Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens

[MikeG2012]

Any EF lens will work on a EF-S body without an adapter. However, an EF-S lens will not work on a non EF-S body.


Can I ask why you're considering the 24-70? The 24-105 f/4 IS is also a great lens and may suit you better depending on your needs. Its a bit cheaper, lighter, and has IS.


And rumor has it Canon is going to update the 24-70 with an IS version possibly this year. So hold off on that purchase for a bit if you can.

[rbauer]

Mike,


Thanks for the good advice. I will hold off on getting that one and wait for the new version.


For a good outdoor zoom lens that also does dawn and dusk shots well do you recommend getting the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens for the T2i body ? I can't seem to get close enough to anything outdoors with the 18-55 kit lens. I was recently trying to shoot geese and wound up getting charged at by one of them, so I've been looking at this really big lens.


-R

[MikeG2012]

The 70-200 f/2.8 II is an awesome lens. I currently have the MK1 and love it. Its certainly a great lens and will get you plenty of reach on a crop body. 1.6 X 70-200 = 112-320mm effectively. If you're doing a lot of wildlife though, I'd recommend the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS. It has more reach, weighs about the same, and is cheaper than the 70-200.


Is there any particular need for the f/2.8? With the ISO capabilities of cameras you can settle for f/4 and still come out with excellent pictures. The only reason I'd say to get f/2.8 lenses is if you're generally shooting in very poor light without flash, and need the better light-gathering ability which translates to better auto-focusing in poor light.


I know that the 24-70 has been on the update list for the past 3 years, but I have good sources saying this may be the year


Mike

[Richard Lane]

For a good outdoor zoom lens that also does dawn and dusk shots well do you recommend getting the [url="/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-II-USM-Lens-Review.aspx]Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM Lens [/url]for the T2i body ?
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Great debate between the EF-24-70mm f/2.8L and the EF-24-105mm f/4L IS, you can't go wrong with either one. The 24-105 has a 3 stop IS advantage, but the the 24-70 has a 1 stop f/2.8 advantage. Things to consider is that the IS advantage doesn't help with moving subjects, it only helps with camera shake, and the 24-70 f/2.8Lis a faster lens that allows twice as much light in then the 24-105 f/4LIS does, so you get a brighter viewfinder at all f-stops and faster focusing. The 24-105mm f/4L aperture and extra focal lenghth on a crop body,are probably better suited foroutdooruse and the faster f/2.8L is better inlower lightindoors use, although the IS on the 24-105mm helps indoors too, so it's probably a wash. The truth is you would probably need a flash for either Lens indoors.


The 24-70mm f/2.8L is faster focusing for close action, like someone jumping off a diving boardor someone on a swing, things like that. If there is plenty of light, then the 24-105mm f/4L should do just fine. The 105mm has some useful cross-over focal lenghth with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II which you're also looking at.


The EF-70-200mm f/2.8L IS II is one the best lenses that Canon makes. I would buy the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS IIfirst and keep the 18-55mm kit lens a little longer, and waitabout amonth to see if the 24-70mm f/2.8L IS version comes out. If it does come out, then this should tip the scale in favor of the 24-70mm f/2.8L IS to be your second lens purchase, if it doesn't come out then I think you will have to weigh the advantages of each. If you're unsure I would go with the 24-70mm f/2.8 version myself, which is what I did.


Here is a little comparison:


http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Lens-Specifications.aspx?Lens=101&amp;LensComp=355&amp; Units=E


Once you get the 70-200mm you may not need the 24-70 as much, since you do have the 18-55, that's of course if reach was your only concern regarding the kitlens.You couldalsoconsider puttingyour money towards a 1.4X converter for the 70-200mm and a 50mm f/1.4 for indoor use.





Rich

[MattG]

<span style="font-family: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 7.5pt;"]


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]I think the big question (and the one I just finished debating) is would you ever move up to a FF body? If not, stick with the 17-55. The wider focal length comes in handy I find.<o></o>


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]If you can justify the 70-200 f2.8 go for it but don&rsquo;t rule out the f4 version for a lot less $$. I have it and have been very happy with it.<o></o>


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]I have a crop body and the combination of the 17-55 and the 70-200 f4 work great. You can also pick the both up for less than the 70-200 f2.8&hellip;<o></o>


<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]Next would be the 10-20 and then a large prime&hellip;300 or 400<o></o>









MattG

[MikeG2012]

Going along with what MattG said, if you plan on upgrading to a FF (full frame) or APS-H body, then I'd suggest also looking at the 16-35 f/2.8 and the 17-40 f/4. Both are excellent lenses with the 17-40 being the 2nd cheapest L lens on the market right now. Both will give you the wider range you may want with your current body, and if you upgrade to a FF or APS-H body, you'll love the super wide angle you can get from these lenses.


Mike

[Fast Glass]

I was recently trying to shoot geese and wound up getting charged at by one of them, so I've been looking at this really big lens.

This ain't no big lens, it is big in size (relatively) but not in focal length. I would strongly recomend the 100-400mm or the 400mm f/5.6. A 70-200mm is not aserious wildlife lens, it more for portriats, landscape, sports, anything that does not requiere reach.


John.