70-200 and 24-70 L lenses

Well, I thought I had almost all the lenses I needed for my gradual

switch from film to digital, since I'm not a pro I decided I could

get away with non-canon lenses and I ended up with the Tokina 12-24

and the Tamron 28-75. They are both excellent lenses and I have no

complaints about their sharpness, focus speed, or build. Then I had

to go and get a Canon 70-200mm IS L lens. Immediately after

receiving it I took several dozen shots, mainly to test the

stabilization feature, when I reviewed the pics I was amazed, the

pictures have a lifelike 3D quality that reminds me of my

Rolleiflex. While the sharpness is similar to the off-brand lenses,

this 70-200 produces better looking pics because of this hard to

describe quality, even the most mundane image seems to stand out. My

question is this... does the Canon 24-70mm L lens also have this

magic? I am content with my Tamron but if this is something shared

by both the 70-200 and the 24-70 (or other L lenses) I may have to

save up for it. I'm serious with this question, the quality is hard

to put into words but I think it could be thought of as

a "signature" and I'd like to hear from those who have used both the

Tamron and Canon or those who have the Canon L's and can tell no

difference (or one) in the pics. Thanks, Bob.

Bob,

 

In one word: Yes, it does.

 

Pierre

The 24-70L is such a nice versatile lens! In fact, it's a near perfect zoom lens. So YES it has that "jine se quous" (sp?) you're looking for. I own the non-IS 70-200 as well.

I tried the 24-70 and didnt like it. Mostly due to size, I have the Tamron and found the quality to be the same as the Canon and its much lighter. I had the Tokina 12-24 and was unhappy with it, CA not very sharp. I returned it and spent the extra money on the Canon 10-22 Ef-s lens which I like a lot, just as sharp as the 16-35 L. The 70-200 is awsome.

YOu have been bitten by the "L" glass bug, which is very real, as real as the difference the lenses make on your images.

 

I have the 24-70L and I can tell you it will be just the same experience as your 70-200 (of which I have the f/4 version). Once you try it you'll never go back!

I've also got the Tamron 28-75, and while it's a perfectly good lens, it doesn't have the snap and picture quality that I get from my 100-400L.

 

I have noticed similar qualities in the 100mm f/2.8 macro and 85mm f/1.8 primes. I don't, however see that same look with my 50mm f/1.8 - a lens that when compared to my others doesn't really impress me all that much.

the weight and the price are the only downsides of the Canon L lenses that I can think of.

Yes, the weight and the price are the only downsides of the Canon 70-200 f2.8L lens. If you can handle the 70-200 IS, you'll like the 24-70. As Ken said, "It's a near perfect zoom lens." I had a perfect copy of Tamron 28-70 but sold it to buy the Canon 24-70.

Smitten by the L-disease :( ...

Next you'll get a prime and be screwed.

 

I got the 100mm Macro and it's awesome. That's compared to the 24-70 and 70-200. All great lenses.

 

Have fun.

Possibly the focal length of the lens plays a part. Maybe you just like the perspective/dof/background blur that a telephoto gives.

 

That's more likely than any difference in optical performance.

Thanks for all the comments, I do believe I will come down with L glass disease but I hope to put it off as long as possible, I do like my 2 non-Canon lenses and they were a great deal so I'll stick with them for a time but I suspect the 70-200mm will see more use then the other 2. I agree with you Bob, I'm a pushover for bokeh or whatever you want to call it and the longer lenses show it off more but..there's still some quality present here, my Rolleiflex has it and the Mamiya 6 doesn't and the 70-200 has it and the Tamron doesn't, I think it's a combination of image plane sharpness, a smooth transition to OOF areas, right on colors and perfect exposure that does it, I have to say I'm very impressed with this lens. Bob.

Yes the 'L' really stands for Leica. What you have observed is the "Leica Glow" that is solely reserved for Canon 'L' and Leica lense's. You also automatically become a master photographer and expert on all such related things to do with 'L' just by the fact of possessing such a enlightening magical product, even if you are just a fondler and don't even use it. It immeadiatley becomes apparent that all other manufacterers lense's are just crap. Welcome to the "Club" ;-|

John Shaw calls Robert's affliction "lens lust". There's a lot of it going around.

I must warn you about those primes and L lenses. I wholeheartedly advise you NOT buy any of them and sell the one you have. If you buy one, you will never be happy with anything else. That will cause you enormous financial problems (and possibly, like in my case, also marital ones as well) as you'll always be in a quest to get more. I think that Canon primes and L lenses should all bear a note saying: "Beware! Addictive substance!".

 

Take the advice of an addict and stay away from them.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

Yes.

 

Yakim is also right. By getting your first L lens, you are setting yourself up for a long and expesive addiction, because you start to quickly dislike all the other lenses in your bag, and shudder at spending a nickel on anythinbg less than what you are now used to.

 

Except the 50mm F/1.8, because who can hate something that sharp and cheap.

If you like to have the zoom versatility, then stick to zooms. And yes, the L quality comes at a dollar and weight price. If, like me, you are comfortable with primes, then you can get your "je ne sais quoi" much more cheaply, with lenses like the 28 1.8, 50 1.4, and 100 macro, just to name a few.

 

These are cheaper than the L zooms, faster apertures, and lighter. Of course, the L primes are unbeatable. Once you have tried the likes of 24 1.4, 35 1.4, and 135 2.0, you start to wonder what was so special about the L zooms:)

Hmmm. Whilst we're on the subject... Is the softness from this lens here reasonable?

 

http://camera.fotopic.net/p16007262.html

 

You can see the original & EXIF from there too. 20D, 1/200, f7.1, 24mm

 

 

JPG, taken hand held, un-edited. The centre of the frame is much as I might expect before any sharpening/editing.

 

But if you look at the full size orginal in the corners, (eg bottom left) it gets a bit iffy. Is this normal for this lens, given that the 20D is a 1.6 crop camera so I'm not even at what would be the edge on a full frame camera...

 

J

I own the 24-70/2.8L and 70-200/2.8L. They both are excellent lenses on film and digital cameras. The 24-70 is my primary lens for many types of shooting, and it does not disappoint. Save yourself the money of upgrading again, and get one.