gregcoad Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I'm shopping for my first "real" lens (so far all I have is a crappy old kit lens) and I'm looking for a good walk-around lens. For about a month now I've been totally set on the 24-70 f/2.8L lens and I've just been waiting for my tax refund before picking one up. But I'm having second thoughts having read Bob Atkins' comparison review of the 28-90, 28-105 and 28-135 and the many comments from owners of the 28-135. I know that nothing compares to an L lens and I have long dreamt of the day that I would join that club, but I also know that photography, and especially the "art" of photography is so much more than optical image quality. To me the advantages of the 28-135 over the 24-70L are significant. Namely, size and weight, and price. I really don't have a problem with spending the extra $800 on the L but I know that going with the $400 28-135 would do wonders for my marriage. Either way I don't anticipate being selected as a photo of the week anytime soon, and I don't think the 24-70L would give me any more of an edge in that pursuit anyways. The photographer is the guy behind the camera right? So why should I buy the L lens? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcphotography Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Take a look at the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 lens. I have it and it takes pictures that are just as sharp as my 70-220mm L series lens. Read the reviews for yourself. Plus it is the same price range as the 28-135. I also have the 28-135 IS. In my opinion the IS isnt as useful and the 2.8 aperture in low light. You wont regret getting a fixed aperture lens whether it is the Tamron or an L series. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcphotography Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Also, check out this site www.slrgear.com they test alot of lenses and have a really helpful graph showing sharpness at differnt apertures and focal lengths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photo_dark Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Do you shoot with a rebel? You may find 28mm to be rather long for the 'wide' end, especially coming from a 18mm kit lens. I'm sure you've already considered it, but perhaps the 17-55 f2.8? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael.gregory Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 http://www.photo.net/photo/7192879 http://www.photo.net/photo/7178655 http://www.photo.net/photo/7078585 http://www.photo.net/photo/7157979 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike_earussi1 Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Depends on how important IQ is to you compared to convience/price. Having once owned the 28-135 I can say that it's a good all around performer, but not spectacular, a good amature lens but one I would not buy again. The L lens should be much better and is the one I would buy if I were in your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdigi Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I would second the Tamron 28-75 2.8 over the Canon 28-135. I had both lenses and the Tamron out performs the Canon 28-135. The Canon 24-70 is an amazing lens but its very heavy so if your not doing this to make money its a lot of lens to carry around. I do agree you will probably want something wider as well since 28 is pretty long on a crop body. If you have a good idea here let me know I have been struggling with this myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i._l. Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 With "... old kit lens...", I assume you don't have a Full Frame DSLR. If budget is tight, go with the cheaper version. Otherwise EFS 17-55 2.8 IS will be a better choice over EF 24 -70 2.8 due to IS, if you can live with trading the long end 55-70 for the short end 17-24. Unless EF 24-70 IS version is available, I believe the choice between 17-55 2.8 IS and EF 24-70 2.8 non-IS is obvious. And the 17-55 has a cheaper price tag is an add-on bonus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdigi Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 i2 - I disagree. I don't think IS is that important at that range. also the 24-70 is built much better, its also EF so it will work on all cameras if you do upgrade. I have been having this same debate and I just cannot bring myself to spend $1000 on a EF-S lens that has just decent build quality when I can buy an L for about the same price. Either way I still don't think the IS is the deal breaker here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anders_carlsson Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 There are many great lenses that cost (and weigh!) considerably less than the 24-70/2.8L. Tamron 28-75/2.8 is one, the latest Sigma 18-50/2.8 seems to be another, not to forget Canon 17-40/4L. If you can accept some compromises my guess is that anyone of those, perhaps paired with a 50/1.8, will serve you well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_b Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I recently bought the L being discussed here, and don't regret it at all. I am an amateur, but it always bothered me that when I took a great shot, that the IQ wasn't as good as it could have been. Now I don't have to worry about it - that, to me, is worth the extra bucks if you can afford it. However, it really is a heavy lens. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i._l. Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Tommy, We are certainly talking about trade-offs. To me, L typically means super image quality. Build quality and RED rings are certainly add-on bonuses. However, I am not using even my $50 lens as a hammer. In this case, I don't believe there is any image difference between EFS 17-55 2.8 and EF 24-70 2.8. As to IS, even you consider it important, just "not that important" to you "at that range". Well, you certainly have a point in terms of range. However, when we talk about 2.8 and IS, we are talking about pushing the limit as to what can be done using the lens. After all, if all Greg needs is taking a couple of picture at f8 and f11 on a sunny day, his "... old kit lens..." will do just as good. He doesn't even need to spend $400 on the 28-135. I am sure that will do more "... wonders for marriage ..." Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdigi Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 True its all a trade off I guess, good news is all the above are good in one way or another its just finding what is right for you. Size, weight, speed, price, IS, etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinsouthern Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 "I recently bought the L being discussed here, and don't regret it at all. I am an amateur, but it always bothered me that when I took a great shot, that the IQ wasn't as good as it could have been. Now I don't have to worry about it - that, to me, is worth the extra bucks if you can afford it. " This was exactly my situation & experience as well. People often say "it's not the equipment, it's the photographer that makes the difference" - but in my humble opinion it's both; with photography the limitations and errors are all cumulative - and - the worse your equipment, the more you're trying to compensate for it all the time - and for me that's a major distraction. After getting my first L-series lens (the very same EF 24-70 F2.8L USM that you're considering), I made the conscious decision that from now on "it's L-Series" or nothing" - I've never waivered from that and I've never regretted it either. And I'd do it all over again in a heartbeat. Will you need other lenses? Probably. But I'd still suggest srarting with the 24-70 and then start aiming for one of it's "big brothers" from the 70-200 family. Cheers, Colin photo.net/photos/colinsouthern Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Life's too short for even any half-way serious Canon shooter not to own the 24-70 2.8L. It's simple Zen for us Canon people, indeed. So yes, start with the 24-70 and then work around either side of its focal length once you're familiar with what the 24-70 can do for you. Lenses like that last a LONG TIME (outlast several generations of DSLRs) and you will not ever regret purchasing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mendel_leisk Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 Greg, everyone's reverse engineering what you're shooting with, do clue them in, it is a factor. Regardless of the crop factor, the 24-70 is a good pick, tho it really shines on full frame. It's heavy, doesn't have IS, other than that it's a top lens: fast, sharp, good contrast. Also, a very good "near macro" lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregcoad Posted April 23, 2008 Author Share Posted April 23, 2008 Thanks for all the feedback. The opinion expressed by Ken is the one that has been ringing in my ears for a month now and will probably be the deciding factor for me in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tdigi Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I like the idea of starting with the 24-70. If you have the money you cant go wrong but where would you go from there? you would probably want something wide to go with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel barrera houston, Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 The 70-200 L and the 24-70 L should be part of any serious Canon photographers equipment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I just grabbed a shot over lunch today, 24-70 and 40D:<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amelius Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 I don't know about every body else but I own a Canon 24-70mm 2.8L and I can tell you that this is a superb lens. If image quality and build are both important to you this is the lens for you. You just can not go wrong with this lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 100 pct. crop of the above with the 24-70 (a three-year old version of it)<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 And finally, one more crop of the same image, far left side:<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben_quinn1 Posted April 23, 2008 Share Posted April 23, 2008 24-70 is a great investment, its a fantastic lens you will not regret buying it, but make sure you get a good copy (mine went back twice). Don't worry about the crop factor as that just make the lens great for portraits. The 24-70 is the last lens I would ever part with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gregcoad Posted April 23, 2008 Author Share Posted April 23, 2008 The 70-200 f/2.8L IS is definately my next purchase. As my marriage can only handle so much, I don't think this will be until 2009 sometime. After that I will be looking to pick up the 16-35 f/2.8L to complete the stable of Ls. Its a good thing that L lenses are such good long term investments since it will take me a few years to collect them all. I plan on adding the 50 f/1.4 USM and the 85 f/1.8 USM to the family along the way as I can probably slide these lesser purchases in right after a good mother's day or birthday present. Once I have the glass then I will be looking at a full frame body. By that time the 5D will have been replaced with something even more spectacular and given the time frame I have in mind, the 5D's replacement will even be affordable by then. Thanks all for talking sense into me. I'm sure that the 24-70 L will be the best investment I can make at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now