Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II too expensive. Alternate walk-arounds in sub$1500 range for 7d?

Started Apr 13, 2013 | Discussions thread
Biosphere
Regular MemberPosts: 204
Like?
Re: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II too expensive. Alternate walk-arounds in sub$1500 range for 7d?
In reply to agurkas, Apr 15, 2013

Chez Wimpy wrote:

iShootWideOpen wrote:

Now the 24-70L II is something else.

Yes, it is a 24-70...

On a crop camera less than 40% of its image circle is being utilized, yet the price is still "full frame."  There are a number of fantastic f2.8 zooms from Canon and others that were designed for use on crop cameras out to the edges... there are also a number of f2.8 zooms designed for FF where the focal length doesn't match up well with crop, but which are perfectly fine in the cropped central portion of the image (to the point where any 24-70II difference is academic).  Of course, I haven't seen the 24-70II tested on any crop cameras to prove it definitively, because I assume most reviewers figure "What's the point?"

But you don't even have to look any further than the local review here to find crop testing with plenty of praise being heaped on it in a cropped scenario. When running a comparison against the Canon EF-S 17-55 or 15-85 it wins comfortably at maximum apertures.

qianp2k wrote:

Any those 24-70mm or 24-105L lenses designed and optimized for FF cameras don't run much better or even better on APS-C bodies than comparable EF-S walk-around zoom. 24-70L II will be wasted on 7D unless you will move to FF soon. If you will stay in APS-C for a while, still get one of EF-S walk-around zoom, 15-85, 17-55/2.8 or third party 17-50/2.8 zoom. Personally I picked up Sigma 17-50/2.8 OS to use on my 60D. However I am primarily FF shooter.

-- hide signature --

I currently have the 24-70 II, the 17-55 and the 15-85 with a 7D. I'm still getting to grips with it, but when I get it right, the IQ of the 24-70 is clearly better to me without resorting to pixel peeping - just normal monitor viewing. The intention is to sell the 17-55 to offset the 24-70 cost and I also intend to move to a full frame system. However, with the 17-55 I was often bumping up against the 55mm end stop so that was one reason to go longer now. Another reason was that it was obvious from the test data I saw that I was going to get a worthwhile gain in image quality. Also it's snowed here a lot this winter and in those conditions when the kids were playing outside I was limited to my 70-200 f/4 IS because I wanted to use a weather resistant lens. Maybe I'm over cautious, but I didn't want to risk my 17-55 even though I was missing shots through not being able to step back. It's a reason that make sense for me but it's not for everyone I know.

If Canon would come out with something like a Mark II 17-55 with weather resistance to complement the weather resistant 7D body, them I imagine they could charge their usual Mark II premium to upgraders. I have wondered why once they put weather sealing into a crop camera, they didn't make complementary weather sealed crop lenses. Maybe the majority of those that will pay for weather sealing will make the jump to FF if Canon keep that carrot.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow