Is the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM still the best for the money?

[colin carron]

<p>The Tamron 28-75 f2.8 is also a fine lens with advatnage / disadvantage depending on your viewpoint of being lighter and smaller in construction. It is also very sharp.<br>

Anther alternative from the second hand market is the older Canon 28-70 f2.8 L which is the same sharpness as the 24-70 (and also the same tank-like construction).</p>

[rayyeager]

<p>I have the Nikon 24-70mm F2.8 lens.  It is a fantastic lens.  The quality is unmatched in my opinion.  But I shoot almost 90% off a tripod.  It is built like a fine piece of machinery, but a little heavy and will cost you big bucks.  It is my favorite lens!  I also would consider the Nikon 16-85mm, which I use as my general purpose and travel lens.  It will give you some wide angle capability, it's much lighter, and the quality is also excellent for around $500.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>" ...didn't like the lens extending when zooming out to 24mm.  For travel shots - people may think you are zooming in on then, when you are backing out . . ."<br>

Use the lens hood and they cannot tell -- surely you don't use this excellent lens w/o the lens hood?!</p>

[john_bellenis]

<p>Absolutely Ken.<br>

The "reverse zoom" is actually a very positive feature of this lens. As you zoom towards 70mm the lens recesses further into the lens hood making the hood more effective for the given focal length. This feature is a big plus when it comes to flare control compared to other zooms, and is not a negative as some people seem to think.<br>

With a regular zoom there is effectively no flare protection at 70mm as the hood has to be short enough to not vignette at 24mm, when the lens is at its most recessed.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>On full frame there is no contest the 24-70 F2.8 is much better than the 24-105 F4 IS.  I do not miss the lack of IS on the 24 - 70 as I do not find myself in situations where I need the IS.  with the F2.8 I almost always get a high enough shutter speed. The occasions where I need IS are generally when i am using a tripod. I started with the 24-105 but sold it and bought the 24-70.  Optically the 24-70 is much better, but on a crop camera the difference may not be noticable.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>How many use this as a travel lens? I think the 24-105 is even a bit large to lug around on vacation. </p>

[gregf]

<p>I use this lens for travel all the time (I've never travelled without it or it predacessor).  I want the best quiality.  Beside, I don't oftern go beyond 60mm.  And after you get used to the weight, you just take it for granted.</p>

[matt_mcelroy1]

<p>For portraits I would stick with a prime.</p>

<p>I am suprised that no one has mentioned the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS.  With a 20D (or any crop sensor camera) I would feel limited by 24mm for a general purpose lens.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Hi Tommy, I do too........ And the 16-35 and the 70-200 2,8 IS but photography is the reason for me going so I don't consider the inconvenience that some might think that would be.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Scott I agree with you there, when the reason you are traveling is to shoot all bets are off. I am taking more of the casual/walk around situation. IMO  <br>

I don't think the 17-55 can possibly apply as the best lens for the money since its an EF-S lens with just a decent BQ.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Tommy, I don't like f4 lenses but the 24-105 and 5D/5D MkII has to be the best one lens travel solution out there from Canon. The number I see on my travels would certainly suggest that is how they are pushed.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[guyposey]

<p>I have both the 24-70mm f/2.8 and the 17-55mm f/2.8. I like the 17-55 much better with my 20D and 40D cameras.</p>

[anthony_thornborough1]

<p>This lens was my favourite until I got an EOS 40D and wound up using a 17-40L most of the time.<br>

I am looking forward to using the 24-70L again when I get an EOS 5DII (soon) but am waiting for a MkII with SWC coating otherwise may just start shifting towards Nikon and a D700 + 24-70 f/2.8.<br>

The Canon's prettier to use and hold - but it's a close thing!</p>

[rj russell]

<p>Well forget that fancy L build and get the 1)SPEED 2) STABILIZATION 3) KILLER I.Q. and 4)GREAT FOCAL RANGE buy Canons 17-55 f2.8 IS today!<br>

Mat I am equally suprised!</p>

[jeff_bubis]

<p>I have to agree with Ryan and Matt.  i have the 17-55/2.8 and love it.  I think the build quality is darn near as good as that of the L lenses and you also get IS.  For my needs the 24-70 was nowhere near wide enough on a crop sensor camera.  I use this lens for 80-90% of my shots and it is my standard walk-around. Going the EF-S route was a big concern for me (given the cost) if I ever go FF - and if there was a comparable L lens with IS, I would have purchased that, but there isn't - and there has been no buzz that I've seen that it's even in the cards for the near future. Since purchasing it, though, I have never been disappointed. The only criticism I have regarding it is that Canon doesn't include a hood - and on a $1k lens, they should. Nonethless, I strongly believe that for a 20D, this a far superior lens to the 24-70...</p>

[landscape_shooter]

<p>If keeping crop cameras for a while, I don't know why you would buy a lens that would not cover true wide angle. If comparing a 24-70 for 2.8 and 24-105 for IS, why not just get the 17-55 and have both? Sure it's not built like an L but no lens has everything I guess. If you are sticking with crop it might be worth it. Check out your exif data from the standard zoom you gave your father. How often did you shoot wider than 24? You may really miss that extra wide angle once you don't have it. I have the 24-105 and would be unhappy with it if I didn't have the 10-22 under it. For portraits a prime is going to beat any of the zooms anyway, much better boque.</p>

