I'm usually not one to start appreciation threads, but I want to spend a little time
praising the 24-70L for the great "event" lens that it is. A wonderful focal length
range on full frame and a first class portrait zoom on crop bodies.
I was the trumpeter at a wedding last weekend and also shot some candids
of the ceremony and receptions. The lens delivered in so many ways: Good
sharpness, contrast, color, bokeh, and AF performance on my 5D. I see why
wedding shooters choose this lens so often.
In the past I've enjoyed this lens, but always felt there were better options
for landscapes and long distance shooting, but for studio and indoor candids
this lens is hard to beat in the Canon system. Just a great combination of
qualities, well balanced. Now if it were only a bit lighter.
Yeah, the 24-70L is my main wedding/event lens too (next to my fast primes). The focal range is just perfect on FF for this type of work. IQ is excellent: colors, bokeh, contrast, distortion, CA's and sharpness. I only wish that it was a little sharper wide open at both ends of the zoom range. Between 28-60mm it is tack sharp at f/2.8 tough. And you are right, it is d@mn heavy (when you are carrying two cameras fully loaded around your neck/shoulders).
I've been going back and forth about purchasing the 24-70L for a while. I was playing with a 24-70L at the local camera shop earlier today actually and almost bought one. Glad to hear you like yours although, it makes my purchasing descisions a little harder
I feel the lens is optimized for studio distances, though it works very well out
to infinity. But any magic it delivers is seen in the closer ranges. My previous
copy was good also. I think it was ever so slightly inferior to this copy, but
AF accuracy was most likely the cause. And the Rebel XT I used it on certainly
didn't cut it in the AF department.
Consider renting one and see how it does for you. I often prefer primes because
I need the extra one or two stops and the little more resolution, but this zoom is
still a real winner.
Just sent mine back to canon for the 2nd time. Mine is soft at 2.8 and the focus varies back-front-back through the zoom range so for me the 24-70 is always a crap shoot on the results unless you manually focus.
After sending my 24-70 back to Canon for calibrate, I will keep this lens for life...well, until the 24-70mm MKII came out (with less weight, IS and f/1.4 - pushing my luck here )
I've flirted with the idea of getting this lens for a long time but so far I have favoured the the 16-35L / 85L combination. I fill the gap with plastic fantastic, which only sometimes is fantastic if you ask me. I am looking to close the gap with a 50 1.2L one day. I know it does not replace the flexibility of the zoom but each our own way.
Trumpet_guy, those are great... nice work! I too adore the results produced by this lens on full frame; only wish it were lighter and smaller.
Daan B wrote:
I only wish that it was a little sharper wide open at both ends of the zoom range. Between 28-60mm it is tack sharp at f/2.8 tough.
The lens should not really be soft at any focal length. Have you had Canon look at it?
FYI, there was a thread posted in the last couple weeks from someone who had Canon work on his 24-70 and they explained to him why the lens goes soft; internal zoom sleeves can wear out, causing shift in element alignment.
Here's an example at 70mm wide open (ISO 1600 on the 5D Classic)... fine detail still holds up despite the high ISO and hand held situation:
Yep, the brick is definitely a workhorse for weddings. I love using the 70-200 more, but in terms of number of exposures the 24-70 wins easily. I really don't feel the need for a wide prime, but admit that I do intend to get the 50/1.4 for those times when the brick's 2.8 isn't able to get the job done.
dancam wrote:
I've been going back and forth about purchasing the 24-70L for a while. I was playing with a 24-70L at the local camera shop earlier today actually and almost bought one. Glad to hear you like yours although, it makes my purchasing descisions a little harder
+1
I've been wondered whether I would try changing my 17-40 L for the 24 -70. Does anyone here have some comaparative experience? Is it a move worth making or should I stick with the 17-40? I also have the 24-105 so it really a question of whether the 24-70 is sufficiently better to warrant a reshuffle ...
)