EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM with APS-C sensor good as walk-around len?


szehanz

New Member
Dec 31, 2009
7
0
0
#1
As per subject title.


Thanks and Regards,
szehanz
 

Reportage

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2008
5,785
2
0
#2
Its good..just that when on crop, its around the same "width" as a typical compact camera.

Might want to get the tamron 17-50 f2.8 instead.
 

yc2005

New Member
May 14, 2009
698
0
0
#3
I would find 24mm on crop a bit too tight for my liking. 17-55 is my sweet spot for crop. Your preference may vary
 

Dec 1, 2006
92
0
6
28
#4
Depends on individual preference really.

Some math here:

APS-C Sensors have a crop factor of 1.6
Full Frame (FF) Sensors do not have to compensate.

The EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM would have an effective range of

24x1.6 - 70 x1.6 = 38.4mm - 112mm

The Tamron 17-55mm f/2.8 would have an effective range of

17x1.6 - 55x1.6 = 27.2mm - 88mm

Try the EF Lens on a fullframe body (i.e. 5D) to see the difference; it'll be easier to know what you effect you are looking out for :)
 

narofx

New Member
Aug 12, 2006
463
0
0
#5
I quick like the 24-70 focal range on my APS-C cropped D90. i also have the Tamron 17-50, but always find it too short for portraits when walking around.

The ultimate downside is the weight of the 24-70, its damn freaky heavy and have to be balanced with a battery grip..
 

hori

New Member
Jun 22, 2003
481
0
0
Singapore
#6
It's too heavy for walkaround. The 24-105 f4 will be a better walkaround lens.
 

szehanz

New Member
Dec 31, 2009
7
0
0
#7
Hmm.. I have considered EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM too but how is the quality of photos EF 24-105mm f4L IS USM can produced?


Thanks and Regards,
sze han
 

Last edited:
Apr 10, 2006
73
0
0
Singapore
#8
it's about the same (some say better) as the 24-70L, but with added IS. the thing is, it has soft corners, though not noticeable on a 1.6x crop. you only want the f/2.8 if you want a stronger bokeh, or when your subject tends to move more (if it really moves a lot, then i seriously doubt the advantage of just having one stop more).
so i would say, go with the 24-105L if you like its weight and focal length.
 

May 10, 2009
23
0
0
Cebu
#9
You cant go wrong with the 24-70 best for indoors and low light... gonna get 1 next week w8ting for my order to arrive... :)

anyways got any idea y canon reversed the way this lens zoom in and zoom out? its like a nikon... hehehehe
 

J-Chan

Senior Member
Sep 21, 2005
2,361
1
0
#10
You cant go wrong with the 24-70 best for indoors and low light... gonna get 1 next week w8ting for my order to arrive... :)

anyways got any idea y canon reversed the way this lens zoom in and zoom out? its like a nikon... hehehehe
To optimise the efficiency of its hood, at 70mm its retracted back to its shortest length and thus the hood provides a deeper shade for it.. Not exactly like a Nikon, their zoom ring rotation direction is different but this design is a reverse zoom..
 

Jan 27, 2009
1,037
0
0
27
www.flickr.com/hetfieldpaul
#11
You may find the 24-70 too restrictive/ not wide enough , as you know 24mm is 24 X 1.6 = 38.4mm. IMHO i would prefer either the tamron 17-50 or Canon 17-55 for a walkabout lens
 

evilspoon

New Member
Sep 17, 2009
40
0
0
#12
With a crop factor, I think the camera offers a pretty good range...with the low aperture value its also pretty easy to use it handheld at night at 400 ISO, you can still get decent pictures with it. As a walkabout, good lens, but if your shooting landscape from quite a distance (ex from hilltops), then I suggest you get some lens with a wider telephoto range.
 

evilorgi

Senior Member
Nov 9, 2007
1,585
0
36
Tampines
www.facebook.com
#13
for me i will keep my tamron 17-50 than add another 24-70 to my collection of lens... norm i no not need 17mm wide end however when i need it, it doesnt justify me buying another 10-22 to cover that wider range i might occasionally need...

how i wished there is a 24-105 f/2.8 IS USM... best of both worlds for me...
 

Top Bottom