24-70 L - A Step Up from the EF 17-85?

**alexniedra** · 12-06-2009, 01:02 PM

So I'm thinking of taking the plunge and investing in a 24-70 L. I think that I can really appreciate the extra speed of this lens when I'm shooting in low light (which is frequently). I really like the fact that it's a zoom - I've been debating on maybe getting a prime in this focal length range, but for my needs, this lens seems to be the most practical. My question is, in terms of image quality, will this lens be a (big) step up from my current EF-S 17-85 (mounted on a 40D)? Can you provide some images shot with the 24-70 L to solidify my decision? Help is appreciated.

- Alex

**neuroanatomist** · 12-06-2009, 02:00 PM

The short answer is yes, it's a significant step up in image quality. You may need another lens to cover the 17-24 range, though, as 24mm on a 40D body is 'normal' focal length, not wide angle. You might also consider the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, which has L lens image quality and preserves the wide end of the focal range (but then you'd obviously lose the >55mm part). If you have another lens to cover that (e.g. a 70-200 L zoom), you'd be set.

**soerenrom** · 12-06-2009, 02:55 PM

Hi

I'm also thinking about upgrading to the 24-70 L from the 17-85 (using a 50D).
I also know that the 17-55 is a good lens, but the L lens seems nice and the focal length will work fine.

But will I miss IS for hand held shoots.
Have anybody experienced qulity issues with this lens. Read a review of callibration problems.

The new 15-85 could also be a great lens, but it's not f/2.8.

Looking forward to try out the 24-70 L.

**Keith B** · 12-06-2009, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by soerenrom

But will I miss IS for hand held shoots.

Have anybody experienced qulity issues with this lens. Read a review of callibration problems.

Quality issues with the 24-70? None. It is a beast. I've never calibrated mine it is pretty darn sharp on my 5DmkII.

I love this lens. I don't know how much I'd like it on a crop though. I don't think it would be wide enough for my likes.

Here are some shots from 24-70 on a 5DmkII

**alexniedra** · 12-06-2009, 06:45 PM

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

The short answer is yes, it's a significant step up in image quality.

I knew it! That's what I figured.[

]

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

You may need another lens to cover the 17-24 range, though, as 24mm on a 40D body is 'normal' focal length, not wide angle.

Already have that covered - I use the Tokina 12-24mm f/4 to cover anything wider than 24mm.

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

You might also consider the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, which has L lens image quality and preserves the wide end of the focal range

I thought about it, but I could see myself going full frame or APS-H in the future.

Originally Posted by neuroanatomist

If you have another lens to cover that (e.g. a 70-200 L zoom), you'd be set.

That's my plan. As my shooting advances, and the need (and funds) arise for a faster telephoto lens, I can go ahead on a 70-200 2.8 L IS USM. In that case, I would have all focal lengths from 12mm to 200mm covered.

**asmodai** · 12-06-2009, 07:27 PM

[View:http://www.flickr.com/photos/2866329...1276/sizes/o/]

Originally Posted by alexniedra

So I'm thinking of taking the plunge and investing in a 24-70 L. I think that I can really appreciate the extra speed of this lens when I'm shooting in low light (which is frequently). I really like the fact that it's a zoom - I've been debating on maybe getting a prime in this focal length range, but for my needs, this lens seems to be the most practical. My question is, in terms of image quality, will this lens be a (big) step up from my current EF-S 17-85 (mounted on a 40D)? Can you provide some images shot with the 24-70 L to solidify my decision? Help is appreciated.

- Alex
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

So, I often sing the praises of the 24-70. I use it on my 5dII and my 20D, and I love it both. If anything, I find it more in my preferred focal length range on a crop body. I do a lot in low light: I would have missed many, many shots if I couldn't open up to 2.8.

Someone recommended the 17-55. I bought this lens for my 20d, and I was never nuts for it. IS on a 2.8 walk-around is nice, but I was never satisfied with the image quality. I found colors the to be too dull, the barrel distortion to be of a very unpleasant nature, and some other quality of the photos just... lacking. It also accumulated a lot of internal dust; not awful for my shooting since I am generally at wide apertures, but boy it hurts resale value. It might have been because it was the second lens I ever owned, with the first being the 35L, but the fact remains. I'd say just pay the <$300 more for the 24-70 (yey rebates!!) and get the superior lens.

With the 24-70:

P.S.

I'm kinda new here. If there is standard netiquette here on what size people should post samples at, let me know it so I don't step on people's bandwidth-toes.

**Colin** · 12-07-2009, 01:55 AM

I LOVE THAT HAIR!

**scalesusa** · 12-13-2009, 06:40 PM

I'd skip the 24-70L, its not great on a crop camera, and very front heavy on a smaller camera body, the balance is poor. On a bif 1 series FF camera, the 24-70 is a different story.

Try the new 15-85mm zoom, or better yet, the 17-55mm EF-S. Its the lens others are compared to for that focal range on a EF-s camera, and its wonderful.

**scalesusa** · 12-13-2009, 06:40 PM

I'd skip the 24-70L, its not great on a crop camera, and very front heavy on a smaller camera body, the balance is poor. On a bif 1 series FF camera, the 24-70 is a different story.

Try the new 15-85mm zoom, or better yet, the 17-55mm EF-S. Its the lens others are compared to for that focal range on a EF-s camera, and its wonderful.

**alexniedra** · 12-13-2009, 07:19 PM