bob_hum Posted January 23, 2003 Share Posted January 23, 2003 This question might be a bit early in the asking, but as Michael Reichmann has a quick and dirty review here: <a href>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml</a href>, I thought I'd try. <p> Does anybody else have any experience with this lens? Specifically, I'm wondering about its optical performance at the wide end, compared (at the appropriate focal lengths) to the 24 f/2.8 and 28 f/2.8 lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_hum Posted January 23, 2003 Author Share Posted January 23, 2003 Oops, bad linking job. Let me try it again: <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted January 23, 2003 Share Posted January 23, 2003 Rather than start a new thread, I thought I'd tag a quick question on the end of this one: Seems like a great lens, but who's got 'em?!? I've tried Adorama and B&H, both of which seem to stay perpetually backordered. I looked around at a few other places just to see and it seems to be "unobtanium". Canon sure is advertising it heavily - I wish they'd sink those advert-bucks into ramping up production. Anyone venture a guess as to when and where one might find one of these? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackflesher Posted January 23, 2003 Share Posted January 23, 2003 I love mine! I find it to be extraordinarily sharp for a zoom -- it is easily as sharp as my 24, 35 and 50mm Canon primes. It may show a tad bit more distortion at the 24 setting than the prime, but I am still undecided as I review images made with both lenses. You won't regret owning it. Cheers, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fx Posted January 23, 2003 Share Posted January 23, 2003 I just traded in my 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 and 50 f/1.4(hard decision) for the 24-70 L today. It was either this lens or the 16-35 L, but after looking at the MTF chart I was much more impressed with this lens. I know I'll loose quite a bit on the wide end (I also know they are intended for different purposes) but to me image sharpness is much more important. I'll post a few comments once I burn a few rolls. I am pretty sure the results will impress(I hope). Unfortunately I don't have a scanner as I'm travelling around asia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_hum Posted January 24, 2003 Author Share Posted January 24, 2003 Beau, I have no idea where you can find them. Maybe there was only enough stock for those that preordered them.<p>Jack, the distortion that you witnessed at the 24mm setting - would you say that it's okay for nature but not great for architecture? What about vignetting at 24mm? Obviously, I'm trying to answer the age-old question of: "One zoom for convenience? Or a trio of primes for less money but more(?) quality?". <p>Fanatic, I imagine that the decision you had to make regarding the 16-35 vs. 24-70 is/will be a common one. How does one decide between the zoom that is capable of the ultra-wide and the close focusing, vs. the standard (more generally useful) zoom that can be easily beaten optically (I'd guess) by primes. By all means, after your trip tell us your optical and ergonomic impressions of the 24-70 compared to the two lenses that it replaced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_goldman Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 I saw a test on a DP Review forum that showed the 24-70 had LESS distortion at 24mm than the 24mm f/1.4L and it seems the 24 prime is losing favor among discriminating lens buyers. The 24mm L was on my list of future purchases but I have now decided to replace my 28-70 with the new 24-70 when they become more readily available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_goldman Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 I heard yesterday that OneCall (call Stephanie @ 800-663-5255) had 4 24-70s in stock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a_s5 Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Bob, your statement about this lens being "easily beaten" by a prime is a bit unfair. The few people who have tested it report that there are no significant advantages from prime lenses in comparison (as far as picture quality goes). Also, don't go by what people say; just because someone says it looks like it might have more distortion or this, that, or the other at focal length "X" when compared to a prime, it doesn't mean anything. The new 24-70 will probably be one of, if not the best zooms in the world and will more than likely be "easily" able to compete with primes at all focal lengths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackflesher Posted January 24, 2003 Share Posted January 24, 2003 Bob: I would say the distortion on the 24-70 at 24 is still low enough to use "as-is" for archtecture. I have not seen any appreciable fall-off on the the zoom, and I leave a UV filter on the front of it. Bill G: The 24/1.4 is notorious for having more notable distorion, especially wide-open, when compared to the 24/2.8 which is the prime I am comparing my 24-70 to. AS: I stated my claim in that fashion for two reasons: one I have only tested the zoom casually for distortion and in the few images I took of a house -- a straight-on shot with a pair of columns and horizontal siding -- where I detected a very slight amount of barrel distortion; two I have never noticed any distortion with my 24/2.8 prime, but I have noticed some slight fall-off in the very corners at f2.8. (This is an effect quite prevalent in wides; you either get little fall-off or