[rj russell]

<p>Many of those who dream of full frame never actually get, many spend years shooting with zooms bottoming at at boring 24mm prior to getting their full frames. One solution is using a 10-20/22 to back up that 24-70/105 bu t in my eyes I use ultrawide when I intend to shot wide and dramatic shots and 17mm fits into my normal shoo ting range, therefor I want that 17 on my normal lens minimising lens changes which in return reduces the sen sors exposure to dust.<br>

If i ever move to FF I would simply sell the lens and continue in the never ending game of lens shopping.<br>

Ultimately you will take all of our great advice here and make a decision in which you are comfortable with and be back shooting and loving every minute of it again. I took a couple months pondering these very lenses and after writting this my decision is very clear... now I wait for a loose mood in which I will freely part with the cash.<br>

fast, stabalized, killer IQ and a great usable range!<br>

Happy pondering,<br>

Ryan</p>

 

[tdigi]

<p>Thats a good point Ryan, why not get what you need now. But there are things to consider in taking on the L zooms. The extra reach and better build are sure nice. I have the 10-22 and the 24-105 to me its no contest when your talking build quality. The L feels pro, the EF-S feels decent but not very strong. I tried the 17-55 and it's very nice lens, but IMO its just more expensive then it should be.</p>

[rj russell]

<p>not so fast, killer IQ, great build and a very questionable range... if your happy with it, go for it. Remember that on full frame (which the 24-70/105 was built for) they act as 15-44/66 aprox. on a crop sensor. These are proven effective noormal zoom ranges and the manufacture recognizes that.<br>

Now in reality run these lengths on a crop sensor equate to the following focal lengths on full frame...38-112/168. Strange numbers, but for portraits they will work! however in portraits to want effective speed, how does the 24-70 perform wide open? <br>

If serious about portraits consider somthing like a 50mm and a 85mm. If you are a casual shooter wanting quality and flexibilty use a process of elimination and pick one of the 3 zooms. <br>

Best of luck to you my friend.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>In truth 15-70 is probably about the best range in a crop lens so I would say neither apply as the perfect lens. If I had to say what's the best for the money on a crop body, I would vote for the Tamron 17-50 which is only $400 bucks and pretty close to the Canon and probably the best for the money. I now the Canon is better but we are talking best for the $$ Honestly all the above will create top quality photos in the right hands.<br /> When it comes to portraits most times 1.4 - 2.8 is ideal but portraits can be shot at f4-f8 etc. depending on the type of shot you looking for.<br>

<br /> I must say I still consider adding a 17-XX lens to my setup but if I just had up to 55 I would say sometimes I need more reach. I find all of this "which lens" to be very amusing since no answer is really the end all 1 lens. I guess I gotta buy more stuff so I am prepared for any photographic situation. :-}</p>

[rj russell]

<p>You know Tommy... I was thinking (yes thats scary) and I remember the first time I added a which lens or lens vs. lens question and it truly did make me extremely dizzy, ultimately widening the scope of lens rather then narrowing it as planned! In the end I now find by anwering others quesions and or throwing in my 2 cents that I am far better informed and far better suited to make my own decision. Realistically it takes the input to educate oneself about the product, then to prioritise the features leaving one to take some comprimises in the end deciding which suits them best.<br>

The more you know the better you buy, then you shoot and enjoy and sooner than you think you will back here question and researching yes another lens. Its addictive.<br>

So really for Eric I feel no sympathy, for this is the struggle of photog addict!</p>

[alan_myers]

<p>I have and use the 24-70 a lot. It's a very good lens that gets the job done. I couldn't live with an f4 lens in this focal length range.</p>

<p>In fact, even f2.8 isn't always enough. I use 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 primes as much as possible for portraiture.</p>

<p>Still, there are enough times that a zoom is essential that the 24-70 is one of my most used lenses.</p>

[robert_clark]

<p>"The 24-105 is the best one lens travel solution, it is NOT the best for portrait shooting. F2.8 is an absolute minimum for portrait DOF flexibility, f4 just doesn't give you the choices that faster glass does"<br>

<br /> This is misleading. The depth of field at 105/4 is considerably shallower than 70/2.8 at equal distances (.63 ft as compared to 1.03 ft at 10ft). It becomes just about equal when you move close with the 70/2.8 to fill the frame to the same level as with the 105/4.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Robert, that might be so but it is unconventional, the 85 f1.2 has always been revered for portraits, with the 135 coming in second, but don't forget that 135 is an f2, a full stop faster than the faster lens being compared here. The truth is at 70mm on a 20D you are getting an effective 112mm portrait lens, this is starting to push traditional subject to photographer distances to try to work around the f4 limitation on the zoom needing you to work at 105mm, effective 168mm, then you really are pushing it, that is well beyond what is considered "normal" portrait lens lengths and subject distances become awkward, both from a space/room point of view and an engagement of the subject point of view.</p>

<p>I still think 2.8 lenses are not best for portraits though and should be thought of as an absolute slowest lens for the job.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, I do portraits with everything from 16-35 to a 300 2.8 but convention is convention because it works. Most people will get better, more engaging, portraits from using a 24-70 f2.8 well than a 24-105 f4 well.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

[spotrider]

<p>I use the 24-105 and like it. I use it on a 5D with a grip and would not tolerate any more weight. It can't touch the much cheaper 85mm 1.8 for IQ.</p>