Jefferson wrote:
When DSLRs first became popular, the Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens was THE general purpose lens to have.
It was not really a good match though. The 28-70/2.8 was the lens to have in the film era from 1994. 28mm was too long to give a good wideangle on the D30 or even a 1D. The 24-70/2.8 was the lens that was introduced along with the 1Ds about this time in 2002. That was the first practical use of such a lens on a FF body.
I also had a great 28-70L, that is until Canon (NJ) "lost" it while there for a cleaning. Maybe the tech saw how good it was and . . .
Anyway, they eventually replaced it with a new 24-70L, and that one's pretty great, too. I've got no intentions of replacing it with the Mk. II version.
Here's 28-70L on 40D, shot handheld at 70mm and f/2.8.
First, JPG SOOC, second an enlargement crop.
That doesn't look very blurred, does it ?
Well Peter mine must have been a truly bad copy. It could never muster anything close to that. Not only was it not that sharp but also the backgrounds would always be 'choppy' and not smooth . (I think it could turn even a plane sky into a choppy mess that could hurt the eye )
I ended up getting a 24-105 which was much better . But ultimately (short of the new mk2 24-70) I think the best standard zoom by a long way is the 28-80L
Ian, a frequent problem with 28-80L/28-70L/24-70L zoom family has been a copy-to-copy variability of IQ. With the 28-80L the problem is compounded by the lens age.
All around, I hope 24-70L MkII is a significantly better designed lens and also fabricated more consistently.
However, I do have some reservations about its build quality, i.e., it smacks of 100L, the omission of IS is inexcuseable, and the current pricing is aimed at taking advantage of all keeners who must have the lens immediately upon its release. Once the backlog of those has been cleared up, the lens price will have to be dropped quite a bit, if Canon would be interested in having any sustained sales volume at all.
p.1 #10 · Canon EF 28-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens Review
My sense is that my 28-70 is slightly sharper (within its range, obviously) than my 24-105. But the 24-105 is much more versatile, and significantly lighter, so that the only time I use the 28-70 is when I don't have to lug it on my back, and I'm doing a tripod-mounted landscape.
)