Advice about Canon 24-70 f/2.8 USM L

[Preeb]

Originally Posted by digirebelva

At the max focal length and availalbe large aperature...when do you think you would find the lens to be lacking because it didnt have IS..just curious?

I am mostly a hand held photographer, and anything from about 40mm up on a crop can benefit from IS. I've taken very good images with my 17-55 hand held as low as f2.8 and 1/13 sec and 3200 ISO, zoomed to 31mm. Without the IS I doubt that I'd have gotten anything useful. I hope that answers your question.

[brianxlt]

Buy it and don't look back. I have it and love it use it more than any other.

[inkista]

Can I just say that I've seen rumors about an IS version of the 24-70L crop up every year for the last six years? Just saying. Don't count on one coming out. If you need the lens, get it.

The thing you need to beware of, though, is that because of the high expectations, high praise, and high pricetags, a lot of folks do go through buyer's remorse periods after buying their first L. Because at some point, their heart sinks as they realize they've just gotten a very nice lens, which is not a magical cure-all for their photographic ills. While the lens may be bigger, heavier, better built, offers more features, is a wee bit sharper, and a lot more contrasty, it didn't do dick for their composition or timing or visualization skillz.

It's still just a lens. When you get that little inevitable thud of, "OMG, I paid that much for only this >< much improvement?!" give yourself a week. Just a week (or whatever the return policy on the lens you bought was). Use that lens all the time for a week. And then see. Most of us end up falling in love with our red-ringed monsters and we end up getting more.

For me, it was the 24-105 f/4L USM (I'm more into buildings and landscapes and things than portraits). Stomach dropped out about two days in. About two weeks later, you'd have had to pry it out of my cold dead fingers. It's a bit of an emotional rollercoaster ride, one's first L. But after that, it gets easier... and easier... That's the real danger.

One more word: don't be dismayed by the mixed reviews you're going to read about the lens. Just note what camera body the reviewer is using the lens on. How a lens performs on crop and how it performs on full-frame are going to be two different things, not just from the focal length to field of view translation of the sensor size, but also because of which part of the image circle constitutes corner performance. Generally, folks who will be dissatisfied with an L are more often shooting full-frame, because they can see the actual corner performance that's hidden from crop shooters.

[alyacroft]

Thanks for your replies everyone --
I was considering this lens mostly to replace my standard zoom kit lens (18-55). I have shot with that lens and taken photos that I liked, but the DOF and clarity are lacking in it. I even have tried finding the "sweet spot" which helps, but after shooting with the 10-22 which is incredibly well built lens and very very sharp, I think my perfectionism just won't let me shoot with the 18-55 anymore.

I also want something that is versatile as a sort of walk-around lens that will also be good for portraits, which I hear this one is spectacular for.
I especially like what I've read about the aperture on this lens as well as sharpness (which is what I've heard all around that even wide open it's pin sharp on the subject).
I was considering the 24-105 as well, but felt that since the 24-70 is rated as better quality and I rarely have a need to go above 65mm, that the 24-70 range would be perfect.

Maybe this is naive, but I also don't plan on switching to a full frame body at any time. I see the benefits, but I just don't think it will be so necessary as to switch. That's one of the reasons I bought the 10-22 EF-S lens. I have a friend who has a business and works on a crop frame body and does quite well.

In any case, thanks for your comments everyone!

[tomservo51]

Have you looked at the canon 17-55 EFS? The glass is just a good but the build quality isn't up to L standards. It does have 3 stop IS tho.

Also, Tamron and Sigma make great lenses as well for a lot less. It's so easy to get lost in the sea of glass.

[alyacroft]

The thing I haven't liked about Tamron and Sigma is that the build quality isn't consistent. I've used some lenses that have been amazing but known people with the same lens who have said it is a terrible quality lens (and I've seen for myself). I know that's a bit complaint about third party lenses and I guess I want to make sure I'm getting good quality when I buy a good quality lens and I don't want to just hope that the one I get is the one they built well.