Canon 28-70/2.8L for macro and wide angle?

[k_kujo_hurt]

I don't own this lens but have been eyeing it on ebay and hope to

acquire it. I'd love the 24-70/L but the better price will likely be

on the 28-70. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone has ever tried to do

macro with this lens. I know that's not the primary reason people get

this lens and it wouldn't be my primary purpose either, I have a

180/3.5L for serious macro. I'm just curious if anyone has tried to

use the 28-70 for macro and what kind of results they obtained, as

well as how they got there (i.e., extension, diopter, etc). As for

wide angle, I'm shooting slide by the way, how did it perform? Can

you obtain the same results as a 28mm prime? Thanks,

[yakim_peled1]

OT but I hope it helps. How about going for a 24/2.8 (or 28/2.8) + 50/1.8 + 85/1.8 (or 100/2) instead of the 28-70/2.8? They will be lighter and probably optically better. Another option is the highly raved Tamron 28-75/2.8 which is also lighter than the L zoom and only costs 300$.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[scott aitken]

I have a Canon 28-70mm 2.8L. The minimum focusing distance is about 12 inches, which

is not stellar for macro, IMHO. I have used it with a 25mm extension tube, which gives it a

much closer focusing distance, but sacrifices focusing to infinity (not usually a big concern

with macro anyway). I prefer the extension tube rather than a 1.4x or 2x multiplier,

because you have minimal light loss, and no optical degradation. This seems to be a

practical alternative if you don't want to cart around the big 180mm Macro.

[scott_ferris]

Hi K_Kujo,

 

Don't know about the 28-70 but the 24-70 sucks big time for macro, nowhere near

enough magnification on its own and working distance with tubes is way way too small, in

the millimeters !

 

If you have a macro lens you will be very disapointed with a 24-70's usability for macro I

can't think the 28-70 is much better but I might be wrong.

 

Take care, Scott.

[k_kujo_hurt]

I didn't suspect the 28-70 or 24-70 would be great for macro but thought I would see what others might have experienced. How about the wide angle perspective? The 24/2.8 focuses to 0.25m while the 28-70/L focuses to 0.5 meters. Is this that significant?

 

I'm sure owners of this lens will rave about it for portrait type use. Has anyone else found a different use that they really like this lens for? Thanks.

[scott_ferris]

Hi again,

 

The short answer is no, don't underestimate the quality of the 24-70 though. But as far as

flexibility goes no lens I have ever owned has come close to the 70-200, the 16-35 and

24-70 are both single use lenses of exeptional quality for zooms.

 

Take care, Scott.