Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4  (Read 12450 times)

flying kiwi

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #20 on: December 07, 2006, 02:34:35 pm »

Here's my personal experience.
After wasting lots of money going to and fro on all kinds of equipment I've finally settled on a Canon 17-40 a Canon 50 1.8  and a 70-200 2.8 Non IS. All are used on a 20D.

Used to have the efs 10-22 but hardly ever used it and found it too wide to use on most shots. You, may have a need for it, only you can decide.

The missing 40 to 50 and 50 to 70 ranges I can usualy zoom with my feet
One   thing I'm planning on is a 24-70 2.8 and then I'm set.

If I had to do it all over again I would have gone for the 24-70 first and then the 70-200
Logged

Ed Dubois

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 27
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #21 on: December 07, 2006, 09:43:43 pm »

Quote
Many pros have had problems with the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 lens and have switched to Tamron for what it is worth, and they can take advantage of Canon Professional Services for calibration.

Elkhornsun this is the second thread in a row I've read where you've been making unsubstantiated statements about pros having problems with Canon lenses. I think if you're going to bash Canon at frequent intervals you could at least provide evidence of your claims.

NEDAVVE,
Depending on the focal length you'll need most for your style of shooting I think you'll be pleased with any of the L series lenses. In any case, getting the IS is very worthwhile.  
Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #22 on: December 08, 2006, 12:15:19 pm »

Quote
But you said "as posted before" when you hadn't posted that information before, at least not in this thread.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89166\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I hadnt "macgyver"  had..

"24 isnt so wide on that body though. Have you thought about the 17-40 f/4? It would fit nicely in a 17-40, 50, 70-200 range"

The user original poster is on a budget and already owns a 50 - they should put their efforts towards a proper wide 16 or 17 rather than a nearly wide the 24

(or a proper long 80-200)
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK

gearhead5

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #23 on: December 09, 2006, 12:58:03 am »

Quote
I am a non-professional (soon to be obvious  ) shooting with a EOS 350D, using the ef 50 f/1.8 and the ef 28-200 lenses. 

I have just saved enough invest in my first L-quality lens and would like some hints on the following questions:

1) Where would you think the most noticable difference relative to the 28-200 will be seen, in the low or high focal range, if compared with the 24-70 mm f/2.8 and the 70-200 mm f/2.8?

2) At the low range, any thoughts comparing the ef 24-70 f/2.8  with the ef 24-105 f/4 (I have read the review on this page)?

3) At the long range, any thoughts comparing the ef 70-200 f/4 and the ef 70-200 f/2.8? The MTF charts that canon provide (www.usa.canon.com) look almost identical at f/8, is the difference for other apertures as small (i.e. such that the only improvement would be the one extra stop)?

Thankful for any response.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83434\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If I choose to travel "light" (generally for travel) with my 5D, I carry the 17-40/4, 24-105/4 and 70-200/4 IS. Sometimes I also take the 50/1.4.  If I am in a "it doesn't matter what it weighs" situation, the lenses in my bag are the 17-40/4, 24-70/2.8, and the 70-200/2.8 IS.
Logged

Jonathan Wienke

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5829
    • http://visual-vacations.com/
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #24 on: December 09, 2006, 01:11:36 am »

Quote
I hadnt "macgyver"  had..

OK, it must be my alzheimer's kicking in. I'm not trying to dispute the notion that 24mm isn't that wide on a 1.6x body, the 10-22mm EF-S lens is more like it if you need true wide angle.
Logged

Morgan_Moore

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2356
    • sammorganmoore.com
Lens selection: ef 24-70 vs. 70-200, 2.8 vs. 4
« Reply #25 on: December 09, 2006, 02:47:38 am »

Quote
I'm not trying to dispute the notion that 24mm isn't that wide on a 1.6x body, the 10-22mm EF-S lens is more like it if you need true wide angle.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=89511\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hurrah - agreement

Yes even wider than 16 is a good place to start

With the 12 I believe it goes in the bin if the poster upgrades to a 5D in time though

------------

I think I come from a very dated/luddite culture of lense and camera buying

I consider 2.8 to be slow and slower  - unuseable - the only slower lenses I have slower than 2.8 are 'special purpose'; 600 and a 28 rise/fall

I rarely zoom at all

I would on a FF go for primes 24, 50, 135 or 180 - in film days that would have been on two or three bodies, I suppose on a cropped chip that is 14, 35 and the 85

SMM
Logged
Sam Morgan Moore Bristol UK
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up