24-70L vs 28-70L

divamum

Researching for the future, since it will take me a while to save enough for either! (It's never-ending, isn't it?!?!?! Every purchase just seems to lead to more ....... :huh:wink )

Current lens lineup includes Tam 17-50 and then a jump to 85mm 1.8. This has always been a bit of a nuissance, since I often need some extra reach just in that missing region (in fact FL-wise, 24-105 would be ideal for me, but I also need an absolute minimum of 2.8 so the 24-105L won't work for me). What I really want is a mid-range zoom optics-and-af-speed equivalent of the 135L!

So, I'm starting to explore whether either of Canon's other mid-range zooms might be worth considering as the Next Big Investment. I've read conflicting reports about performance wide-open and the differences between them, so was just wondering what the folks here have to say (I did a search here, but couldn't pull anything up, although LOTS of talk about the Nikon 24-70 lol). I'm still hoping that the rumoured 24-70is might appear before I'm ready to buy since even though it will likely be expensive it would be pretty much ideal for my uses, but in the meantime..... can't hurt to learn a bit more

Intended use would be general walkaround+portrait+occasional use in low-light concert conditions (although I usually stick to primes there, occasionally there's enough light to use a zoom. This would definitely be true if there was is). I don't use the wide end of my Tam that much, so I'm not that concerned about that (and I'd probably keep the 17-50 to cover that range on the rare occasions I need it)

I suppose the Sigma 24-70 is also worth checking out, although am I right in thinking the AF is a tad slow on it? That would be a dealbreaker for me, I suspect. Also, does the Sig have their version of IS or not? (~scurries off to go re-google the Sigma~)

GadgetRick

I have the Canon 28-70 f2.8 L (the newer one is 24-70mm). I have to say I absolutely love it. That lens is on my camera more often than not. Like so many lenses, it's not as sharp at f2.8 as it is at say f4 but it's still plenty sharp. I just find it's got most of what I need covered. I love the lens itself and the focal lengths it covers.

Oh, here's one at f2.8. Not razor sharp but more than sharp enough (imo):

divamum

Thanks Rick! Anybody else?

Oh, and yes, I could of course also consider a Tam 28-75 - the 17-50 is a fabulous lens so I'm definitely a fan of their stuff. But having seen how fabulously well L glass combines with the high resolution and fast AF of the 7d, I'm kind of tempted to go the full 9 yards on this one if I can put together the money over the next few months. I'm getting a few headshots enquiries coming in and since I'm at the stage where money made from photography still goes right back into subsidizing upgrades to gear (rather than me actually living on any profits!) it's not out of the question in due course....

All replies and samples welcome - thanks!

Qarik

diva are you going to sell the the 17-50mm to get the 24/8-70mm? if you don't then there is the obvious overlap..if you do then what about the wide end?

jmphotocraft

When I had a 30D I had a 24-70L. I found it wasn't wide enough too often, so I sold it and got a 17-55/2.8IS. That was the right move. Now that I have a 5DII, I'm back to the 24-70L. It's on my camera most of the time. I agree about f/4 just not cutting it. So I would say that you should go for the 24-70 if the 17-55 doesn't interest you. 28 would just be too limiting on crop, imo.

divamum

Qarik, as I mentioned in my first post I'll probably keep the 17-50; it can be a standard zoom for my other body and act as the wide end on the infrequent occasions when I need it. I'll wind up with real overkill around 50mm (since I also have a 50mm 1.4), but such is life- I'm not sure there's a way to avoid it (unless somebody comes up with a 17-85 2.8 in the next 6 months in which case I will be ALL over it!)

JM, I just don't use wide that often - most of my shooting is at 35mm and up so, while I feel I should have something wider than that (cf response to Qarik), as long as I keep the Tam it won't be a dealbreaker for me, even on a 1.6x crop. Fast AF, sharpness, and consistency are the things which will matter most for me, with weight (lighter = good) being the other thing I'll probably consider.

A specific question for anybody who's used both lenses: any noticeable difference in the AF speed since one of them is a much older design?

Thanks for the responses - keep 'em coming!

dlplumer

I love my Canon 24-70 f/2.8, Diva. It is my go-to walk around lens.

Qarik

If you don't shoot much at the wide end..I would just sell the 17-50mm and get the 24-70L...or keep saving until you can afford it. At this point in your photography I think you need to start building your "end game" glass set. Skip all the intermediate stuff. You will save time, money, frustration, and have more keepers.

As I write this..I re-read your OP and you bring up the one point that made me cringe which I have read about myself but didn't want to point it out. The canon 24-70L is not the best piece of glass. From all I have read, it is very good but can be a touch soft wide open. If you go this route you may have to try a few copies?

divamum

Thanks Dan

Qarik, good point, but I'm not sure that the 28-70L is necessarily considered a "stepping-stone" piece of glass. From what I've read, some people prefer it to the 24-70 and actively seek it out as an alternative despite its age since it's lighter and apparently slightly sharper at open aps, both of which are important to me. Hence why I posted to see what people in here think about both lenses

I think I really hope that the rumored 24-70is will appear just in time for me .... (although yes, I'm aware that any such lens is likely to be heavy, and drive the price up... always compromises!)