Canon 24-70 2.8 L : any issues

[Scotty72]

After my 24-105L's ribbon failed again (not uncommon it seems) (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?87512-quot-My-24-105-f4-L-Died&p=894388#post894388)

I am thinking of not wasting any more money on a repair that will last <12 months.

I am thinking of the 24-70 L...

Now, before I go this way, can I ask if anyone knows if this lens is somehow afflicted with the same (or similar) issues (or any known issues at all).?

I am really hoping to not buy another dud.

Thanks

Scotty

[Tannin]

1: it is about to be replaced by a new model.

2: no IS.

(1) is bearable. (2) is a deal-breaker.

[Art Vandelay]

A mate has had one for donkeys, no probs.

But then again, thousands have had the 24-105 with no probs either, so that doesn't say much :)

Have you tried the 17-55 ?

[Xenedis]

1: it is about to be replaced by a new model.

I've been hearing that since Moses wore short pants.


2: no IS.

(1) is bearable. (2) is a deal-breaker.

I've always been of the opinion that IS is useful at any focal length, and I'd prefer to have IS than not.

Having said that, most of my lenses don't have IS, and the two that do are at the long end of the focal length scale.

If Scott wants to use his for landscape photography (he shoots quite a few seascapes these days), IS isn't useful at all, as the camera is tripod-mounted.

For hand-held stuff the IS can be useful in low light, but depending on what he wants to do, the extra stop the 24-70 offers over his 24-105 may be enough, combined with pushing the ISO a stop or two.

[Scotty72]

I've been hearing that since Moses wore short pants.



I've always been of the opinion that IS is useful at any focal length, and I'd prefer to have IS than not.

Having said that, most of my lenses don't have IS, and the two that do are at the long end of the focal length scale.

If Scott wants to use his for landscape photography (he shoots quite a few seascapes these days), IS isn't useful at all, as the camera is tripod-mounted.

For hand-held stuff the IS can be useful in low light, but depending on what he wants to do, the extra stop the 24-70 offers over his 24-105 may be enough, combined with pushing the ISO a stop or two.

To be honest, I'm not worried about the IS on shorter focal lengths (<70) - largely for the reasons John outlined.

However, I was mainly interested if it too has a rep for catastrophic failure (as a simple google search on the 24-105L reveals). I've looked for the 24-70 and failures with not much coming up.

Just wondering if others had experience in this.

Scotty

[Xenedis]

I've personally never heard of any issues with the 24-70/2.8L. It has been around since 2002.

Some reviews you might find useful:


Fred Miranda: http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=5
The Digital Picture: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-24-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

[Shelley]

I use the 24-70 quite a bit and love it. I don't miss IS on it - don't think its heavy - but its obviously not compact. I went away for two weeks with a group of 24 students and it was a great all round lens on my 7d, didn't come off. I have the L70-200 2.8 IS II and still pick up my 24-70 first. I took group shots with my flash at sunset in Canberra - quite nice and got some nice images in the snow and group shots of students in the snow.

I also use this lens with my portrait work and lights. I have had no problems with this lens.

bought it from Stu and Quality Cameras.

[Tannin]

You won't find any mention of catastrophic failures of the 24-70 in the Internet because, when this lens was introduced, the Internet hadn't been invented yet. :eek:

(runs and hides)

Actually, it's a classic lens which has stood the test of time in the hands of a zillion hard-bitten journos. I wouldn't buy one myself, but it would make an excellent choice if you don't care about IS. Yes, they are about to replace it, but it won't stop taking great pictures just because there is a newer version out.

[Xenedis]

You won't find any mention of catastrophic failures of the 24-70 in the Internet because, when this lens was introduced, the Internet hadn't been invented yet. :eek:

I've been on the Internet since the mid-1990s. Of course, we didn't call it the Internet back then; it was the 'Information Super-Highway'.


Actually, it's a classic lens which has stood the test of time in the hands of a zillion hard-bitten journos. I wouldn't buy one myself, but it would make an excellent choice if you don't care about IS.

It's definitely a great lens, and a staple for many pro shooters and amateurs alike.

