Advice about Canon 24-70 f/2.8 USM L

[alyacroft]

Hello all --
I've been shooting for about a year and a half and maybe I'm going crazy, but I'm considering saving up for a Canon 24-70mm L lens. I tend to shoot more nature scenes, but have been branching out into portraits recently and I really want to move more toward that in the future. I'm also considering possibly doing photography in the future whether it be freelance or wedding/engagement photos. This is something that I'm not sure if I have the skill to do, but I'm developing my skills as much as I can and I love doing it!

I currently own a Canon T2i/550D and I am, like I said, considering this L lens. I'm wondering if I could get some unbiased advice on whether you think this would be a good idea or not. Now I am an amateur with a dream to one day go pro. So I'm thinking about investing in higher quality lenses instead of buying mid-range ones then upgrading later.

Even if I can't go pro, this hobby is very important to me, but I'm not sure if many hobbyists own L lenses and if it's a good idea or not.

I currently own these lenses
Canon 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6
Canon 55-250mm f/4.0-5.6
Canon 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5

So now what do you think?

Jessica
Flickr: alyacroft1's Photostream

[RichardTaylor]

Until you have used a good lens, you have no idea what a good lens is.
As a hobbyist who upgraded from to 4 L lenses, but not the 24-70, I say go for it.
The only downside is that you may not want a consumer lens again.

[armis]

The 24-70 L is a wonderful, wonderful lens. If it were stabilized (and apparently they're going to release a stabilized version soon) it'd be perfect. On the other hand, it also retails for about $1200. Why are you considering the lens, aside from the red L band? Focal length? Fixed aperture? IQ? Any particular need? If not, I'd really suggest you rent or borrow one for a couple days, run through some tests. You'll see if you can actually notice the increased quality and if you like handling it (people never mention that, but it weighs 2 pounds and it gets heavy at times).

Something you may want to keep in mind: 24-70 is great for portrait work on a crop sensor, but if you ever upgrade to full frame you'll find it's a bit short for that; its sister, the 24-105 f/4 L IS has a better focal range, but you lose DOF. Also, 24mm is just a bit long for wide-angle shots, which may limit you on the landscape side.

It's really more a question of whether it would suit your needs, which is a question only you can answer. In any event, it's a superb piece of glass.

[Rentham]

I have a love/hate relationship with that lens. Image quality and edge sharpness aren't the best, but it is just so damn convenient that you really find it on your camera quite often. It is a workhorse lens for any kind of event coverage. I have many primes in or around that focal range: 24mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.8. In portrait scenarios I use the primes almost exclusively. At weddings the 24-70 is my primary lens.

If you want to get a very good portrait lens without breaking the bank try the 85mm 1.8 version. It is a lens that you will keep in your bag no matter what: going full frame, shooting weddings, etc.

[digirebelva]

I love mine, now I have it on the 50d which allows me to micro adjust the lens for shaprness, which I wound up doing.
You could also look at the Tamron 28-75 F/2.8, which I had, and sold to help finance the 24-70. I liked it enough, that I will be buying another one as a backup...for 1/3 the cost of the Canon it's cheap insurance.

[Preeb]

The "L" lens is not an automatic improvement, especially on a crop sensor body. They are generally excellent lenses, but not all of them adapt as well to the smaller format. I would recommend trying to rent before you buy. I bought a 17-40 L because of the red ring before I really knew what I needed. I ended up selling it and buying the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 IS that I have now. I also use the 10-22 like you have, and I've been very happy with that combo.

I do have two "L" lenses, and I'm also very happy with them.

The one comment I'd make is that I would not be inclined to get the 24-70 without IS. If Canon comes out with an updated IS version, then it would be a lot more attractive.

[digirebelva]

Originally Posted by Preeb

The one comment I'd make is that I would not be inclined to get the 24-70 without IS. If Canon comes out with an updated IS version, then it would be a lot more attractive.

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?

[Rentham]

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?

Yeah, this is a peculiar criticism.

[gturner]

Originally Posted by Rentham

I have a love/hate relationship with that lens. Image quality and edge sharpness aren't the best, but it is just so damn convenient that you really find it on your camera quite often. It is a workhorse lens for any kind of event coverage. I have many primes in or around that focal range: 24mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.8. In portrait scenarios I use the primes almost exclusively. At weddings the 24-70 is my primary lens.

If you want to get a very good portrait lens without breaking the bank try the 85mm 1.8 version. It is a lens that you will keep in your bag no matter what: going full frame, shooting weddings, etc.

Interesting... mine is super sharp all over. Sharper than my 70-200.

I love mine... cannot say a bad thing about it. IS would be cool, but certainly is not the deal breaker. The close focusing distance is great.

[Rentham]

The 24-70 is certainly no dog of a lens, but this may be the first time I've ever heard it referred to as super sharp all over.