timbop wrote:
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.
Recently, I tested the Canon 50L f/1.2, Sigma 50 f/1.4 and Canon 24-70 f/2.8L (set at 50mm) at home. All images were taken with a 5D Mk2. Think of it as an unofficial personal survey of the three lenses. Using a tripod, fixed distance to subject, studio lighting, and identical settings, I did test shots at f/1.2 (Canon 50 only), f/1.4 and f/2 (both 50's), f/2.8, f/4, f/8 and f/11 for all lenses.
Pertinent to this discussion about the 24-70, here are my personal conclusions about the three sample lenses that I tested: At f/4 and above, I saw no discernable difference in sharpness between any of the lenses. At f/2.8 both of the primes were a tad bit sharper than the 24-70 (but not dramatically so). As this post is specifically about the 24-70, I will reserve comments on the 50's.
I love the 24-70. My current copy is my second copy of this lens. My 24-70 produces better images than my 24-105 IS does (not faulting the 24-105, this is just a statement of opinion based on my personal experience with these two lenses). Also, the 24-70 is my wife's favorite lens of all of our lenses (and I own a few of them), and that is saying something!
globalkiwi wrote:
+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 ...
The 24-70 is a great lens however after using the 24-105 for 10 days straight when I was in NYC I realized how NOT versitle the 24-70 is. The 24-70 needs much higher shutter speeds to get sharp shots (I'm going to start a poll soon about other people's minimum average shutter speed for this lens). The size and weight of the lens causes stability to be a challenge for many new users especially those who's camera technique have become dependent on IS. The short focal length is also somewhat of a draw back. When all of necessary factors are met, the color, micro contrast, and sharpness make this an amazing portrait lens.
Daan B wrote:
BTW What is the Nikon-shooter doing in the last shot... bouncing perhaps
hehehe
That guy was the official photographer. He's the one who pointed out to me that
bounce wasn't gonna happen in that red room.
He used an SB-800 and shot D100 and D70s bodies with lenses that
were not super fast. In fact, there was no need for a speedy lens, since all
his shooting was flash based. He said he was shooting Manual mode at
ISO 400, f/5.6 and 1/15 sec. The flash was doing the rest.
He had an unusual flash "bounce card" approach. He pointed the flash head upward,
used the little built-in bounce card, and swiveled the flash head 30 degrees to one side.
Essentially this reduced his ratio of direct to reflected light. In a room with a
near wall, this would give both ceiling and side wall bounce and produce a slight
shadow across the face. I don't know why he bothered with this approach in that
red room. Occasionally he would use an index card on the flash.
I've not always found the Canon flash system very easy to get consistently good shots
with, but it worked pretty well for me that day.
Yes, the only drawback to the 24-70 is the lack of IS for really low light situations. It would likely put the lens in the $2000 range, but I would gladly pay it. That's where I was going with my plan to add a 50/1.4, although I am toying with the alternative of getting the 17-55IS for my cropper instead.
timbop wrote:
Yes, the only drawback to the 24-70 is the lack of IS for really low light situations. It would likely put the lens in the $2000 range, but I would gladly pay it. That's where I was going with my plan to add a 50/1.4, although I am toying with the alternative of getting the 17-55IS for my cropper instead.
I agree, at the rate which Canon's pricing is progressing, the price tag would be nearly $2k. Many people have speculated in the past that this would never happen because of the cost, but as consumers we've shown Canon that we are willing to pay for premium glass. ...we would grumble but after that go get it.
timbop wrote:
Yes, the only drawback to the 24-70 is the lack of IS for really low light situations. It would likely put the lens in the $2000 range,....
It really surprises me that Tamron or Sigma haven't been wise enough to market an IS version in this range; that's a lens that I might consider.
brad_s wrote:
I agree, at the rate which Canon's pricing is progressing, the price tag would be nearly $2k. Many people have speculated in the past that this would never happen because of the cost, but as consumers we've shown Canon that we are willing to pay for premium glass. ...we would grumble but after that go get it.
A lot of fullframe shooters have both the 24-105 and 24-70, and have thus shown that they'd pay that kind of cash for standard range coverage.