I don't have or need one (I have no use for a standard zoom), but years ago I came close to buying one when a standard zoom was the sort of lens I wanted.



Yes, they are about to replace it

That remains to be seen.


but it won't stop taking great pictures just because there is a newer version out.

Indeed.

People on Internet forums (not necessarily this one) get all worked up about whether they should buy some item now, or wait for the replacement (which is usually not even officially a product as far as the public is concerned). It's common with cameras (eg, should I buy a 5D Mark II or wait for the mark III?).

My opinion is that one should buy an item when one needs it. While cameras have a much higher obsolescence rate than lenses, the fact remains that the product doesn't suddenly become a paperweight when a successor is announced.

There's someone around here (you?) who still shoots with a 20D. I had one of those in 2005; it's a great camera which is no less capable now than it was then. Of course, pixel counts have increased, sensors have got 'cleaner', processors have got 'smarter', and there've been all manner of other enhancements, but the nuts and bolts of it remains the same.

If you're right and a 24-70 mark II is announced (time to market notwithstanding), it may mean prices for the current model decrease, so Scott may get more of a bargain if the lens is indeed replaced imminently.

[Tannin]

Still shooting with a 20D? Too right I am! I love that camera. Had it since 2005 and I'll keep on using it for as long as it keeps going, which might just be longer than I do. I have discarded a 450D and a 40D since then, and will get rid of the other 40D one day when I upgrade again, but the 20D is a keeper.

[JM Tran]

the 24-70L is a strange lens to me, having used 2 of them in the last 4 years through friends for work and fun, the first one gave decent results in sharpness - nothing outstanding for me and I was like meh, nothing groundbreaking. But another friend who had bought a 24-70L from a later manufacturing batch - I was blown away by the incredible sharpness it had, especially corner to corner from F4 and onwards and able to resolve so much details on a 5D2.

I have heard of sample variation with the 24-70L throughout the years and I believed I saw it first-hand from those 2 aforementioned lenses.

The older 28-70L were known to be sharper throughout the range with less sample variations, but I would take the extra 4mm wide from the newer 24-70L anyday. Going from 28mm to 24mm is so much more noticeable and pronounced, than say 70mm to 80mm

[Scotty72]

Thanks guys... food for thought.

[KeeFy]

I've been on the Internet since the mid-1990s. Of course, we didn't call it the Internet back then; it was the 'Information Super-Highway'.


Odd that you say that. Over from where i'm from we called it the internet back then. I started with a 28.8 baud modem as my very first connection at home. I remember the day when i first connected it to my computer via parallel port. Awesome. U.S Robotics was the brand to get. LoL. I still have my first comptuer... a 286 (was about 7 then) which cost my family something along the lines of 20K back then.. oh how times have changed now where you can pick a new one up for $200. LoL

[Pine]

Happy with my 20-70L no issues.
Don't miss IS

Regards

[Tannin]

:) USR was the[/b] brand to have, Keefy. They were simply superb. I used to love selling those, because you knew it was never, ever coming back. they just worked - and were easily faster than anything else around too. Naturally, [i]No-one else used a parallel port! I bought a USR for myself eventually - they were horribly dear. They were the L Series prime lens of the modem world.

[Xenedis]

Odd that you say that. Over from where i'm from we called it the internet back then.

It was a tongue-in-cheek comment, but the term 'Information Super-Highway' was certainly used a lot by the media back then.


U.S Robotics was the brand to get. LoL.

Indeed it was. I had a USR Courier V.Everything in 1996. At the time, those modems had a price tag of $800 or more.

Unlike most other modems the Courier was software-upgradable. At that time, mine started its life as a V.34 (33.6K) modem, and I later flashed it to the proprietary X2 (56K) protocol before the ITU-T ratified V.90 as the standard for 56K, at which point I flash-upgraded it to that standard.

[Xenedis]

Thanks guys... food for thought.

I have no doubt you'd be happy with a 24-70 from an IQ and build quality perspective.

You seem to use the long end of your 24-105 a lot. Do you otherwise have the 70mm+ range in another lens?

