24-70 2.8L who has it? Do you love it?

[stacy]

Well- Saturday everything that could break did. Not one- but two

flashes lost their lives and a 100mm lens. So I need to buy some

replacements today. I'm considering the 24-70. I do have primes to

cover all of these lengths, but it seems like a very handy lens to

have. Who has it- what are your thoughts on it? Thanks!

[jschiavone]

I love, love, LOVE my 24-70 lens. Well worth the money and you will be very happy with the results. Look at my gallery for samples of photographs I've taken with this lens. I promise you won't be disappointed with this lens!

[djphoto]

The 24-70 is certainly a great lens, but it weighs a ton, and if you don't plan to use it for available light, why put up with the weight?

 

Personally, since I have fast primes for available light (Sigma 20mm f1.8, Canon 50mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8) I use and highly recommend the marvelous little Canon 24-85 f3.5-4.5.

 

This is a sweet lens and a real sleeper -- small, light, cheap, and very sharp. I was advised to get one by Patrick Murphey-Racey, who is no slouch. (You can view his site at http://www.pmrphoto.com/main.html.)

 

As a long-time Sports Illustrated contract photographer as well as a much-in-demand corporate and wedding shooter, Pat owns more L glass than some of us have ever seen. Yet he calls the 24-85 his "money lens" because he makes more money with it than any other lens in his very extensive kit. I've been using mine since for more than a year and am delighted with it.

[holly mikel]

I don't currently own one (saving as we speak) but have used one at the last 4 weddings I have shot and am in LOVE LOVE LOVE with this lens!! An absolute beauty in low light situations.....yeah she's heavy but after the first few weddings you'll get used to it. :)

And after shooting part of the last one with the 70-200/2.8, the 24-70 is a lightweight!! :)

[cliff_henry]

Stacy,

 

I use my 24-70 2.8L for about 90% of my wedding shots. It is heavy but the resulting images and convenience of a zoom make it worthwhile. I use in on a 1VHS and EOS3 W/PB. I use the PB to help balance the len's weight. I have also used in on a 20D but that body does not balance as well because of the len's weight.

 

I have used all of Canon's mid-range zoom L lenses, i.e., 28-80 2.8-4L, 28-70 2.8L, and now the 24-70 for weddings. I find the 24-70 to be the fastest focusing of the three and sharp even wide open. If I need a low light lens, I switch to a 50 1.4 or 85 1.2L.

 

If you don't mind its weight, I think you will like the 24-70 2.8L.

 

Cliff

[khitrovg]

Without much of reservation I can tell you that this lens is superb, sharp and produces some of my most increadible images that my brides absolutely love.

 

Greg

[fotografz]

Had one. Didn't love it. Huge lens. Weak front shade mount. Suffers from flare.

Unacceptable barrel distortion IMO. Don't have one anymore. The old, discontinued 35

-70/2.8 was a better lens ... and a LOT smaller.

[colleendonovan]

Are you serious Marc??? I was going to buy one. What a bummer. I do have to say that after yesterday's wedding and using the 70-200 L IS most of the ceremony my wrists are KILLING me. Can't be anything more heavy than that. I'm just glad I got a 20D instead of the 3lb MKII. UGH!

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

Marc is a serious perfectionist Colleen, you probably don't have that level of perfection hence you're using the 70-200L that Marc ain't so excited about either.

 

Yes the 24-70 does have barrel distortion at the long end but I don't mind it enough to care. Once you're shooting with a 1Ds anything lighter would unbalance it... ;-)

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

BTW I didn't mean that as patronising as it sounded, sorry! I use a 24-70L for almost all my work, the combination of a wide angle for close work stuff, a normal lens for groups etc, and a mild telephoto for portraits and shallow DOF, all in one very, very sharp f2.8 lens makes up for it's weight and the distortion that Marc mentioned.

[melisa]

I have the Tamron 28-75 f2.8...great lens. Use it 75% of the time. Lighter than the Canon, gets great reviews and you can buy two for the price of the Canon..you klutz. ;-)

[cpk]

I primarily use my Nikon 35-70 2.8 for weddings. I also bring a Nikon 24mm 2.8 prime, but use the 35-70 for 80-90% of the shots.

[andre j.]

If I could use but one lens to shoot a wedding, the Canon EF 24-70 f2.8 L would be it,

HANDS DOWN!

[KenPapai]

The 24-70L is my Desert Island lens. For an EOS system you cannot do better in a single lens.

[timcorridan]

sure its heavy, its frigin heavy on a pro rl. but what about how you can't hear a thing when its focusing. not a "zip zip", not a whisper. unlike some third party lenses that sound like a meat grinder in comparison. usm rocks. the hood is huge also. if your going to carry another lens over your shoulder,(like a 100mm,) you might wanna rent a 24-70 for a try. the wieght is the biggest consideration i think. i only have semi pro cameras,(elans). it focuses pretty close, 1.3 feet. for cake shots, ect...

