Is there any real difference in performance between this and the 24-70? I'm looking for a good quality walk around lens for my 6d
1716981
This Lens is phenomenal! I also have the 6d and together they are great. Don't waste your money on the 24-70. At first, I was not too sure about the 28-70L , but after Using it at a few events, it is proven to be an awesome lens. My copy is tack sharp and the only difference is 4mm.
1716982
I use it ad my walk around lens with my 6d too. It isn't as sharp as the canon 24-70 or as sharp ad tamrons 24-70 but it is sharper then sigmas 24-70. That being said, for the price it is a seriously amazing lens. It is very sharp, just not weather sealed.
1716983
The real difference is the image stabilization (IS). The quality of the two lenses is very good so you just have to be really really steady or use a stand to work without the IS. Hope this helps
1716984
Hello Amy, I really haven't used this product since I bought it; I initially thought it was the 24-70mm f 2.8L. As a matter of fact, I will be returning it. I am, therefore, not the best person to give a critique. However, I'm sure you'll find these links useful: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-28-70mm-f-2.8-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspxhttp://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/
1716985
What version of the 24-70 are you referring to? If you do not need f2.8 then I would steer you to the new f4 version that has IS. The 28-70 is an old lens no longer supported by Canon and you will find it difficult to find someone to fix it if you ever have problems.
1716986
All the reviews that compare this lens with the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark I, state there is very little differance betwen the two lenses. I own the Canon 28-70 F/2.8. It is a very sharp lens. I can't see paying the more expensive price for the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark I if they perform the same. However, the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark II appears to be the better of the three lens. It is more expensive of course. In my opinion, the price differance between the Canon 28-70 F/2.8 and the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark II doesnt match the small improvement in image quality, unless you are shooting professionally and need the best quality possible. You can't go wrong with the Canon 28-70 F/2.8 for the price, just keep in mind it is an older lens and if it needs repaired, Canon probably won't repair it.
1671060
Works great with the 70d. The key to getting great images is the lens. On my 18-135, the results were mediocre. On my 50mm, the results were excellent.
811135
I don't have the Tamron 70-200 but I have the canon 70-200L f4, and I must say the 24-70 Tamron is not as sharp as the canon. Having said this, the Tamron is sharp enough for me and in anycase you need wide-tele lens for general photography as opposed to long telephoto zooms such as 70-200.
357729
To my understanding it is usually believed that 2470 is a better version than this one in the same focal length range.But there are other things to consider. How important is it for you to have the extra versatility, that is, the focal length of 70 to 120? How much do you care about the lost of aperture range? (And that depends on what you plan to shoot most often.) How important is the price difference to you? And weight differs, too.Actually, I envy the newest 750 model so much! lol. It certainly deserves good lenses.
1674522
I bought the 24-105 lens recently because I thought the IS would make up for my lack of a higher aperture in low-light situations. It does to an extent, but I have decided that I want the f/2.8 for other reasons. So I'm trying to sell my 24-105 so I can buy the 24-70. I do wish the 24-70 had IS, but it's really not necessary because it's just a faster lens. It really depends on your use. If you are using it for weddings, you may want to consider the 24-70 because of the faster focusing and better handling in low-light situations. If you are using it for a general walk-around lens, the 24-105 will do just fine. I love mine and I almost want to keep it and buy the 24-70, but I can't afford both right now and I need the 24-70 for my business. You can see some sample photos from the 24-105 at my website: www.sarakelley.net. Email me there if you want more input or have any questions.
1813610
Yes the image quality is much better. This lens is over all sharper and has a much better build quality. I own and use this lens on my Canon 70D.
323361
I don't have the 28mm 1.8 but borrowed it before my purchase of the 24mm 1.4. It's a very good lens that is much lighter and obviously cheaper than the 24 1.4. The advantage of the 24 is obviously the extra stop of light or so. The 24 also was somewhat sharper than the 28(to my eyes), especially stopped down equally. You can't go wrong with either. Just depends on your price point and needs.
