I'm hungry for another lens! And this one caught my eye for its versatility and delicious wide aperture.
Does anyone use this lens? What are your thoughts on it? I'm aware that it's an expensive piece of glass and that it's not quite suited to the small sensor of my 500D... but I plan to upgrade my body as well one day (when I have the denarios)... And that's another question for another forum topic... :D
I have it! I love it!!!!!! Seriously. I haven't really taken it off much since I got it. It's not suited to my lil Rebel either. But I just like that I have it for when I get a Big Girl camera, lol
We have that lens for the camera at work, and it's awesome! I haven't gotten to really put it through its paces, but I've used it for some head shots, and they look great. I also used it for this shot, and I love the shallow DOF it allows:
Oh, btw, when I bought mine I was still using a 20D as my main camera. I shot a wedding with this lens, on that camera, and it performed beautifully. It is a nicer focal length range on full-frame, but it is no slouch on a crop-frame.
@pocketmouse since you have plans to upgrade bodies (dont' we all!) I totally support your decision! I'm drooling over it as well, but, well, other things are having to come first for me (*sulks*)
I have it as well Teresa and use it on my full frame 5dmk II. It stays on most of the time and it's a lovely lens. Really versatile. The only time I really take it off is when I want to throw my camera in my hand bag and need to save some room. It's only drawn back is that its pretty damn heavy and sometimes I just dont feel like lugging around a big old heavy camera. The only other thing is that it doesnt have image stabilisation........ but I havnt found this to be an issue at all given how fast it is.
@pocketmouse hey if your finances are in place (I've got a few medical procedures coming up) I'd say go for the canon.
If you can, see if you can get your hands on both of them. At the least go to a store and try them out (take your camera along then review your test shots at home). Even if you're planning on buying online hold them first. That's how I ended up ruling out the 28-300, it's just too crazy heavy. Since it's a big ticket item (ok, somewhat) you can always just say you need to think about it. If they work on commission at yuor store be sure to get the persons card, that'll make them feel a little better.
I've got a crop sensor too (still using a 30D) so the 28mm of the tamron would be even more annoying since I'd get less than the 24mm that canon has. I agree those three negatives would annoy me. Question is, does it make enough of a difference to justify the cost for you, the price difference being how soon you can get to a better body....
I like what jinx said about waiting a bit for the newer one to come out. There should be a price drop/second hand ones on the market.
@jinximages I almost bought this lens, but the fact that it has no image stablization scared me off. Is that not a problem? Your images look great - were they done hand-held?
@shutterbug0810 Yes - hand-held. At f/2.8, you can usually get enough light to not need a slow shutter speed anyway, but the real trick is it's only 70mm at the long end. You can hand-hold slower shutter speeds with wider lenses much more easily (I shoot hand-held down to 1/15th with this lens) and I've never found myself wishing for IS. If they brought one out with IS, of course I'd take that over the non-IS one, but I don't ever find myself thinking, "Damn, if only this had IS..." kwim?
I see :-) I ended up purchasing the 24-105 instead; I like it okay though. But my latest purchase was the Tokina 11-16 and I am STOKED and can't wait to get out there with it! @jinximages
I would say on that matter that 1 mm on wide aperture can make a HUGE difference! So, there is a good difference between 28mm (tamron's) and 24mm of the canon lens.
And that canon lens is famous for sharpness. I am with you, don't yet know what i would do in your place.
@shutterbug0810 Yeah, I've never been fussed on the 24-105. Great focal length range, but I've never found a sharp one. And f/4 just isn't fast enough for how I shoot. I typically run with the 24-70 and the 70-200 IS (both f/2.8) and that covers all my needed focal length requirements while giving me superb subject isolation and sharpness. If they manage a faster and sharper 24-105, I'll be one of the first in the line-up to purchase it.
I had it and sold it (too bad, I just sold it like 6 weeks ago). It is SO heavy. It didn't give me the range I wanted/needed, and I could not get used to the fact that it extends *out* for the *lower* end of the focal range. In other words, when you pop the lens on your camera, you're at 70mm. You have to extend it out to get to 24mm. And then it's long and heavy. Yes, it takes awesome pics, but side-by-side with my 24-105 handheld, the image quality was similar, and if anything I did better with the 24-105 because I could hold it steadier. I think if you're on a tripod more often than not, you can't go wrong with it, though.