[stacy]

Melisa- I'm only taking responsibility for one flash and even that was not in my hands (but was my fault). I am very clumsy and break things like mad- but this time it was mostly Mary's fault :) I can't get mad though because I've definitley wasted my share of the business equiptment.

 

I think I'll go to the camera store tomorrow and try one on. I just spent $1000 on two new flashes and another ST-E2 so I'm not feeling as eager to spend another $1200 today :)

 

Hey dave- I did order the lens you suggested though because it was only $219 used at B&H- for that price I'll give it a try! Oh- and I'm having the most fun with the polaroid you sold me. I took it to a wedding last weekend, but didn't get to bring the photos home because everyone took them. Really fun!

 

Thanks everyone!

[derek_c.]

I have a good copy of Tamron 28-75/2.8.<br>

It's pretty sharp and pretty good.<br>

BUT, I know I willl get a Canon 24-70 L soon.<br>

I just bought a 70-200 IS L.<br>

I regret I didn't buy this lens sooner (even though I was poor back then).<br>

I ain't gonna make the same mistake twice.<br>

I think, for canon wedding shooters (especially us solo's), 24-70/2.8 will add that "Magic" to your images.<br>

Canon L lenses have a magical touch that Tamron or Sigma cannot imitate (Color, Rich and smooth skin ton).<br>

Of course, shooting with Leica would be ultimate (like Marc).<br>

I'm happy with my thrree EOS-3's.<br>

I don't mind the weight, don't mind at all...<br>

If I have an assistant? I may shoot L primes (and let my assistant change lenses)<br>

But I work alone... So, I will use good zooms such as 24-70 & 70-200 and cut down the cost on assistants.<br>

Beautiful lenses, I'm so excited thinking about it.

[wedding-photography-denver]

Hi Stacy,

 

I have the Canon offering (24-70) and two of the Tamron offerings (28-75). In all honesty, the Tamrons now see most of the use (on 20d's). I like the Canon, but the weight is a little more than I would like. If using it on a FF body (1Ds2) I prefer the Canon. I suspect that for film bodies the Canon will be better too.

 

If you like primes, stick with them ;-)

[fxdonny]

Marc was talking about barrel distortion that he didn't like out of $1K 24-70/2.8. I've used the $200 24-85/3.5-4.5, now that's what I call a barrel distortion. To me, the 24-85 distortion was bad, and that's the reason I decided to sell it later on.

[andreas_steiner1]

The optics of the 24-70/f2.8 are superb - great colors, great contrast and more than sharp enough. Disadvantages: It's very heavy and I don't like the fact that the lens extends when zooming (which also renders the "environmental sealing" useless, by the way). An issue is the usefulness of the zoom range. Whether this is an issue for you depends on the other lenses that you have / will get. For example, if you have 17-40mm and 70-200mm already, then a 24-70 would be redundant; the gap between 40mm and 70mm is rather small and can be easily bridged by "zooming with your legs" - or by getting a 50mm/f1.4, which has the advantage of being faster and more compact than the 24-70mm (although colors and contrast of the 50mm/f1.4 are not really great compared to the 24-70mm. Of course, in the digital age, with cameras with different "format multipliers", the usefulnes of a lens also depends on the specific body it will be used.

[stacy]

Ughh- you guys have made this so hard to resist! I called the camera store and they don't have it in stock so I ordered it from B&H- they are loving me this week!

 

I'm not terribly concerned about weight since I use a 70-200 2.8 quite often. And I won't buy Tamron since I got one that was terribly soft.

 

Since there are two of us shooting at every wedding I feel like we need something to fill in and this is cheaper than another set of primes :) I'm excited to get it and try it out!

[KenPapai]

"<a href="http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_2470_28/index.htm">The level of distortions</a> is very low for a standard zoom lens with very slight barrel distortions at 24mm and marginal pincushion distortions at 70mm. At 40mm there're no distortions at all. Really a great performance here for a zoom!" (full review linked above)<p>

 

I have experienced little or no distortion at all using this 24-70L lens. It has high contrast typical of L glass and is about as good as a Canon zoom can get.

[fotografz]

Of course it doesn't show the real distortion on a 300D. It's a 1.6X crop. Try it on a full

frame film camera or DSLR. It distorts like crazy at almost all focal lengths. Canon wides

and wide long throw zooms are notorious for this. I hate when the alter pillars or church

columns look bow-legged.

[stacy]

Marc- is there a zoom that you would recommend?

[fotografz]

Sorry Stacy, other than the discontinued 35-70/2.8L which is slightly better, no there isn't

any zoom I'd recommend ... IF distortion is a concern to you. Some people don't care, and

there's nothing wrong with choosing convenience and speed over distortion. IMO, the lens

is also just too big for what it is.