1357474
I never owned 28-70 but been told that it's a great lens with excellent image quality. I have the 24-70 and it's my go-to lens for all purpose shooting on a full-frame body. Superb IQ at premium price but has no VR. I believe 28-70 is slightly heavier, shorter and fatter than 24-70; however, build quality of both 28-70 and 24-70 is excellent. Are you not satisfied with the IQ of 28-70? Do you need something wider than 28mm? Are you using DX or FX body? Like the last commenter, I too would miss 24mm wide angle if I had 28-70. If I had a 28-70, I would sell it and buy 24-70 Nikon, but that's me. http://betterfamilyphotos.blogspot.com/2012/04/nikon-28-70-28d-vs-nikon-24-70-28g.html
2077809
The 24-120 f/4 is a great "walking around" lens. It has all the goodies; Nano Glass, VR2 and fantastic resolution and speed. Works very well with mt D800's 36 megapixel resolution. Great for handheld shots. It's not a lightweight, but, IMHO, relatively easy to carry. You'll not be disappointed with the pictures. If you can, try it with your camera for weight and balance.
1061950
I own a 7D and the 17-40mm lens. It is a great lens for the 7D. If you don't have a full frame camera, you won't notice the difference, but the FOV is a lot narrower with the 7D vice the 6D. I suggest renting the lens first and see if it performs the way you want it to perform. There are wider FOV lenses, but I understand distortion at the edges starts to be a factor.
1625584
The difference is 1mm wider on the wide end and doesn't have as wide of a zoom range (8mm less on the long end). In exchange for a very limited zoom range, you get 1 stop more light to your sensor.I have the 11-16mm and wouldn't trade it for the 12-24 unless I needed more overlap with my other lenses. As it is right now, I have nice coverage from 11-200 with only small gaps (16-17mm and 55-70mm) and a constant f/2.8 or better.
811134
while i have never had the 70-200, i've had other canon lenses, including the red strip 24-105 4L, and other tamron lenses...from my experience this 24-70 will be as sharp or sharper than them all...tho, like all lenses, you should not shoot at full open 2.8 for best sharpness...i shoot at 3.2, and with the image stab i is no problem...and fully open to 24mm the outer portion may be less sharp, but that holds for all wide angle zooms...this is as good as the best, it is among the best.
342704
No lens question can be answered accurately without knowing the intended subjects and lighting conditions. But if one needs a mid zoom on a D7000 and do not need wide angle, the 24-70 is the best of the lot. It is not wide on a crop sensor so you will need a wider lens for interior architecture, landscape, street etc. If your main subject is portraiture, general walking around, product, environmental lifestyle portraits, short telephoto etc, it is very good lens. I prefer it on the D7000 to my 17-55 2.8 which is DX only.. I use my 24-70 daily on a D800 and D7000 with excellent pro results for group portraiture, events, glamour etc. If you have plans on adding full frame to your collection, this lens can serve both the short telephoto and normal mid zoom functions on the DX or FX respectively. On FX it has a field of view that makes it a good architecture and landscape lens. If your primary purpose is portraiture, consider the 85 1.8G as an excellent lens for 1/4th the price however.
220612
Yes I would take the 24-70 2.8 because of the speed. This lens is my go to lens, it is a work horses. I back it up with my 70-200 2.8.
523652
The 24-105 f/4L IS USM lens works great with the 7d, it's the lens I'm currently using as a 'walk around' lens on my own 7d. We also use that lens on my wife's 40D. Sometimes we argue over who gets to use that lens. Good choice!
1907926
For sure, it's a big deal buy the Canon 6D with the 24-105 L IS kit lens.Its a L series that costs about U$800.00 if bought separately.I bought mine with this lens plus a cheap 50mm 1.8.I am very happy with this set. Very very good pictures quality with the 24-105mm.RegardsJosé Geraldo
1784423
The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a Nikon 28-105, which I've happily retired. So, in short, buy this great lens if you plan to stay with Nikon bodies. The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a... » Read More The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a Nikon 28-105, which I've happily retired. So, in short, buy this great lens if you plan to stay with Nikon bodies. « Show Less