24-70 L 2.8

[neil_browne1]

I'm considering a 24-70 L f2.8 purchase. I have a 10D, my other choice is the

17-40 L f4 lens. I also use a 70-210 f2.8 lens, and iI want to purchase one of

the two previous lens' to use as a main lens..any comments on either of

these??

Thanks,

Neil

[tim_morshead]

I bought a 24-70 2.8 L expecting to use it as my main lens with a 10D. Its sharpness and contrast was superb. But I found it unsuitable for everyday use, because of its bulk (don't underestimate how obstrusive and off-putting it will be in actual use), its sheer weight and the fact that its focal range didn't offer enough "margin" around the 50mm focal length: ie, I might just as well have carried my 50mm 1.4 around. So I sold it and bought a 16-35 instead. I'm much happier with this combination, although I have some reservations about the sharpness of the 16-25 at the edges. Apparently the 17-40 is better on this score, if you can live with the f4 maximum aperture.

 

Of your two options, I'd go for the 17-40 and "plug" the gap between the 17-40 and 70-200 with a 50mm prime.

[neil_browne1]

thanks for your comment, still cant decide, I'm realy not worried about the lens

bulk though, my other camera that I use 90% of the time is a Hasselblad

system and that is a lot bulker than the cannon lenses

[william_vragovic]

In your situation I would go with the 16-35, no question, but you have to ask yourself how do you shoot? When you shoot film, what focal lengths are you most comfortable and happy to shoot with? If you're a 50mm and above, go with the 24-70, personally I like wide angle, therefore I'm biased toward the 16-35.

[digitmstr]

I have a 24-70 for my 10D and it's my standard lens. The pix a razor sharp with excellent contrast and delineation. It focuses fast and precisely.

 

It makes a superb standard lens for your 10D. Its very close minumum focusing distance even allows some almost macro pictures.

 

I'll be happy to email you sample images taken with that lens.

[ivanskavinsky]

Neil,

 

I have the 24-70 but use it mostly on the 1Ds as it is massive on the 10D, also I find

the zoom range a bit odd (39-112) with the 1.6x factor.

 

I really like the 17-35 zoom range for the 10D and I hear many great things about the

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon-17-40.shtml"

>17-40mm</a>

[gerry_szarek]

Go with the 17~40F4, first with the high quality CMOS chip you can just crank the ASA up. If the ASA is above 400 you may need to run the file thru neatimage for noise reduction. I had the same problem with my 10D, for what it's worth I also use a 28~80 consumer lens as my knock around lens (stopped down 3 stops) works pretty good, just don't point the optic into the sun.

 

GS

[chris_hawkins]

I like the focal length and sharpness. The weight doesn't bother me. It is my standard lens for my D60 and EOS 1V.

[paulmessmer]

I own both the 24-70 L f2.8 and the 17-40 L f4. Also, I had had the 16-35 L f2.8 for a short time, but exchanged it for the 17-40. The 24-70 is great optically, and the hood is very functional because of the cute design where the lens changes length while zooming, but the hood + lens doesn't change length. On a 10D though the effective focal length at the short end is ~38mm. I would use that as a primary point to decide between the two. Do you ever want to go wider?? If not, and you don't mind the size, weight, and extra cost, the 24-70 is a great choice. If I could only keep one of these lenses for a full frame camera it would be the 24-70. For my 10D though, I would keep the 17-40 if forced to choose because I would not be happy without real wide-angle coverage. I returned my 16-35 because it did not have as much corner sharpness as the 17-40 on the short end (where I would use it instead of the 24-70), and I also found the flare characterists of the 16-35 more objectionable than the 17-40. Wide open, however, my 16-35 @ f2.8 or @f4 seemed sharper than the 17-40 @f4 - this was the only thing I felt I was giving up really. The 17-40 also allegedly vignettes more than the 16-35, but this didn't bother me since I am almost always shooting on a 10D and not on a full-frame camera where it could be more bothersome.

[bellavance]

I use the 17-40 as my standard lens on my 10D because I like wide-angle shots, and because it's sharp.

 

I've also been thinking of the "24-70 and 70-200" combo or the "50/1.4 (cheaper but not as useful when used alone) and 70-200" combo to replace my "not as sharp" 28-135, but I can't decide, so I wait, but I'll eventually decide, perhaps with some help from the various photo forums on the internet.

 

Pierre

[darrill]

On an EOS 1D I used a 16-35 as my standard lens. I now have a 1Ds and use the 24-70 but it is big and I am considering an exchange for a 50 and an 85. In you place I would go for the 17-40. Darrill

[holger_oortmann]

I was in a similar situation. I had the 28-135IS and the 70-200L 2.8IS and bought the 17-40L. I found out, that the image-quality of the 28-135IS is not equal to the other and so I ordered the 24-70L 2.8. The result was, that I used the 24-70L 80% and the 70-200L2.8 IS 20% of the time. The quality of the 17-40L is ok, but the results of the 24-70L are really stunning. The 24-70L is (to my mind) on par with the 70-200L 2.8 (non-IS) I owned before and a little better than my 70-200L 2.8IS.

I don`t like changing lenses, so I finally found out, that these two lenses (24-70L and 70-200L 2.8IS + 1,4XII) are all I need.