24-70 f/2.8 Mark 1 shortcomings??
24-70 f/2.8 Mark 1 shortcomings??
Feb 12, 2012
Hello all. I recently made the decision to sell my 16-35 2.8 mark II lens (will be in the for sale forums later this evening) to get the 24-70 2.8 mark I. The 16-35 is a GREAT lens but now that I'm chasing an 18 month old around the house it no longer fits my needs. I read a very short first impression of the new mark II lens at canon rumors and the guy stated that the new lens fixes most of the "issues" of the mark I. The new model would be nice but I can't justify the $1000 jump over the current model. So my question is, what are the "issues" that the mark I has? This lens will be used on a 30d and the 5D mark III whenever Canon decides to release it. Thank you for any info and advice.
Well overall the 24-70 is a pretty capable lens and a very useful focal range. I had mine for 8 years, although for WA use I have switched to primes.
The biggest negative you will hear is that it is pretty large and heavy for an everyday lens. Especially with the lens hood on, and I keep mine on all the time. I use a handstrap which really helps holding a "large & heavy" camera for extended periods.
I've done some side by side testing with it too against the Zeiss 21/2.8 and the 24 TSE II. In these tests the zoom was a control, I never expected it to perorm at the level of these esteemed primes. The weakest optical performance of the 24-70 is 24mm wide open. If you are at 24mm you need to stop it down to f5.6 for reasonable corner sharpness and if you want shallower dof than that you need a prime. Stopped down a bit the 24-70 performs well, better than I expected vs the primes.
Personally I never felt the necessity of IS; when the light was dim I raised the ISO and/or held steady best I could. However much of my shooting is with a tripod.
24-70mk1 is pretty good, but heavy. On the wide end, it's not the quality of some of the newer lenses (like 24 TSE). Some of the problem with the lens is field curvature. You can get the lowdown on field curvature with this lens by visiting photozone.de
Overall a nice lens. Used by many photojournalists.
I have found this lens to have somewhat inconsistent AF. Sometimes it just misses, even in good light, and even if microadjustment is used to tune it correctly.
I had the same issue (to a higher degree) with the 24 mm f/1.4 L. Version II of the 24 mm f/1.4 L is better at focusing consistently.
lack of IS.
cameras: 5DII, 50D, D60, Rebel 2000 (film)
lenses: 17-40 f/4 USM L, 24-105 f/4 USM L, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 IS USM L, 24 f/3.5 TSE L, 35 f/2, 50 f/1.4 USM, 100 f/2.8 IS USM Macro L, 300 f/2.8 IS USM II, 430 EX II, Kenko Pro 300 1.4x TC, EF 2x TC III
personal website: http://www.travelerathome.com
A little bit heavier perhaps but it would certainly please many posters in this forum if Canon were to release such a lens.
24-70 Mk I = 950g
24-70 Mk II = 805g
Specs from Canon site
I prefer the 24-105 plus a bouced flash for catching the kids running round the house. The aperture doesn't matter as much. F2.8 can still be frustrating in the house, especially with no IS. If your after a 5D3 or what ever, it'll have a massive ISO range, so the difference between F2.8 and F4 is negligable. You can get similar blurred backgrounds with the 24-105 with a bit of knowledge and preplanning as well.
The chances of survival are equal to the angle of arrival !!
Thanks for all the info. I actually managed to swing by my favorite camera shop in Atlanta and was able to use the Canon 24-70 2.8, 24-105 4, and the Sigma 24-70 2.8. I wasn't too impressed with the Sigma. I have one of their primes and it has been great but didn't like the zoom. The Canon 24-70 2.8 is a BEAST!!! I didn't think it was that large. But it focused quick and accurate. I was actually very surprised by the 24-105 4. It was very fast focusing and crazy sharp. And the fact it's almost half the size and weight of the 2.8 was a plus. Now I just need to get my 16-35 2.8 II sold and make up my mind which one to get.
Some copies have back focus problem at wide end. Mine had a severe BF at 24 mm when focused in 2 m and further. Canon servise checks the focusing accuracy at 50x focal length distance. For 24 mm it's only 1,2 m. That is why they did not realize the problem at first. Now my 24-70 is almost ok at 24 mm too after two fixes.
the biggest problem is "decentred lens"
ie, one side of the picture is sharply in focus, while the other side of the picture is OOF.
Tried several lens and each one when back to Canon Service center, they in turn
consulted Japan and came back with.....
its a problem but we have no fix.
This problem affect mainly the mark1. I have not encounter it nor heard of it on mark2.
can be soft wide open otherwise great lens...
That was my experience so I didn't like to use it at 2.8 but it cleaned up at f4 and was quite heavy so since I was only using it at f4 and smaller, I returned it and got the 24-105 f4L IS...more range, very sharp wide open (f4), about a half pound lighter and it has IS as well. Win-win-win-win for me.