@neda Also need to keep in mind that I am a small person with small, weakish hands xD And the Canon 24-70mm weighs almost a kilogram, whereas the Tamron equivalent weighs 500-ish grams...
@mabelkitty Yeah, I read about that reverse zoom thing - so weird!!
@pocketmouse@mabelkitty The reverse-zoom thing is by design. With the lens hood attached, because it is quite a wide lens when zoomed "out", the hood would be in the way if it was a conventional design or had the hood attach to the end of the lens rather than the main body. This way (the way it is designed) the hood protects the lens really well while not causing vignetting, at all focal lengths. For this reason, I love the design.
I've never thought of it as a heavy lens (my gear is all heavy), but that's what you get with high quality glass and wide apertures. It is certainly something to consider, that I had never paid attention to before. The 24-70 f/2.8 L is my lightest lens, currently - even my 85mm prime is heavier.
@jinximages I understand that it's by design, but that doesn't mean I have to like the functionality of it. It's a pretty well-documented debate, the 24-70 vs 24-105. I think the "better" lens is which ever fits the user's needs best.
@jinximages I find lens engineering amazing. So much to think about, so much stuff to pack into a relatively small space...
I think given my budget, and given my lack of professional-photography-ness (for now...) I will probably go with the Tamron f/2.8 28-75mm. I know it'll make some people cringe, but the reviews I've read have been surprisingly glowing. At the very least, it's not a massive investment so if turns out to be a complete lemon (which I doubt), I wouldn't have lost too much money.
Once I'm earning enough (and have a nicer, sturdier body to balance it out), I can then entertain the thought of the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8. :D
@pocketmouse I've heard good things about the Tamron too. I don't doubt it will serve you well, should you go that way!
@mabelkitty Such an odd thing to say. I never suggested you must love the design - was merely pointing out why they designed it the way they did. I guess that, having used it for five or so years now, I don't notice the "on at 70" matter. I never actually realised there was a debate about 24-70 vs 24-105. ;)
I have the 24-70 and it is a fantastic lens.
A huge advantage the 24-70 has over the 24-105 is the max aperture. For indoor handheld no flash, it can make the difference.
The 24-70 also has a higher reproduction ratio, meaning better macro shots. Though neither lens is a true macro lens.
I have the 24-70 and it was definitely worth the investment. It's almost permanently attached to my camera, especially now I upgraded from the Rebel to the 7D - which really just makes the lens even better. I love how it handles low light shots without flash (which is actually the original reason I bought it, as I was doing a lot of club photography at the time). The disadvantage for me is that it really is heavy, but it seems to be the go-to lens for a lot of pros, so I know I'm going to be getting great mileage out of it no matter what I'm shooting.
I've seen this lens, used it a few times and think its an awesome bit of kit. However, I went the 24-105L because I put my kit together for travelling. Its almost half the weight as the 24-70 and while its not as sharp, its still a very good lens.
My 2 cents worth, if youre going to use it mostly in your city, get the 24-70.
If you're planning on travelling alot and want to pack light (you need to pack everything in a carry on size backpack), then look at another
Not sure if it's been mentioned but I'd go for Canon's EF-S equivalent, which is the 17-55mm f/2.8. Yes it's crop sensor camera only, but if you don't think you'll upgrade for a long time to full frame I'd go for that instead. They are built for crop sensor bodies (the range going up to 7D), are lighter and slightly cheaper and have L-like quality glass.
I just wouldn't want to lose the wideness, which you will by starting at 28mm on a EF-S body. Check out the reviews; they're uniformly excellent for it.
@pocketmouse I'm also on the, um, vertically challenged side, and I totally hear you on the weight that's one reason I was disappointed about how heavy the canon 28-300 was (3.67 lb (1.66 kg)). The first day of the weekend I used it was pretty killer, the second day I was a tad sore but I'd gotten used to it a bit. You do. My original camera was pretty heavy (1.4k with the 55mm lens according to the kitchen scales). It was the type you needed to actually manually advance the film with a flick of the wrist. Did I get a sore wrist sometimes when I was doing a roll or two a day, yup! but you did get used to it.
