Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L: Am I Overreacting?

[ncarrasco]

<p>

<p>Last night I received a brand new copy of the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 L lens. Probably I did not do my homework well before I ordered this lens, but I immediately noticed two issues that I did not like based on its physical inspection. The first one is that the front element protrudes as it zooms in. I have only used three lenses from Canon: the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM, and 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS and my expectation was that only the standard lenses were designed with such a mechanism, not the L series ones. </p>

<p>The second issue is that the zoom ring is a little rough. The zoom rings for both the 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM and 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS are so smooth that I can turn them with my little finger as I try to focus the image manually with the other fingers. I love that mechanism. On the other hand, the roughness of this lens' zoom ring is similar to that of the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS-- not close to that of 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS, for example. It feels like I am really pushing the whole front element of this lens!</p>

<p>I am sure that this is not a defective copy of this lens. I think this is the way it is designed. </p>

<p>Why did I buy this lens? I shoot with the Canon 5D Mark II. I thought that the versatility of the 24-70mm f/2.8 L lens complements really well the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS lenses (I never use the 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS with this camera). I normally shoot people and events. My other choice that I strongly considered was the Canon 50mm f/1.2 L. </p>

<p>The question is: should I return this lens and instead get the 50mm f/1.2 L, or am I overreacting? Would the 50mm f/1.2 L lens complement the 16-35mm f/2.8L II and 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS lenses for event photography, including weddings, using the Canon 5D Mark II? How often does people use the 50mm f/1.2 L lens in weddings in combination with a full-framed camera? What are your recommendations? </p>

<p>Thank you very much for your comments.</p>

<p>Nicolas</p>

 

</p>

[aperryproductions]

<p>Nicolas, it's all a matter of style and what you like. I have the 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200, along with a 50 prime, I use them all on full frame and crop sensors cameras. I rarely use the prime, I like the flexibility of the zooms because I'm often caught in odd scenarios shooting events where I can't move. Many people swear by the primes and some will even yell at you for using zooms in comparison to the "superior" image quality of primes - I think they should give opinions and let you make your own decision.<p><br>

Do you like the zooms? Do you need the f/1.2 for low light / depth of field? Look at your work. My opinion, don't ever by a new piece of glass until you know you can't do something with what you have and you feel limited. I've never really had an issue with the extending element of the 24-70, if they didn't do it it would be a much longer lens.</p>

[john_a5]

<p>I don't find the difference between the 24-70 and the 16-35 to feel all that different when zooming. Maybe a little, but not rough? Of course, maybe it is just a semantic thing, there does seem to be a bit more resistance at the end of the zoom. Honestly, I never thought about it and love both lenses. </p>

<p>If you wanted the range of the 24-70 then I wouldn't worry about it, it is a great lens. (if it really feels odd, you might have a defective one) If you can't stand the way it feels, then get rid of it. I believe 100% that your confidence and comfort with your camera and lenses will affect your photography, so be good with them or get rid of them.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>The rough travel might indicate a problem. Mine is silky smooth, smoother than my 24-105, fwiw. The reverse zoom extension is by design: allowing a very efficient hood design.</p>

[mark_t5]

<p>the zoom will smooth out as you use it more...mine started fairly tight...now it's pretty smooth.</p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

<p>Tight is one thing but if it feels gritty, its bad.</p>

<p>Yes it does protrude, but its worth it if your has no real focus (front/back) issues.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

ditto what Mark T said....mine was same way. And I would never sell that lens....thing has amazing picture quality

[ejder]

<p>The biggest issue I had with 24-70L (before I sold it) was that it was big and heavy for what it did. I like my primes better.</p>

[mark_t5]

<p>oh...between the 50 1.2 and the 85 1.2 i opted to get the 85 1.2..... partly because i already have the 50 1.4... but also because i felt i rather have a longer focal length lens for portraits instead of the 50...but that is more of a personal preference.</p>

[douglas lee]

<p>The protruding lens is normal. That is how it is designed, as is the Nikon 24-70. With the lens hood in place you won't notice it.</p>

[davidandkara]

<p>I use a 5D2, 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 setup and yes, the 24-70 is a little stiffer in the zooming. but you'll get used to it, because it's such an awesome lens that you'll want to keep it on for 80% of the pictures. :oP</p>

[senor_crocodrillo]

<p>Nicolas- I own both lenses you considered. I've had the zoom for about six years and the 50, about two. I also own a good 24 and 85. Like the others, my zoom loosened up over time. It also seems heavier and bigger too :-) I used it a lot when I first got it as it was the only lens I had. These days, the zoom mostly sits in my bag. For weddings, about the only time I really want or use it is on a crowded dance floor. It has become, by default, a bit of a backup in case something happens to any of the other lenses.<br>

The 50 I use for about 60-80% of all shots on a job and it's the first lens I reach for, for personal work. It's not that it's significantly sharper than the 1.4 version, or the zoom. It's the way it handles daylight and flare. Rent them both, shoot a few back-lit subjects and you'll see what I mean. It's a beautiful lens.<br>

It's basically what Alex said- for example, David E. and I obviously are on the opposite ends of the spectrum. It's not that either of our approaches is more right than the other, it's what you need to do the job that you want to do.</p>

[ncarrasco]

<p>Hello,</p>

<p>I want to thank all of you for providing so much helpful comments on my dilemma. The 24-70mm f/2.8 is a great lens but for some reason I was not so excited about it based on my first impression. I returned it. On Sunday I went to B&H and tried the 50mm f/1.2L for about 15 minutes. I felt in love with it. This lens suits my shooting style pretty well. I ordered it and can't wait to use it.</p>

<p>Best,</p>

<p>Nicolas</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[steve_hovland]

<p>Keep in mind that many of the prime designs are old. Nikon is coming out with some new ones, but most of the R&D money has gone into zooms for quite awhile.</p>