[Scotty72]

i have no doubt you'd be happy with a 24-70 from an iq and build quality perspective.

You seem to use the long end of your 24-105 a lot. Do you otherwise have the 70mm+ range in another lens?

70-200l is 2.8

[Xenedis]

Okay Scotty, so you have the 70-105mm range already covered, both at f/2.8 and with IS, by your 70-200/2.8L IS, in which case the extra reach of the 24-105 doesn't give you anything you don't already have (in fact it gives you less in the form of a maximum aperture of f/4). All it gives you is single-lens convenience.

If you really need a replacement standard zoom NOW, buy the 24-70. if you can wait a while, you have the option of waiting for a mark II of that lens, but as I mentioned, people have been speculating about that for years.

If you want something wider, and plan to stay with the APS-C format, the 17-55/2.8 IS is an excellent lens.

[Scotty72]

I'm deliriously happy with the siggy 10-20.

So, if I have a desperate need for 21-23 mm, I'm screwed :eek:

[Xenedis]

if I have a desperate need for 21-23 mm, I'm screwed :eek:

You think you're screwed.

For a number of years I've had no focal length between 35mm and 70mm.

I'm not entirely sure what I'd even DO with those focal lengths, but at any rate, the sky is falling.

[Scotty72]

I'm not entirely sure what I'd even DO with those focal lengths, but at any rate, the sky is falling.


Well, at about 40mm, you'd get a good mid-shot of the end of the world... wide enough to establish setting whilst long enough to capture the details of terrified civilians kissing their ar#es good-bye.

Looks like you'll need a 24-70L too. :p

Scotty

[Xenedis]

Looks like you'll need a 24-70L too. :p

Nah. Great lens, and the one I'd choose if I wanted a standard zoom, but I have no use for it.

[Dylan & Marianne]

I've had one for a long time and have had no issues with its image quality (until we dropped it a year ago and we haven't fixed it since - images slightly softer than they used to be!)
I take alot of the landscape panoramas with this lens. The major downside for landscapes is the weight of this lens and the fact that it doesn't come with a tripod mount. Putting it up vertically for long exposures and depending on how permanently you want to screw on the quickplate to your body (like super super firmly that you have to struggle and pop a few veins to ever get it off), you may get some drooping of the lens during the exposure.

[Scotty72]

I've had one for a long time and have had no issues with its image quality (until we dropped it a year ago and we haven't fixed it since - images slightly softer than they used to be!)
I take alot of the landscape panoramas with this lens. The major downside for landscapes is the weight of this lens and the fact that it doesn't come with a tripod mount. Putting it up vertically for long exposures and depending on how permanently you want to screw on the quickplate to your body (like super super firmly that you have to struggle and pop a few veins to ever get it off), you may get some drooping of the lens during the exposure.

Thanks...

The 24-105L is a little the same (though a little lighter). I find when it is stuck on, the tripod itself becomes a good vice grip :p

[sonofcoco]

I have the 24-70mm and really like it. Had an issue with the image quality when I first got it (wasn't as good as I expected it to be, especially after paying the amount of cash it costs), but took it in to the Canon Service Centre in Ulsan and they had a tinker with it and my 40D and when I got it back it was very good. And it only cost $30 (the tinkering that is, not the lens obviously) :th3:

[wardiej]

The 24-70L is my walk around lens and never comes off my camera. I have another body and 100-400L if i want to go longer. I never have had cause to worry about the IQ of the lens as all my failures can be attributed to myself. It seems to be very rugged as it definitely has not been babied, although it has never been dropped.

Wardie

[Bennymiata]

Try the Sigma version and save yourself $$$$.

You'll be surprised at how good the Sigma is.

[Pine]

[QUOTE=Tannin;894580]You won't find any mention of catastrophic failures of the 24-70 in the Internet because, when this lens was introduced, the Internet hadn't been invented yet. :eek:

Now that's a story the Internet has been around for much longer time than that:rolleyes:

However a lot of us predate the Internet :eek:

Regards

[iwkyb]

I have the 24-70 and had no issue with it so far. Very solidly built. The only problem is that most people are expecting to see a new version sometime next year.