Canon price cuts

Soldato
OP
Joined
28 Dec 2003
Posts
16,056
Well f/4 isn't exactly "slow" for a zoom - with the exception of the Sigma 18-35, f/2.8 is the fastest you'll get on a zoom lens.

I think the biggest problem the 24-70 has is the 24-105 which is far cheaper and more flexible. It exists in a bit of a vacuum between the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 24-105 f/4 IS.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 Feb 2003
Posts
10,631
Location
London
Well f/4 isn't exactly "slow" for a zoom - with the exception of the Sigma 18-35, f/2.8 is the fastest you'll get on a zoom lens.

I think the biggest problem the 24-70 has is the 24-105 which is far cheaper and more flexible. It exists in a bit of a vacuum between the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 24-105 f/4 IS.

This is exactly what I'd agree.

The 24-105 is about £200 cheaper brand new and has a longer zoom on the tele end. It's also long been sold as a 'kit' lens on Canon's higher end DSLRs, so there are an abundance on the second hand market. It was the first L lens I ever bought.

With the 24-70 focal length, if you need f/2.8 then you wouldn't hesitate to buy that lens, its very expensive, but its a workhorse for Pros and offers the best optical quality if you can afford it.

If your budget is lower, you are going to be looking at the f/4 Ls (or perhaps video for IS) then I think for the majority the 24-105 is more appealing.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
28 Dec 2003
Posts
16,056
With the 24-70 focal length, if you need f/2.8 then you wouldn't hesitate to buy that lens, its very expensive, but its a workhorse for Pros and offers the best optical quality if you can afford it.

You could also pick up a mint used 24-70 f/2.8 Mk1 for around the same price as the 24-70 f/4 and I know which I'd choose.
 
Caporegime
Joined
13 Jan 2010
Posts
32,495
Location
Llaneirwg
That range (24-105) is exactly the hole I have with my lenses

I have my 100mm macro above that (plus huge sigma tele)
And 10-22mm below it

In the middle I have the nifty 50
I have used this lens a handful of times
I'd definitely get the 24-105 f4 out of those being discussed

For me. I don't use this range so wouldn't spend big so no 2.8
If I was spending big surely I'd go for 24-70 f2.8

It just seems that the 24-70 sits in a niche which doesn't exist. + the extra cost. It's an odd lens for someone with my experience to see who would want it

for me personally I don't need to fill this range. It seems like the portrait range, I use this area so infrequently that I usually go for my Macro lens and stand further back.
If the nifty 50 wasn't so cheap I'd probably sell it
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
19 Apr 2008
Posts
26,248
Location
Essex
Well f/4 isn't exactly "slow" for a zoom - with the exception of the Sigma 18-35, f/2.8 is the fastest you'll get on a zoom lens.

I think the biggest problem the 24-70 has is the 24-105 which is far cheaper and more flexible. It exists in a bit of a vacuum between the 24-70 f/2.8 and the 24-105 f/4 IS.

The Sigma is f/1.8 but for crop cameras only.
 
Soldato
OP
Joined
28 Dec 2003
Posts
16,056
Well he did say he was kind of regretting selling it as the 35L he replace it with wasn't as good as he'd hoped.

Dunno why you sold it but glad you did :p
 
Back
Top Bottom