24-70mm vs. 28-70mm and 20D?

Hi..

I will be buying a 20D...I currently own and EOS 3 and a 28-70MM L

lens...I am under the impression that the 24-70mm L was specifically

designed for digital use but also works great on film cameras...and,

I understand from various reviews that the 24-70mm is optically

superior to the 28-70mm which it replaces..

 

I love my EOS 3 and 28-70mm L combo...I've shot weddings, formal

events with this duo and people are amazed at the results...

 

Is there a picture quality difference using the 28-70mm L or 24-70mm

L on the 20D? I can afford both and actually wouldn't mind owning

both but if I don't really need the 24-70mm I would rather spend it

on a 400mm f5.6....

 

Another question..I own the 70-200mm f4L...I was told that optically

it is superior to it's brothers...both the non IS and IS f2.8

version..Has anyone heard this or know if it is or is not? I would

like the IS version too...one for indoor and glamour use...one for

travel outdoor use..

 

Thanks for your input..

 

Chuck..

With the 20D the first thing to think about is may be the 1.6 magnifcation factor. Thus a 24mm wide-angle will actually become a 38.4mm on the 20D. Conversely, a 28mm becomes a 44.8mm. If you're into or need wide-angle lenses you may be better off looking at the ES range of lenses which were specifically designed to accommodate this issue. Other than that, the 24-70 is a great lens. Prefer it over the 28-70. Just seems a little more versitile. Shooting wide open across the zoom range produces acceptable results in all instances that I've used it. Its a heavy piece of glass but then, that's what I like. HTH

Hi Chuck,

 

For weddings I have used the 28-80 2.8-4L, the 28-70 2.8L, and now use the 24-70 2.8L on a 1V, EOS3, and just recently a 20D.

 

"...that the 24-70mm L was specifically designed for digital use but also works great on film cameras...and, I understand from various reviews that the 24-70mm is optically superior..."

 

I'm not sure about the 24-70 being designed specifically for digital other that with the crop factor the wide end of the 28 becomes a 45 on the 20D. The 24 becomes a 38 on the 20D and is much more useable as a mid range lens.

 

"Is there a picture quality difference using the 28-70mm L or 24-70mm L on the 20D?"

 

Not that I can tell! I have seen some reviews that say the 24-70 is a better lens. Maybe in very technical test it is, but to the eye I don't think we could tell the difference.

 

If you are going to do weddings or much indoor work then you will need something wider than the 28 on the 20D. If you don't want both you could sell the 28-70, currently going for around 750~800 in mint condition, and get the 400. With a 400 you must do some outdoor work also.

 

The 70-200 f4:

"I was told that optically it is superior to it's brothers...both the non IS and IS f2.8 version..Has anyone heard this or know if it is or is not?"

 

I have never used the 70-200 f4 but own the 2.8 version, non-IS. I don't know how the f4 could be superior because the 2.8 version is very, very good. I doubt most people could pick out an image from either one as being "better".

 

All if this is IMO of course.

 

Cliff

If I were changing from film to a 20D (I have the 10D,) based upon your above, I'd keep the 28-70mm f/2.8L (which I have) and I'd keep the 70-200mm f/4.0L (which I have) and add a 16-35mm f/2.8L (which I have.)

 

If I were to make any changes to the above, I'd think about a 17-40mm f/4.0L and a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS for the IS, which I don't have either of.

 

Excellent advice in everybody's above.

<p><a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200301/report.html#t2" target="_blank">Canon says that the coatings on the 24-70 were optimized for digital cameras</a>. <a href="http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/tech/report/200308/report.html#t9">They also say that the shapes of the individual elements have been designed to reduce the likelihood of reflections</a>, which of course benefits all cameras but supposedly particularly benefits digital cameras since digital sensors are more reflective than film.</p>

 

<p>Not having a 24-70 (or 28-70), I can't compare the two. I know that both have very good reputations. In your shoes, I'd consider the 1.6x crop of the 20D and ask whether the 28-70 (which effectively becomes a 45-112) or 24-70 (38-112) is a better fit. If you don't use the 28-70 below 45, then keep your existing lens and spend the money on the 400/5.6 you want. If you use the 28-70 in the 38-45 range but rarely below that, then the 24-70 is probably a better choice for you. If you need to keep the wider end of the range, then keep the 28-70 and add the 16-35 or 17-40.</p>

 

<p>I haven't heard that the 70-200/4 is better than its f/2.8 brethren. Most sources say the two non-IS lenses are pretty much neck and neck. Some sources say the IS lens is better, and some say it's worse. Eventually, I plan on replacing my 300/4L IS USM (which is fine for me on film but will be too long on a 1.6 crop body) with the 70-200 IS; I do not want to be without IS on a lens in this range.</p>

Going though my archives, I found that I use the 24+ focal range when

shooting weddings and parties with a Drebel either a 17-85 IS or the kit 18-

55. When I use a sigma 28-300 for the same type of shooting I find that I am

often banging the zoom wide and shooting at 28 and taking the time to step

back a littte.

 

28mm is not wide enough for a 1.6x crop camera walk-around/party/group

shot lens.

 

That said, I recently bought a 10-22 (I love it). I also made use of the canon

rebates and ordered the 24-70L and 70-200L IS yesterday. I expect to use

the 24-70 most of the time.

 

In your situation, I would probably keep the 28-70 and get either the 16-35L or

17-40L since you shoot film too. Also get the 400 5.6 and 20D before the

rebate ends tomorrow (1/31/05).

 

Grant

I'd keep the 28-70 and simply add the 17-40/4. HTH.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Thanks everyone for your time and responses..

I bought the 17-40mm instead of the 16-35...feeling the 17-40..with the extra 5mm on the long end would work a little better as a general all purpose walk around lens on the 20D which i just bought...and of course, the cost vs. the 16-35mm...I don't really need the f2.8 for this lens..

 

I also bought the 70-200mm IS version, 50mm f1.4, and the 300mm f4 IS..i think i have a pretty decent arsenal now....the eos 3, 20d, 17-40mm, 28-70mm 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 70-200mm f4, 70-200mm IS, and 300mm f4 IS....whew....oh...and both the 550EX and 580EX flashes...

 

Thanks again....

Chuck

I have a question I am interested in the 24-70mm or the 70-200mm f 2.8

I want to sote pics like this photograper http://www.amaginations.com/

I want to get the lens that will through the background out of focus but I dont want to be 20 feet away from the subject.