24-70 f2.8L

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by mjc photographic images, Oct 31, 2005.

  1. Just posting a thankyou note to all who gave me good advice in a
    previous thread on whether to get the 24-70 or the 24-105. I went
    for the 24-70 because of the 2.8 and if it is anything like the
    BOKEH on my 70-200 f2.8L(non IS)then I will be turning pro :):). All
    I need now is the 100-400 L

    Thanks again all.
     
  2. I have zero I.S. lenses. RARELY they would help me (too heavy, bulky, and battery hoggy). The 24-70 and 70-200 2.8 L's are superb in all ways. You made an excellent, informed choice JC which you will not ever regret.
     
  3. IS lenses heavy? Bulky? Compared to what? Certainly not compared to f2.8L zooms. Often not even compared to f4L zooms
     
  4. It appears as if those few extra hundred grams are the difference between life and death for some people.

    At first I thought my stuff was heavy, but I got used to the weight of a 1-series body and 200IS after a while. Now anything smaller than a 1-series is "weightless".
     
  5. CONTEXT: f/2.8 IS zoom lens (I could've been more specific, but the OP was all about 2.8 zooms) like the 70-200. That's Canon's heaviest lens (under $2000).
     
  6. The 70-200 2.8L IS lens is only 160 grams heavier than the 70-200 2.8L, hardly noticeable (IMO). The IS adds a great deal of usability especially with an extender in place.
     
  7. Good choice, JC. As a late, venerated member used to say, "Happy snaps!"
     
  8. Thanks Bill,
    Sorry about my rant on your post before, must have been that time of the month. As I said though mate fantastic portfolio.

    James
     

Share This Page