I do want to know what you think of the tamron when you get it, do a review thread! I'd really like it for myself *lol* My first lenses were all 1.8's and having to have to use 4/5.6's just take the fun out of photography!
@vikdaddy This is true, but I like the extra zoom that 75mm gets me. The Tamron I'm looking at (28-75mm f/ 2.8) is better suited to crop sensor vs full sensor as well. :)
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
Oh my gosh that photo is gorgeous... it's so sharp!! Those are the kinds of shots I had in mind!!
And about 80% of my project in the last 12 months or so... ;)
It makes the list at as "the most popular portrait lens on the planet" on Improve photographys list http://improvephotography.com/1400/the-top-16-most-outstanding-lenses-on-the-market/
Buying it now means your body upgrade will be that much easier.
Due to costs though, if I ever am allowed another lens I'm going to probably have to go with the Tamron mentioned at the bottom.
If you can, hire it or any of the ones you're thinking about to give them a good work over before you buy.
1. Tamron's 28mm isn't as wide as Canon's 24mm (duh),
2. since it's not USM, it's slower and noisier to focus, and
3. There seem to be some quality control issues with it from a couple of reviewers.
Arrrrgh, I don't know what to do... do I go for this at a third of the price, or stick with the Canon one?
If you can, see if you can get your hands on both of them. At the least go to a store and try them out (take your camera along then review your test shots at home). Even if you're planning on buying online hold them first. That's how I ended up ruling out the 28-300, it's just too crazy heavy. Since it's a big ticket item (ok, somewhat) you can always just say you need to think about it. If they work on commission at yuor store be sure to get the persons card, that'll make them feel a little better.
I've got a crop sensor too (still using a 30D) so the 28mm of the tamron would be even more annoying since I'd get less than the 24mm that canon has. I agree those three negatives would annoy me. Question is, does it make enough of a difference to justify the cost for you, the price difference being how soon you can get to a better body....
I like what jinx said about waiting a bit for the newer one to come out. There should be a price drop/second hand ones on the market.
And that canon lens is famous for sharpness. I am with you, don't yet know what i would do in your place.
@mabelkitty Yeah, I read about that reverse zoom thing - so weird!!
Sigh... I still don't know... xD
I've never thought of it as a heavy lens (my gear is all heavy), but that's what you get with high quality glass and wide apertures. It is certainly something to consider, that I had never paid attention to before. The 24-70 f/2.8 L is my lightest lens, currently - even my 85mm prime is heavier.
I think given my budget, and given my lack of professional-photography-ness (for now...) I will probably go with the Tamron f/2.8 28-75mm. I know it'll make some people cringe, but the reviews I've read have been surprisingly glowing. At the very least, it's not a massive investment so if turns out to be a complete lemon (which I doubt), I wouldn't have lost too much money.
Once I'm earning enough (and have a nicer, sturdier body to balance it out), I can then entertain the thought of the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8. :D
@mabelkitty Such an odd thing to say. I never suggested you must love the design - was merely pointing out why they designed it the way they did. I guess that, having used it for five or so years now, I don't notice the "on at 70" matter. I never actually realised there was a debate about 24-70 vs 24-105. ;)
A huge advantage the 24-70 has over the 24-105 is the max aperture. For indoor handheld no flash, it can make the difference.
The 24-70 also has a higher reproduction ratio, meaning better macro shots. Though neither lens is a true macro lens.
My 2 cents worth, if youre going to use it mostly in your city, get the 24-70.
If you're planning on travelling alot and want to pack light (you need to pack everything in a carry on size backpack), then look at another
I just wouldn't want to lose the wideness, which you will by starting at 28mm on a EF-S body. Check out the reviews; they're uniformly excellent for it.
I do want to know what you think of the tamron when you get it, do a review thread! I'd really like it for myself *lol* My first lenses were all 1.8's and having to have to use 4/5.6's just take the fun out of photography!