28-70mm f/2.8L vs. 24-70mm f/2.8L

[ellis_vener_photography]

As anyone seen a real world qualitative difference , besides the obvious difference in wide angle

coverage?

[mark u]

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=004Wkn&tag=

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DD35&tag=

 

Even with the passing of time there's not much difference in opinion or referred reviews.

[charles_lipton]

This is about an open a topic as the 50mm prime issues. I owned a 28-70mm f/2.8L lens and recently sold it to finance a 5D+24-105mm combo. I now regret having sold it although I love my new combo. At times a faster zoom is needed to more isolate your subject. The 28-70mm was awsome.

 

There are a few reviews here that go in to the differences. One here on photo.net and another here: http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_2870_28/index.htm

 

I've spoken to a number of professional photographers working at pro level camera stores. They've pretty much all agreed that if you don't need the extra 4mm at the wide end, the 28-70mm L is a better lens. But, as you know, those are all opinions.

 

Another acid test. The cost of the lens used. The 28-70mm sells around in mint/excellent + condition for only about $100 less than it's counterpart. To me .. that means something.

 

Wish I had my lens back.. sigh..

 

Chuck

[mendel_leisk]

Another comparison:

 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml

 

Among their conclusions: the 24 has less light fall-off and is *slightly* sharper.

 

(at least with the 2 copies they had)

[leopoldstotch]

The biggest non-optical, non-focal length difference is that the 24-70 is dust and weather resistant, whereas the 28-70 is not.

[squareframe]

> the 24-70 is dust and weather resistant, whereas the 28-70 is not

 

and with that, and the Luminous Landscape review of less vignetting, tens of thousands dumped their beautiful 28-70mm lenses, took a loss, and bought the new lens. of course, I suspect these are the same that won't take their cameras into the rain or heavy fog fromh fear of losing mint+ status. just a hunch. I've been trying to give away (sell fairly) my 28-70mm without any interest. sure glad those extra 4mm are being used so artisically on small-sensor cameras.

[fourfa]

oh please... the difference between 24mm and 28mm is not small. in the past I have always, and would always pick a 24-85mm zoom over a 28-105mm. Lucky me I have a 24-105 now.

[squareframe]

hey Andy, waken up ... the discussion, as I presented it, revolves around trading lenses to get the latest +4mm. unfortunately, this entails trading money as well and therefore becomes a weighted compromise. the qualitative differences (without regard to the focal-length disparity) seem hardly worth the cost. then again, I enjoy my 17-35mm, the one and same that net-minions disposed of as soon as the 16-35mm was announced.

 

and Andy, enjoy your 24-400mm lens. I am confident you will purchase one near term.

[dermot_conlan4]

Daniel, drop me an e-mail if you want to sell that

puppy...dermot.conlan@verizon.net

[KenPapai]

As an owner and extremely happy user of both the 16-35 and 24-70 there is no room in my bag for lesser performing nostalgia items like the 28-70 and the dreadful 17-35 (as compared to the 16-35). It is a GOOD THING Canon upgrades their top class pro zooms. Encourage "dumping" (selling off to beginners) of the older lenses and buying the new ones, they last a long time as you know.

 

The discussion is about -- which is better, the 24- or 28-70 and the answer of the 24-70 lens is obviously the better choice. It's black & white to me. (and yes, 24mm is a LOT wider than 28mm)

 

Rather than pinch pennies and buy a many-year-old used 28-70 lens, get a new 24-70.

[fourfa]

shrug. I know what's important to me. What I have a problem with is people telling me that the things that aren't important to them, shouldn't be important to me either. Followed up by unprovoked ad hominems no less. very classy.

 

as they say, opinions are like as**oles, everyone's got one

[pete w]

Ellis, I have had both and only changed to the 24-70 when going to the EOS1DK11

because of the 1.3 crop.

The 24-70 is much better in my opinion because the focus is much faster and locks on

with consistant confidence, the 28-70 was very sharp from f4 , 3.5 was acceptable and 2.8

only if there was no option.

The 24-70 is very sharp period.

I am confident you would appreciate the difference with your level of skills.

 

Take Care, Pete

[squareframe]

> and yes, 24mm is a LOT wider than 28mm

 

uh, yes .. I agree. 24mm is wider than 28mm. that is not to say it is better. right? or is wider == better unquestioned? and Andy, no hard feelings. some think that extending a zoom lens is the better choice, and others will appreciate a constrained design that works well within those boundaries. I am not arguing that paying more money may gain some small dividend. however, I am unwilling to accept the net-lore that the 28-70mm and 17-35mm lens are unworthy. truth is, they are fine optics, and a good value.

 

you want outstanding optics? redirect yourself towards prime lenses. sorry Ken, just personal opinions, based on lenses that I own and a pretty good sense of performance/dollar.

[pboraschi]

Toys, toys and more toys... Personally, it's all about the final product: the photo. I challenge anyone to look at a photo and come out and say: hum?this one was taken with a 24-70 and this one with the 28-70. No one can. Period. I own a 16-35, 28-70 and the beautiful 80-200 (This one is another debate in itself), all in the L series, 2.8. I got the 16-35 as a replacement for my sigma 17-35 EX. Now, in my opinion, this a good upgrade. I would have kept the sigma but it turn out to be incompatible with the 30D. So, no debate here.

 

I would never trade my 28-70. It's sharp, it's fast. Really, why would 4mm make a huge difference? I mean most shooters today have accepted 1.3 to 1.6 ratio on the camera and have learned to work with that, why not a lens? So you have a 5D? Well, the 28-70 will be a better lens because it was designed with a full frame in mind, unlike the 24-70 who was designed with those cameras with a 1.3-1.6 factor conversion to be as close to a 28mm as possible.

 

Anyway...just my 2cents worth?tx

[ellis_vener_photography]

I am shootign with a 1DS MK.2 , so the full frame fall-off consideration, if real, is a

consideration. Thank you every one for offering your opinions.

[pbizarro]

Well, besides the extra 4mm, weather sealing, etc, my 24-70 L does not display "zoom creep". The 28-70L did, my copy, that is. Very annoying in a L lens.

 

All these reasons make the 24-70 a much better lens for me.