Canon 28-70 F/2.8L questions.

[iBookG4user]

Right now I really need to get a high quality standard zoom lens that takes excellent pictures. And right now I only have about $810 or so to play with to buy it. So that almost entirely rules out the Canon 24-70 F/2.8L unless I find a tremendous deal. I can however find a Canon 28-70 F/2.8L in that price range and had a couple questions about it.

1 - How is the quality of it compared to the Canon 70-200 F/4L?

2 - Is there any difference between the 28-70 and the 24-70 besides the extra 4mm of focal length?

3 - Is there a difference in image quality between the 24-70 and the 28-70?

4 - How good a deal is $750 for a good condition 28-70?

Thank you in advance for any help

 

[OreoCookie]

I assume you need a lens for the camera in your sig, right?
Why not take a Tokina 16-50 instead? 28-70 is not such an appealing focal length on crop sensors, at least not if you want a standard zoom, that is.

 

[iBookG4user]

I assume you need a lens for the camera in your sig, right?
Why not take a Tokina 16-50 instead? 28-70 is not such an appealing focal length on crop sensors, at least not if you want a standard zoom, that is.

I'm going to be getting a full-frame camera in the coming months, so I want to make sure that the lenses I get now will be better for then. And I'm going to be getting a Canon 17-40 as well, so that will take care of anything that the 28-70 isn't good for.

 

[maestrokev]

I used to use the 28-70 2.8L and loved it. Quality was exceptional and just as good as the 70-200 f4L which is also a great value L lens.

I sold the 28-70 and bought 24-105 f4L because my 1DMarkII and 5D were heavy enough and I needed more wide. What I lose in slight sharpness and distortion is really only noticeable at the wide end. You can use something like DxO Optics Pro to correct if it bothers you but it doesn't bother me enough.

It's always difficult to design a perfect zoom lens that's as wide as 24. If you're shooting architectural photos for clients then I wouldn't recommend it otherwise you're fine.

 

[iBookG4user]

I used to use the 28-70 2.8L and loved it. Quality was exceptional and just as good as the 70-200 f4L which is also a great value L lens.

I sold the 28-70 and bought 24-105 f4L because my 1DMarkII and 5D were heavy enough and I needed more wide. What I lose in slight sharpness and distortion is really only noticeable at the wide end. You can use something like DxO Optics Pro to correct if it bothers you but it doesn't bother me enough.

It's always difficult to design a perfect zoom lens that's as wide as 24. If you're shooting architectural photos for clients then I wouldn't recommend it otherwise you're fine.

I would use the Canon 17-40 F/4L for my wide angle, so that wouldn't be too much of a problem. And the weight of my 70-200 doesn't bother me much at all and it is the lens that I am using the most right now, so weight shouldn't be a problem.

I'm not doing anything professional yet, just trying to build up a really good portfolio so I can progress to gaining clients. And about the price, would $750 shipped be a good price for a 28-70 F/2.8L?

 

[Lovesong]

I think you might be looking for this:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml

If you have the 17-40 AND the 70-200, I would skip a zoom and get a 50mm prime instead. That is, unless you're looking for an all around excellent walk around lens on a FF camera. While the 24-70 might be a bit sharper at the corners, the 28-70 is no slouch, and $750 sounds like a good deal for a mint lens.

 

[OreoCookie]

If you're going to get a FF body, then a few hundred dollars shouldn't be a lot of money (relatively speaking, of course). I agree with Lovesong, if you have a 17-40 zoom, delay the purchase for now. When you have saved up the additional $$, get the lens you really want.

 

[iBookG4user]

If you're going to get a FF body, then a few hundred dollars shouldn't be a lot of money (relatively speaking, of course). I agree with Lovesong, if you have a 17-40 zoom, delay the purchase for now. When you have saved up the additional $$, get the lens you really want.

I don't have the 17-40 yet, that was going to be my next purchase after this lens. And I really need a good standard zoom lens now, I have a photography course that starts next week and I don't want to have to use the kit lens for that when I have L glass for other focal lengths. The image quality would fluctuate between excellent and mediocre. I have the 70-200 F/4L, so I figured that if got the 24-70 or 28-70, then that would have all the focal lengths for a standard zoom covered. And after that when I get the 17-40, that will cover my wide angle needs as well.

 

[OreoCookie]

I don't have the 17-40 yet, that was going to be my next purchase after this lens. And I really need a good standard zoom lens now, I have a photography course that starts next week and I don't want to have to use the kit lens for that when I have L glass for other focal lengths. The image quality would fluctuate between excellent and mediocre. I have the 70-200 F/4L, so I figured that if got the 24-70 or 28-70, then that would have all the focal lengths for a standard zoom covered. And after that when I get the 17-40, that will cover my wide angle needs as well.

I think you're aiming for the wrong focal length here: on your crop body, the 28-70 would not be a standard zoom. It would roughly 45-112, not really useful as what you want it to be. If you need a standard zoom now, you should either get one of the 16/17/18-50 zooms or at least Canon's 17-40 instead (which corresponds to 27-65, pretty close to 28-70).

 

[Grimace]

If you have the 17-40 AND the 70-200, I would skip a zoom and get a 50mm prime instead.

On your current body, the 28-70 will NOT be a standard zoom...when you go full frame it will be.

