24-70mm F2.8L Vs 24 mm f2.8 and 35 mm F2

[chris_haines1]

I need some help. I have the Canon 24-85 f3.5-4.5 USM lens and the

vignetting is so bad below 50mm and F8, that the lens is basically

useless. So I am looking to replace it. I have read the previous

posts here and many reviews. I have a prime 50 and a couple of L

telephotos, but need something for the wide end. My first thought was

to go with the Canon 24mm F2.8 and the 35mm F2 primes. But the

reviews and sample pictures that I have seen do not look so good. If

everyone's reviews contain the words "for the price", you know that

there might be problems. I use Canon EOS film bodies and most of my

work is landscapes and transportation subjects for magazines and

calendars. Sharpness is much more important than price to me. I can't

see spending $600 on two lenses that aren't sharp. So that's when I

discovered the 24-70mm F2.8L. It's about double the price of the two

primes combined, but the reviews on it look very good. Other than

being bulky and the normal zoom problems (flare looking into a bright

sun, etc), is anyone having problems with this lens? The samples

looks incredibly sharp for a zoom. Thanks for any help.

 

Chris

[tom_burke3]

I'm surprised that you're having vignetting problems with the 24-85. Can you post an

example somewhere?

 

As regards the others, I've got them (I've got the 24-85 as well). I haven't done any tests

but they seem fine. They're both quite old lenses - non-USM motors - but quite small and

light. I don't have the 24-70 so I can't compare them with that.

 

Why not look for one of them on eBay and try it out? If you don't like it then simply move it

back onto eBay - you'll probably get back most if not all of what you paid for it. Are you in

the UK? If so, you may be interested to learn that I bought my 24 f2.8, 28 f2.8, & 35 f2 on

eBay.co.uk for 135, about 70, and 125 GB pounds respectively.

[marcin harla]

<i>If everyone's reviews contain the words "for the price", you know that there might be problems.</i> <p>So you have problems with that...

<p><i>The samples looks incredibly sharp <b>for a zoom.</b></i>

<p>...but not with that?

 

<p>24 f/2.8 and 35 f/2 are very good and sharp lenses. Some people indeed complain about CA and slightly soft images with 24mm lens (mostly with digital cameras though), but it seems very much depends on the sample. Yakim and Puppy Face claim their sample to be very sharp. <a href="http://emedia.leeward.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox4.htm"> Check here<a> for Peter Frary's review. If you don't like it, sell it on e-bay as suggested by Tom.

[west_cork]

35MM F2 is extremely good for any price.

Not as good as the 135mm 2.0, but probably better than the 50mm 1.4.

[chris_haines1]

Ok here are a few answers.

 

Here are a couple vignetting samples. Not the best photos, but examples none the less.

 

http://www.westernohiorails.com/hrc-bnsf-5178-01_b.jpg

 

http://www.westernohiorails.com/hrc-bnsf-4811-02_b.jpg

 

In the "for a zoom" comment, what I meant was that many photographers believe primes are always sharper that zooms. But the samples are very sharp for the zoom compaired to the 35mm primes in this sample.

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/35mm/index.htm

 

This is the one of the reviews I based my thoughts on.

 

Chris

[digitmstr]

I have been using the 24-70L for a while now (since it was introduced) for various shoots (portraits, fashion, interiors) with excellent results. It's a lens I higly recommend for serious work, both in studio and location.

[paul_kurian]

I own 24-70 zoom. It is a real sharp lens from aperture 4.0 onwards. But I'm not very happy with this lens due to the excess weight.I'm using this with 10D. Sending herewith a sample picture which I take today with this lens.<div></div>

[damian_tinsley]

Chris,

I can't comment on the 24-70 as I don't have it, but I can say that my 17-40 is better at all apertures at 24mm than the 24mm f2.8 I own. Easily better - and the 'edge' performance on the APS-C sized sensor of the 20D is not the true edge performance at all. So lord knows what it (the 24mm prime) would look like on a film body. As I can't see much if any difference on the centre to edge performance or the 17-40mm or the performance on the 17mm through to 40mm range (pixel-peeping, I know I know), it was a bit shocking to say the least to see such a drop in performance with a prime lens. And the 24mm f2.8 is not inexpensive either. So on basic performance I would personally steer clear of that 24mm prime lens. All the best

[bens]

chris, i shoot on a 10d with the 24/2.8 and 35/2 at 2.8, and have had them for 3 years, shooting on the D30 before this year. I have also informally tested the 28-70L for sharpness at 2.8. on the issue of sharpness, no question in my mind the 24/2.8 and 35 are very sharp at 2.8, perhaps little sharper than the 28-70L at 2.8. haven't tested the 28-70L at upper apertures. the 24/2.8 has some distortion that i've got to be careful with, but i would imagine so does any zoom at that focal length. i like the lens alot. also with the 35/2, the extra .8 aperture is valuable indoors. both are much more lightweight than than the zoom, also valuable in low light. but whichever way you go, you can't really go wrong with these choices. if you don't want to spend $600 on primes, buy them used, try keh.com for example. for the price of the L zoom, you could also get the primes and a third-party zoom, like the tamron 28-75. i ps everything, but nonetheless, in my architecture folder, lake merritt sunrise is with the 24/2.8 and the blacksmith shop photos are with the 35/2.

[joe_r1]

I owned the 24/2.8, and currently own the 24-70/2.8. I shoot with a 1.6x crop camera. In my case, the zoom was just as sharp as the prime. Contrast & color rendition actually may give the edge to the zoom. In short, I sold the prime. I have not tested the 35/2, but have seen samples wide open & did not like the bokeh. I own the 50/1.4 which is a bit better than the 24-70/2.8 at similar apertures, but the difference is not monumental. Some people complain about the weight or the price, but if I had to have 1 lens, it would be the 24-70/2.8.

[digitmstr]

>><i>if I had to have 1 lens, it would be the 24-70/2.8.<<</i>

<p>

Ditto :)

[anthony_thornborough1]

I have the 24-70 f/2.8 USM L and it's the one lens I could not do without - no problems with vignetting using standard Hoya HMC filters and it's actually a stellar performer at its wider end and the superb all-rounder for landscapes, "things pictures" (trains, planes & automobiles etc) and portraits. However, it is heavy to handle for lengthy periods.

[david_kusner]

When it was the only lens I owned (besides the Drebel kit lens), I thought the 24-70 was heavy. I solved the problem by getting the 70-200 2.8, and now the 24-70 seems light. :)

[yakim_peled1]

My 24/2.8 and 35/2 are excellent. Sharp wide open, no noticeable distortion or CA and excellent flare control. When the sun is inside the frame you see minor degradation in contrast. None of those ugly circles. Summary: Excellent in every optical respect.

 

The only problem I see is the slow AF speed of the 35/2 in low light conditions. While both has the same AFD motor, the 24/2.8 has IF which speeds up focusing speed.

 

No experience with the 24-70/2.8. HTH.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.