Need feedback on EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
- Thread starter mrericlee
- Start date
- Status
What camera?
Be prepared-- it's rather heavy as a walk-around. But if you're on a gripped camera, then weight shouldn't be your first concern I guess.
If your cam's full-frame or 1.3 crop, it's a perfect fit. If it's 1.6 crop, well, it's going to be a little too tight on the wide-angle side, and too wide on the telephoto side.
Be prepared-- it's rather heavy as a walk-around. But if you're on a gripped camera, then weight shouldn't be your first concern I guess.
If your cam's full-frame or 1.3 crop, it's a perfect fit. If it's 1.6 crop, well, it's going to be a little too tight on the wide-angle side, and too wide on the telephoto side.
Just trying to understand terminology...
--> too tight on the wide-angle side, and too wide on the telephoto side.
Do you mean.. not wide angle enough at 24mm?
And do you mean... zoom too far at 70mm? I thought zoom can be further is better?
24-70mm on a crop body such as 40D is equivalent to 38-112mm. It is kind of not wide enough. This lens is more suited for a full frame camera. Why don't you consider the EF-S 17-55mm. This is a very good lens designed for the 1.6 crop camera...
24-70 will be 38.4 - 112mm equivalent FOV on 1.6 crop cameras like your 40D.
To many people, 38-112mm is not wide enough, yet not telephoto enough. Neither here nor there. Like, you want to zoom out more than 24mm, but can't. You want to zoom in more at 70mm, but can't.
To many people, 38-112mm is not wide enough, yet not telephoto enough. Neither here nor there. Like, you want to zoom out more than 24mm, but can't. You want to zoom in more at 70mm, but can't.
Hmmm.. sounds like a bad lens combo for my 40D.
I was thinking it will be a good general purpose walk around range.
I bought the Kit II and came with EF 17-85 lens. This L lens range is worse cos in between what I have... I was thinking to get better quality pictures.
Last edited:
And cheaper right!
I am assuming quality of L lens pics will still be better.... but zoom range not as ideal. Right?
The 17-55IS is said to beat the 24-70L in sharpness, but most probably not in color reproduction (without post-processing).
Yes it is heavy but bearable(to me la at least).train your forearm....u need a grip else your 40D will be a bit off balance...
I remember i read from somewhere on this has to do with the sensor not to say that 24-70L is not sharp. On a FF, it is tact sharp. and it is a f2.8 which is the reason i never forsake it for the lighter and longer 24-105L brother.
If u intend to upgrade to FF, can buy this first... there are ppl using 24-105L with a crop,just get yourself a 10-22efs if u need the wide. else 1755 rocks on a crop.
Image quality from this lens is top notch. Focal length range, however, is not entirely suited for a 1.6x crop camera. You are really better off with the 17-55. Don't be thrown off by its EF-S designation; even though it is not an by name, its performance in the image quality department is like an L.
OR, go third party with Tamron 17-50 f2.8. Quite a good lens to walkaround with as well. Can save the extra bucks to offset the future FF investment! :bsmilie:
I was using the Sigma 24-70/2.8 before i swapped it for the EF-S 17-55/2.8IS and the difference at the wide end is significant. 24mm on a cropped body makes it quite tight especially when shooting landscapes or big group shots. The 17-55IS is the perfect compliment to your 40D. I had that combination and loved it all the way through 
Hi,
I got both, think that the 24-70mm produces pictures that are sharper, more contrasty and better colors in comparison to the 17-55mm.
I feel that 24-70 on a crop frame si good for portraiture due to the field reduction factor, while the 17-55mm may require you to get rather close to the subject for a more close up perspective which may result in a certain amount in distortion of the subject.
Verdict:
For IQ 24-70mm shines.
For general usability in terms of range and hand holdability, portability, definitely the 17-55mm.
think of the 17-55mm as a swiss army knife. Very versatile, satisfies most needs but the 24-70mm is an artisan's chisel, very good at what it does but won't suit everybody.
on FF, the 24-70mm has a smaller Effective focal range than the 17-55 on a crop. 24-70 vs 28-80mm(approx)
I got both, think that the 24-70mm produces pictures that are sharper, more contrasty and better colors in comparison to the 17-55mm.
I feel that 24-70 on a crop frame si good for portraiture due to the field reduction factor, while the 17-55mm may require you to get rather close to the subject for a more close up perspective which may result in a certain amount in distortion of the subject.
Verdict:
For IQ 24-70mm shines.
For general usability in terms of range and hand holdability, portability, definitely the 17-55mm.
think of the 17-55mm as a swiss army knife. Very versatile, satisfies most needs but the 24-70mm is an artisan's chisel, very good at what it does but won't suit everybody.
on FF, the 24-70mm has a smaller Effective focal range than the 17-55 on a crop. 24-70 vs 28-80mm(approx)
i think you shuold get the 17-55IS.
i had the 24-70L on my 30D body and i found a lot of the time it wasn't wide enough. on FF, the 24-70 is great.
i had the 24-70L on my 30D body and i found a lot of the time it wasn't wide enough. on FF, the 24-70 is great.
it depends on your shooting style, 17-55 is designed for 1.6 crop and 24-70 on 1.3 & FF. but both lens are performer in their own way...
How long more will you upgrade to FF? If no intention, obviously 17-55. Give this a mindful thought. The difference in price between 17-55 and 24-70...and the depreciation plus top up... calculate if its ok with you.
By the way, I have done the maths, using 24-70 and cropped now.
By the way, I have done the maths, using 24-70 and cropped now.
Wow lots of advice.
Don't waste your money on the 24-70L. Not now. Let me take a different approach - I'll share 2 ideas. I have use a 40D (and used a 30D + 350D before that)
Wild idea - keep the 17-85 and get a prime combo 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8. You'll have great fun with this setup. Prob less $$ than the 24-70 too
Or more conventional advice - consider the Tamron 28-75. On a 1.6 the T 28-75 is great - perhaps BETTER than the 24-70 let alone 1/3 the price. Your next lens could then be EF-S10-22. Again, prob less $$
Don't waste your money on the 24-70L. Not now. Let me take a different approach - I'll share 2 ideas. I have use a 40D (and used a 30D + 350D before that)
Wild idea - keep the 17-85 and get a prime combo 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8. You'll have great fun with this setup. Prob less $$ than the 24-70 too
Or more conventional advice - consider the Tamron 28-75. On a 1.6 the T 28-75 is great - perhaps BETTER than the 24-70 let alone 1/3 the price. Your next lens could then be EF-S10-22. Again, prob less $$
- Status