The 17-40 will be more of a standard zoom. Get it now, at a 50mm f/1.8 prime ($75).

 

[Lovesong]

I don't have the 17-40 yet, that was going to be my next purchase after this lens. And I really need a good standard zoom lens now, I have a photography course that starts next week and I don't want to have to use the kit lens for that when I have L glass for other focal lengths. The image quality would fluctuate between excellent and mediocre. I have the 70-200 F/4L, so I figured that if got the 24-70 or 28-70, then that would have all the focal lengths for a standard zoom covered. And after that when I get the 17-40, that will cover my wide angle needs as well.

If you're going to be shooting film (which is what I'm assuming your photography class will entail), and you're looking to cover the wide-standard range, I would strongly recommend you get a set of primes. L glass is nice, and when you're talking about zooms, they really have no peers in the Canon lineup. One thing you should understand is that L zooms are expensive and heavy, and for a good reason. First off, it is inherently difficult to construct a zoom lens that has a large constant aperture throughout a zoom range. This requires a lot of glass, hence, the heft. Moreover, it is even more difficult to get all the lens elements to produce a stellar image (just ask owners of the 16-35 f/2.8 L, MkI). Primes on the other hand are much easier to construct, require less lens elements, and allow for larger apertures in smaller packages. They are also much sharper than anything you'd get from a zoom (yes the 24-70 comes close, the 70-200 even closer to primes in terms of sharpness, but primes are still better). Another interesting fact is that when you start dipping into the primes, there is very little difference between the L's and the consumer models.

You would think that a 50mm L prime (like the f/1.2, or if you find an f/1.0) would mop the floor with something like the 24-70 L at 50mm. That's probably true. You would then guess that the 50mm L is the best piece of glass ever, and that a $300 consumer lens like the 50mm f/1.4 would not be able to touch it...right? Wrong, actually. Check this out, comparing the two lenses.

Think about what you want to get out of the class you're going to be taking. In your shoes, I'd get a set of cheap primes- like a 50mm f/1.4, a 35mm f/2, a 24mm f/2.8, and if you have spare cash, the 28mm f/1.8. This will give you a set of lenses covering the entire wide-to-standard range, and the optical quality of these cheap suckers will really blow the 28-70 out of the water. I know that it's nice to have a zoom, but you're paying money and sacrificing image quality for convenience.

 

[iBookG4user]

If you're going to be shooting film (which is what I'm assuming your photography class will entail), and you're looking to cover the wide-standard range, I would strongly recommend you get a set of primes. L glass is nice, and when you're talking about zooms, they really have no peers in the Canon lineup. One thing you should understand is that L zooms are expensive and heavy, and for a good reason. First off, it is inherently difficult to construct a zoom lens that has a large constant aperture throughout a zoom range. This requires a lot of glass, hence, the heft. Moreover, it is even more difficult to get all the lens elements to produce a stellar image (just ask owners of the 16-35 f/2.8 L, MkI). Primes on the other hand are much easier to construct, require less lens elements, and allow for larger apertures in smaller packages. They are also much sharper than anything you'd get from a zoom (yes the 24-70 comes close, the 70-200 even closer to primes in terms of sharpness, but primes are still better). Another interesting fact is that when you start dipping into the primes, there is very little difference between the L's and the consumer models.

You would think that a 50mm L prime (like the f/1.2, or if you find an f/1.0) would mop the floor with something like the 24-70 L at 50mm. That's probably true. You would then guess that the 50mm L is the best piece of glass ever, and that a $300 consumer lens like the 50mm f/1.4 would not be able to touch it...right? Wrong, actually. Check this out, comparing the two lenses.

Think about what you want to get out of the class you're going to be taking. In your shoes, I'd get a set of cheap primes- like a 50mm f/1.4, a 35mm f/2, a 24mm f/2.8, and if you have spare cash, the 28mm f/1.8. This will give you a set of lenses covering the entire wide-to-standard range, and the optical quality of these cheap suckers will really blow the 28-70 out of the water. I know that it's nice to have a zoom, but you're paying money and sacrificing image quality for convenience.

The class is actually Digital Photography 125, so I won't be using film SLR cameras in the class. And I do see what you are saying about prime lenses, but right now my lenses are rather scattered in focal lengths. The only really good lens I have is a 70-200mm F/4L, and I also have a 50mm F/1.8 which is very sharp. And I don't mind paying for convenience because I need a good standard zoom lens. (I know everyone keeps saying the 24/28-70 isn't a standard zoom lens, but they forgot that I will be getting a full-frame camera in the coming months and will be using that for a lot longer than my current camera) The only standard zoom I have right now is the kit lens and that quality is not even close to good enough for me now. I'll get a couple prime lenses eventually, but maybe I should get the 17-40 F/4L instead of the 24/28-70, as I do have a 50mm prime.

 

[ChrisA]

.... maybe I should get the 17-40 F/4L instead of the 24/28-70, as I do have a 50mm prime.

I was just about to recommend that option.

If you are doing a class I'd go with a wider lens. The wide lens forces you to get up close which makes for a composition that looks more "today" or in style. The up-close perspective makes for images that are no so "flat". Likely resulting in beter grades on the asignments. The shorter lens will be sharper in real use too because motion blur is greatly reduced. You can always as a last resort crop the image to get a tighter shot but you can't fake a wide angle.