bulky and I am guessing that it's new 24-70 counter part is the same (and add the hood for the cherry on the cake!)<BR>

So eventhough I am not using that range (~35 to 70mm) a lot I still have some situation where I can shoot with it. So I debated for between the Tamron DI and the Canon 24-85 f3.5-4.5. I went for the Canon (for long term keep). I love it!<BR>

It is light and covers what I need to cover. The interesting thing about it is that with a digital camera and the croping, you don't see the barrel distortion that they are blamed for...<BR>

Happy camper!!!<br>

<br>

My two cents,<br>

Antony

Hi Peter,

 

I recently traded my 17-40/4L for a 24-70/2.8. I loved the 17-40, but it was just too slow and I often found myself wanting just a _little_ more reach for quick composition. The 24-70 addressed both of those issues, but the 24mm minimum focal length is rather limiting for tight shots with 1.6x crop. I wish I'd had the budget to keep the 17-40!

 

Also, my initial impression in the first 2 weeks of use is that the 24-70 at 24/8.0/infinity landscape shots isn't quite as contrasty or pleasing in color rendition as the 17-40 was at the same settings. The 24-70 may actually be more accurate, but if so I preferred the artificial warmth of the 17-40.

 

I don't have a 35/2.0 to compare, but the 24-70 definitely holds its own against my 50/1.8 at 2.8. But I wouldn't give up the 50/1.8 because the additional stop makes a huge difference for available light shooting and background blur.

 

Regards,

 

Paul

I used to own a pair of 28-70mm f/2.8L until last year (one for wedding and second one as backup and for my personal use). After I tried new 24-70mm f/2.8L, I sold both of my 28-70mm f/2.8L and bought a new 24-70mm f/2.8L. The new 24-70mm f/2.8L is much improved version of older one, and I really like it at wide open plus it has a water-resistant design (I own 1V/1D). It is definitely sharper at wide end, but similar when closed down to f/5.6 or smaller. Although my 50mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.8 are noticibly shaper at wide open, I use my primes less and less often. It's circular aparture blades are definite plus too.

 

However, I would urge you to try it for yourself to see if it is really worth extra 500.00 over 28-70mm f/2.8L for your applications. Even if you get 24-70mm, you should not discard your primes yet. They are still useful for available light photography or when you know you need extra stop or two.

 

Just my 2KB worth!

I'm in the same situation. I'm constantly trying different lenses to get the ultimate kit for my 10D. I'm also pondering what to do for the midrange zoom.

 

Currently I have 17-40L, 50/1.4, 70-200/4L +1.4x and Tamron 90/2.8 1:1

 

I have a 28-105/3.5-4.5 which covers the gaps, but now I'm addicted to L glass and prime quality. So I want to upgrade.

 

I toyed with the idea of a used 24/28-70L or older 28-80L, but these f2.8L zooms are heavy and I cant warrent spending $1000+ on a zoom which I wont use that often. I'm thinking of trying out the new Tamron 28-75...

 

I think Canon purposely don't match lenses up nicely, so that you have to buy more of them. I remember a few years ago I was happy with a consumer 28-80 + 70-300 !!!

Has anyone ever thought that for a 24-70L, you can buy a Canon 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm and a Tamron 28-70f2.8? I basically bought the 24-70L because it was convenient.

How often are you changing lenses, REALLY?

 

The 17-40/4L, 50/1.8, and 70-200/2.8 is a powerful set. The 17-40/4L is great for landscape and general indoor work. The 50/1.8 is a fine 10D portrait lens, and the 70-200/2.8 is the telephoto king.

 

If you keep the 17-40/4L, the 24-70/2.8L is simply redundant. Yes, the 2.8 is nice, but how often do you take wide open portraits? When you do, between the 35/2 and 50/1.8 in your bag do this just fine.

I picked up got the Tamron SP 28-75 2.8 XR DI as I've always wanted a 2.8 zoom. This is my first third party lens, and I still believe that money no object, for sure I would have gone for the Canon 24-70 2.8L. But from what I've seen so far from the Tamron I've been pleased. Stopped down it hold its own when matched against my 50 1.8 and 1.4 lenses. As I travel quite a bit, I wanted a walk around lens that could replace the 28-135 IS that is no longer in my collection. And while the range of the 28-135 is clearly better, the Tamron is IMHO better for available light shooting and more useful as a portrait lens. <SP> Since my wife and I had our first child, I needed something fast and versatile to use until I pick up a 85 1.8 or a DSLR, which ever comes first. <SP>As far as your thought to upgrade from the 50 1.8 to the 1.4 lens: the difference is mainly in build quality and slightly more pleasing bokeh. <SP>I haven't burn too much film with the new Tamron but here is a shot taken hand-held, and close to wide open with the Tamron 28-75 2.8 zoom on my Elan 7. Best of luck!!!<div></div>

Peter,

 

Welcome to the "Gotta Have It" world. I have been through this and probably will go through it again, but during last venture, I believe I made myself happy AND saved some money.

 

I consolidated and now have two carry lens for my 10D. My primary is the 24-85, which I love, and when needed I use my 70-200 F4L (both use 67mm filters). If in an extreme need, I pick up my auxillary bag, which has my 20mm 2.8 and my 100-400L.

 

It all depends on what I am shooting that day. I tried the 28-70L and the 70-200 2.8L and decided they were too heavy and awkward for my needs. I find that I tend to carry my equipment more since I have shifted to these two lens (24-85 & 70-200 F4L).

 

I am happy with my decision and have a little extra money in my pocket!!

Well, I just use a 17-40 f4 and a 70-200 f4 on my 10D. I very rarely want anything in between, but when I do, or I'm doing available light potraits, the 50 f1.8 is tiny and slips into the bottom of my bag.

 

I also have the 28-70 f2.8, left over from my film days, but I find that with the 1.6 crop factor the focal length is not very useful for me any more. As it is also very bulky, it now tends to stay at home...

Well, I found a used 24-85mm in mint condition for $200 shipped, which should satisfy my needs for now (this is the lens I started with on the 10D and I got some great photos with it). It's slow, but I like the focal range and the colors and contrast are good (and it's sharp stopped down). I figure I can use the flash with it indoors, and outdoors there should be enough light on many occasions to get nice shots. I can always go to my other lenses should the need arise, but this should be great as a casual walk-around lens.

 

I can't believe that after all my buying, selling and worrying I come back to the same lens I started with, but I can't turn it down for the price! Besides, my wife would have killed me if I bought the 24-70 right now ;).

 

Thanks for everyone's advice.

 

-Peter

Stick with the 17-40 f/4L + 50 f/1.8(4) + 70-200 f/4L. Really are you going to miss not having 60mm covered. However the Tamron 28-75 is very good for the money 95% the L for 35% the price. Not as well built but good and nice even wide open. Also Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 is a nice lens (Sigma 24-70 is junk) too.