24-70 for Canon

[Geoff F]

After another problem with my Canon 24-105 L I was looking at the Canon 24-70 lenses but several independent reviews actually placed the Tamron 24-70 above the Canon alternatives.

So I ended up purchasing the Tamron lens. My first opinions of the lens are here

First Thoughts on Tamron 24-70 F2.8

And after using it a bit more. It still seems good.

My one complaint, but not something which surprised me, is that it is a little soft at F 2.8. But most zooms aren't at their best when used at the extreme ends. Probably a prime lens would be better for this sort of work.

There are reviews of the Tamron and Canon alternatives here http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff...on2470f28eosff

[Geoff F]

And with regard to grey imports.

I purchased my 7D from a Gibraltar (Europe) company at a very good price. Within a year I had to send it to an official UK Canon repairer where it was treated free of charge under the normal guarantee.

Purchasing from further afield may be different. I have purchased items from Hong Kong (Simply Electronics) without problems, although there was a very long delivery period each time (over 2 weeks).

[rpcrowe]

I haven't used either the Tamron nor the Sigma 24-70 mm lens. However, when comparing top line lenses of third party manufacturers to many of the L Series Canon lenses, the comparison often includes modifiers such as "almost", "just about" or "for the money"...

[SteveF]

I own the mk1 and the mk2 of this lens, only because I cannot bear the thought of selling the mk1.

I've had the mk1 version since Jan 2004. It's been out in the wet and used for about 50% of my 70k images a year and it's never been back to Canon in 9 yrs.

It got an outing yesterday at a cyclo-x venue and as I was officiating I didn't take much time setting up images just grabbing them as I walked the course during the event as a Commissaire. Focussing spot on 99% of the time being slightly poorer at wide angle with average to poor contrast (I find this with my 24mm prime sometimes) and no appreciable or noticeable negative in image quality against the other L lens I own except for the 70/200 2.8L and the 300 f4 L which are some of the sharpest lens I've owned.

The mk1 lens zooms in and out whereas the mk2 doesn't - it stays fixed. However the hood on the mk1 remains fixed on the outer of the lens whereas the mk2 is directly onto the lens element area.

Truthfully I haven't heard of negative feedback from anyone who owns the mk1. Will I sell it? No. It's still a very good lens and the mk2 isn't so much better but, it is a tad better but unless you go pixel peeping which I don't often I don't think anyone could really tell the difference. The mk 2 is sharper out the box marginally but I think that's about all I can say.

It's a superb lens for wedding work even tho most wedding photographers suggest primes. 90% of my work is on 1.3 crop for sport and 100% wedding on FF.

Hope this is of help to you.

[William W]

It's [the EF24 to 70 F2.8l USM] a superb lens for wedding work even tho most wedding photographers suggest primes. 90% of my work is on 1.3 crop for sport and 100% wedding on FF.

That's an interesting remark.
I assume it is anecdotal?
What is/are your sourc(es), reason(s) for the remark, please?

WW

[Adrian]

Interesting, my experience of watching wedding togs using Canon over the years is that they use two lenses in the main: 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. It is pretty rare to see anything else (In Canon - no idea with Nikon).

I used to be an organ scholar and though I am non-religious, I act as stand in church organist for about 20 weddings a year. So I see quite a few pros in action. I sometimes wonder if they all share the same kit. Hardly anyone seems to use primes. However, since my sample is minuscule, I could easily be very wrong. Anecdotally, I was in Venice for a few days last weekend and saw two Asian weddings. Both photographers were using two bodies. The 70-200 f2.8 is recognisable a mile off, and the 24-70 has a distinctive look too. Both photographers had them. Neither made enough use of the 70-200!

Probably wrong ;-)

Adrian

[Colin Southern]

It's a superb lens for wedding work even tho most wedding photographers suggest primes.

Perhaps back in the film days when they needed all the light they could get (from a fast prime), but not anymore.

[SteveF]

That's an interesting remark.
I assume it is anecdotal?
What is/are your sourc(es), reason(s) for the remark, please?

WW

Here in the UK our churches are often dark and poorly lit. A common 50mm 1.4 is two stops faster than the 24/70L and much lighter to boot. Better edge to edge quality and quicker focussing without the 550/580 focus assist light in use.

I used to do weddings with 3 bodies with each having one of the 24L1.4, the 50L 1.2 and the 85L 1.2 when using the Canon 1Dmk2's (the 1DSmk2 and the 1Dmk2 plus 1Dmk2N) but, nowadays with the mk4 and 1DX I use the 24/70L 2.8 because, noting Colin's comment we have better ISO. I've only done the last two weddings soley with the 24/70L lens tho. Previously I preferred the 'look' of the mk2's with primes.

Colin, I have been getting requests for shallow depth of field shots from a few enquiries - I have shown them a slide show of a wedding and they have explained that that's the 'look' they want where the point of interest is in focus and the clutter (as they put it) is out of focuss. The clutter they refer to is often their guests!

[William W]

Here in the UK our churches are often dark and poorly lit. A common 50mm 1.4 is two stops faster than the 24/70L and much lighter to boot. Better edge to edge quality and quicker focussing without the 550/580 focus assist light in use.

Thanks for responding.

I understand working in dark and dimly lit Churches.

I can assume from your reply, that the use of Flash was either prohibited; or you chose not to use; or a combination of both?

WW

[SteveF]

Thanks for responding.

I understand working in dark and dimly lit Churches.

I can assume from your reply, that the use of Flash was either prohibited; or you chose not to use; or a combination of both?

WW

Prohibited Bill. The last wedding I did on 23rd Aug this year the Vicar remembered me from a previous occasion and commented 'ah, young man I remember you don't use flash' so he allowed me to wander at will and shoot anything and everyone I wanted. Even given this freedom, I would not just wander around as even tho I'm not overly religious I do have a healthy respect for these occasions.

Going back to the use of fast primes at weddings; the public do think there's a hint of mystique to shallow depth of field as most of the guests shoot with tiny-sized sensor bodies they struggle to isolate anything and our images are something they cannot recreate with their kit.

[William W]

Thank you.

Insightful information about Lincolnshire and surrounds.

WW