little distortions, but not generally both.) At some point in the next few days, I will be rigorously testing both lenses on my new 1Ds, and I will be happy to pay more attention to distortions. Beyond that, I would agree it is a very good lens, but I would certainly not go so far (yet) to say it is equal to or better than primes. BTW, you make some bold claims about the zoom's performance, but I also note you never really indicate you even own it... Do you own it or are you just repeating what you've heard/read/seen in other forums? If so, I suggest you more clearly state that fact... Cheers ;), Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_hum Posted January 25, 2003 Author Share Posted January 25, 2003 Bill, certainly for general photography the 24-70 should be much more useful than the 24 f/1.4L. However, if the prime was on your list of future purchases, you'd have to consider whether losing the two stops is worth the improvement in distortion control. <p> A S, it's true that I was only relying on conventional wisdom when I made the "easily beaten" comment. And it may be true that the 24-70 is one of the best zooms in current production. I'd still find it hard to believe that it's better than each of the following primes: 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, and 50/1.4, when compared at the appropriate focal lengths, but I'm trying to keep an open mind about that. <p> Jack, when you say "as-is", do you mean pre-digital manipulation? Because right now, I'm still living in the stone, uh, I mean film era.... :) Also, after you've done your tests on the 1Ds, why not post a quick note with your results - I'm sure we'd all appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nickjohnson Posted January 26, 2003 Share Posted January 26, 2003 I got my 24-70 from TriState, though thier advertised web price is that of a Gray market lens. However, I haggled the salesman and got the 24-70, a 70-200 f/2.8L IS, a Tiffen filter kit, and an extra three years on the warranty for $3270. Anyway, they did have them in stock and shipped the same day. Be careful and always ask the salesperson (over the phone, I wouldn't trust an impersonal weborder on purchase like this) if the lens is in front of them and comes with the US warranty. Grrr... reminds me of my terrible experience with hotbuyselectronics.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fx Posted January 26, 2003 Share Posted January 26, 2003 I just got back 3 rolls of color negs(Kodak Gold 100 + 400), 2 rolls of T400CN B&W, and 4 rolls of E100VS. 90% were shot with the 24-70 L and 10% with the 100 macro USM. Bottom line is...I am not going to be using primes for a long time except for the 100 Macro. I didn't do any rigorous testing, instead I just shot as I normally would. No noticable difference in distortion at 24mm compared to the 24 f/2.8 prime. At f/4 and up the images were awesome; definately a very sharp lens. Wide open it's very acceptable as long as you don't mind the shallow DOF; focus point is tack sharp. The circular diaphragm does improve bokeh, it's noticable. I shot a few double exposures with out-of-focus background lighting and the lights came out smoother and more circular than the 100 macro USM. I am thoroughly impressed with this lens and don't regret the wad of cash I left on the counter. It's definately a keeper...and a damn SEXY lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dampfish Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 So here I am reading all these posts having set out to answer the question "should I buy the old 28-70, or splash the extra cash for a 24-70?" or in other words, is it worth the extra 4mm and being sealed? The view in this forum seems to be yes - but I haven't read any real comparision between the new & old when it comes to optical performance. Any one care to comment on that specifically? Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob_hum Posted January 31, 2003 Author Share Posted January 31, 2003 "<i>- but I haven't read any real comparision between the new & old when it comes to optical performance. Any one care to comment on that specifically?</i>"<p>Bob, the original comparison test (between the 28-70 and 24-70) that prompted this post is located at Luminous Landscape. You can follow the link (in the first reply) to see Michael Reichmann's quick-and-dirty comparison test and conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dampfish Posted January 31, 2003 Share Posted January 31, 2003 Oops - missed that, just call me stupid! Thanks for pointing that out Bob. I've just read it - new one it is then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urs_thomann Posted October 21, 2006 Share Posted October 21, 2006 After having read all through the thread I am really confused. My copy of the lens is not anywhere near distortion free, in fact, I find the level of barrel distortion rather severe at 24 mm and the pincushion distortion at 70 mm equally annoying. On top of that it exhibits an unacceptable degree of chromatic aberation and many times it does not seem to get a sharp focus on the motif. Either my copy is not up to the standard of the lenses of the other contributors or my expectations are too high. Did anyone out there experience the same or similar problems? The distortion and the chromatic aberation troubles me most as this is something I did not read about in any other forum so far. For the sake of completeness: I am using the EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM on an EOS 5D. 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