Canon 17 - 40 f4 Going Canon 24 - 70 f2.8 Coming

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/22/2006 04:57:30 PM · #1

I have been looking at a Canon 24-70 and I find this lense very attractive.
I have the Canon 17 - 40 which is a fantastic lense for Wide angle Shots and Landscapes, but I feel more drawn to Weddings and Action Shots and I think the 2.8 will give me what I need.

Do you have One and do you rate it !

Cheers.

Joe

Message edited by author 2006-10-22 16:58:41.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

10/22/2006 05:00:39 PM · #2

The 24-70L and the 5D are a match made in heaven. The 24-70 lives on my 5D. You will not regret the move.

philup

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

10/22/2006 05:03:14 PM · #3

I will agree!!

I borrowed my friends 5D and yes it was a match made in heaven!

Originally posted by kirbic:

The 24-70L and the 5D are a match made in heaven. The 24-70 lives on my 5D. You will not regret the move.

10/22/2006 05:37:05 PM · #4

I was going to suggest you also think about the 24-105, but when I saw weddings I think you are making a good decision. 24mm is plenty wide on a full frame and the 2.8 is probably very useful in weddings.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

10/22/2006 05:51:29 PM · #5

Love my 24-70 f/2.8, lives on my 1D2 when I'm not using the 70-200 f/2.8

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

10/22/2006 06:57:12 PM · #6

So what about the Tamron version? Everybody raves and says it's as good as the Canon "L" version. So why spend $900 more than you need to if this true?

TroyMosley

10/22/2006 07:04:13 PM · #7

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

So what about the Tamron version? Everybody raves and says it's as good as the Canon "L" version. So why spend $900 more than you need to if this true?

because its not true, canon glass is spectalar not even a match for tamron,
why have a 3000 dollar camera and a 600 dollar lens, not even from the manufacture

Message edited by author 2006-10-22 19:04:52.

Simms

10/22/2006 07:16:35 PM · #8

Originally posted by TroyMosley:

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
So what about the Tamron version? Everybody raves and says it's as good as the Canon "L" version. So why spend $900 more than you need to if this true?

because its not true, canon glass is spectalar not even a match for tamron,
why have a 3000 dollar camera and a 600 dollar lens, not even from the manufacture

Strongly disagree.. shooting a lot of weddings at the moment, my Tamron strapped to my 5D works wonderfully. The guy I shoot alongside uses a Canon 24-70 and you really cant tell the difference.

When it comes to the 70 - 200 focal range then the difference is more pronounced wyhen choosing Canon, but for the 24-70 (28-75 on a tamron) range then the difference is hardly noticable if at all.

I will say the Canon is 10 times better buld quality though, it `looks` more professional (although I let my images do the talking) and has weather proofing.. But is it really worth £500 more than the Tamron? I'd say no..

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

10/22/2006 07:27:25 PM · #9

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

So what about the Tamron version? Everybody raves and says it's as good as the Canon "L" version. So why spend $900 more than you need to if this true?

I think the Tammy is actually pretty darn good. On FF, I do think you would see differences, especially wide open. Build is, of course, another matter. There are significant differences there.
The actual cost difference, with current rebates on both the Tamron and Canon taken into account, is $750 (based on B&H prices).
Bear in mind the Tamron is also 28mm on the wide end, which is significant. At 28mm, you get 65.2° of horizontal coverage, whereas at 24mm you have 73.4° of coverage. The Canon also reportedly has less much less distortion, in fact of available WA zooms it is about the lowest in distortion, AFAIK.

Simms

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/22/2006 07:38:18 PM · #10

Sorry, still disagree. I think people are just reeling off numbers here.. Get your hands on a tamron, try it out, compare the images to the canon equivalent. not noticable, really.

Its not a case of I cant afford a Canon either, I have the 70-200 2.8 IS on order at the moment, its just I really cannot justify spending an extra £500 on a lens that will give me no noticable improvement in quality..

Its the lens snobs here who put people off trying the cheaper alternatives.

You may ask why not practice what I preach in regards to the telephoto I am buying, the reason is I have held, used, compared the sigma/tamron varients and the quality of those lenses is nowhere near the same as the canon, and I can easily justify the extra spend.

wavelength

Nikon D300

10/22/2006 08:12:06 PM · #11

Originally posted by TroyMosley:

because its not true, canon glass is spectalar not even a match for tamron,
why have a 3000 dollar camera and a 600 dollar lens, not even from the manufacture

I love this "It's got to be better because it's OEM!!!"

sheesh.

judojoe

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/23/2006 06:10:58 PM · #12

Its got to be Canon for me, and its here on Wedneday !

Cheers.

Joe

MikeJ

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

10/23/2006 08:47:06 PM · #13

To me, the Canon 24-70 2.8L is worth the money over any non-Canon brand. It's the fact that I can shoot from 24mm to 70mm and in between and get the same high quality, crisp, sharp image. I can shoot from 2.8 all the way closed down and still get the same high quality, crips, sharp image. It's also knowing that I when I upgrade my Canon camera that my Canon lens will still work on the new body, which is something you can't always say for the non-Canon lenses. I'll keep all of my Canon "L" glass long after I've upgraded the bodies (some of my lenses have been through the EOS 3, D30, 10D and are now on my 1DMKII).

That's why I pay more for geniuine Canon lenses. To me, it's well worth it.

Mike

10/23/2006 10:44:05 PM · #14

Plus if you are wrong and you've kept good care of it, you can sell it for 80-85% of its original price. Nothing keeps its value like L-glass...

AdrlnJunkie11

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

10/25/2006 12:11:52 PM · #15

hey i did the same thing. sold my 17-40 for the 24-70. you wont regret it. it's an awesome lens. a keeper for sure!

notonline

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Samsung Galaxy S21, S21+, S21 Ultra

10/25/2006 12:28:12 PM · #16

Originally posted by marksimms:

not noticable, really.

It is noticable in feel, comfort and build quality as well as optically.

Originally posted by marksimms:

Its the lens snobs here who put people off trying the cheaper alternatives.

You bought the cheaper one that was your choice but the best advice is to go the the 24-70 and not everyone is a lens snob. That was just rude.

On a seperate note the ammount in question is not a great deal so I say go for it cuz you'll never regret it and never look back.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

10/25/2006 12:37:38 PM · #17

It's simply a FACT that Canon is famous for the quality of their professional glass. This didn't happen through some marketing ploy, it's the accumulated consensus of working professionals over the years. The "L" lenses are built like tanks, they are optically first-rate, they hold their resale value incredibly well (a real-world indicator of quality), what's not to like aside from the price?

To call people "lens snobs" because they recognize this FACT is ridiculous. You CAN make arguments that certain other 3rd-party lenses are better value for the dollar. I shoot with a Tamron 28-70mm instead of the Canon 24-70mm because I had a fixed budget for equipment when I upgraded from P&S and by purchasing the Tammy I was also able to get the 10-22mm ultra WA, and I'm very happy with the Tamron, but given the opportunity I'd switch in a heartbeat. The Canon just FEELS better to me.

R.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

10/25/2006 12:40:10 PM · #18

Originally posted by marksimms:

I think people are just reeling off numbers here..

That's how you compare

Originally posted by marksimms:

Its the lens snobs here who put people off trying the cheaper alternatives.

This line only shows how little you know about the people in this forum.

Mick

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/25/2006 01:20:08 PM · #19

Originally posted by judojoe:

Get the Canon 24-70mm, but keep the 17-40mm lens. If you get rid of it, eventually you'll be sorry. :D

I've heard that the 24-70 is an excellent lens if you get a good copy. Apparently, Canon had some quality control issues with this lens. Some people report having to exchange lenses multiple times before they got a good copy. If you read some of the reviews on fredmiranda.com you will see what I mean. The lens has a 9.0 overall rating though, and most people love it. I've been thinking about buying one of these myself. If you do get one, please let us know what you think.

MikeJ

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

10/25/2006 11:56:16 PM · #20

While even Canon has problem lenses now and then, the biggest problem a lot of people had (and have) with the 24-70 2.8L is that they are not use to shooting at 2.8. Most are moving from 4.0 or maybe 3.5 lenses, which, though not a lot greater, do have a bit more depth of field than the 2.8. For those not use to the narrow depth of field of a 2.8 fstop, it can seem like the lens is taking fuzzy pictures or the focus point is not where it should be. I have seen a number of people voice complaints about the 2.8L lens (the 70-200 2.8L also) and then come to find out they were shooting wide open and weren't considering the depth of field. There was one guy on the Canon forum (I think that is where I read it) that went through 3 lenses before he realized it wasn't the lens. :D

And many complaints I have seen about anything on the photo forums, seem to be from a small group of people that post on a lot of forums. So it seems like there are more problems than there really is. This isn't always the case, but if a few people post the same thing on the major photo forums, it does seem like the issue is wider spread than it really is.

Mike

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

10/26/2006 01:09:17 AM · #21

Originally posted by Mick:

I've heard that the 24-70 is an excellent lens if you get a good copy. Apparently, Canon had some quality control issues with this lens. Some people report having to exchange lenses multiple times before they got a good copy. If you read some of the reviews on fredmiranda.com you will see what I mean. The lens has a 9.0 overall rating though, and most people love it. I've been thinking about buying one of these myself. If you do get one, please let us know what you think.

You know, I tend to think that the odds are there is a problem with the person rather than 2 or 3 lenses in a row. If any QC issues are present, they are likely very low in percent or it would be recalled or well known. So if the odds are say 1:1000, what are the odds of getting two? or three?

Some people a) don't know what they are doing b) are belligerent c) have unreasonable expectations or d) all of the above...

Message edited by author 2006-10-26 01:09:51.

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

10/26/2006 01:12:51 AM · #22

d)all of the above?

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

10/26/2006 01:14:58 AM · #23

Originally posted by NstiG8tr:

d)all of the above?

I hope nobody thought I was calling anybody in particular out here, but I sorta think it sounds a bit too cool to throw out words like "copy" and "calibration". Gives you some street cred.

NstiG8tr

Canon EOS-5D Mark IV

10/26/2006 02:00:30 AM · #24

I dunno. I just like multiple choice

Mick