Are you happy you traded your 24-105mm for the 24-70 2.8?

[fotografz]

Ditto Robin's post.

 

Per Glen's link, I went through a number of 24-70/2.8Ls to get a decent one. Since the

introduction of this lens I've owned two of them. Both needed service ... one because the

hood mount broke off, and the second because the vulnerable extended lens barrel

became wobbly. Both were covered by warranty ... so NOT attributed to impact or user

damage.

 

IMO, subject isolation at the long end with the two different lenses is a wash. 70mm @

f/2.8 is virtually similar to 105mm @ f/4 ... and IS allows the same or less ISO settings

which can impact IQ more than the lenses themselves.

 

It is true that distortion @ 24mm is worse on the 24-105 ... but frankly both are bad and

require correction ... especially when using a full frame sensor Canon digital. So, since

they both require post work, and the differences are minutia, that aspect is a wash IMO.

 

I'm not a fan of zooms and only own a few for specific applications ... However, if you are

a fan of zooms, and work in low light then the f/2.8 could make a difference.

 

If Canon were to introduce a 24-85/2.8L IS as a replacement for the 24-70/2.8L ... I'd be

first in line to buy one.

[medina photography cherry]

YUP!

[anthony_thornborough1]

I agree with Marc on the 'wish list' front but stick by my original statement that adding an 85 f/1.8 would open up a different world. Not only in the portraiture aspect, but also by adding a 12ET extension tube and shooting at f/5.6, at roughly the lens's peak sharpness with an ET, you get a very, very good close-up lens.