Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II vs ???

Started Feb 4, 2013 | Discussions thread
Sovern Contributing Member • Posts: 907
Re: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II vs ???

Rexgig0 wrote:

I compared both marks of the 24-70L, by consulting websites, and found that each has notable distortion at different focal lengths from the other, so, take this into consideration. The only specifics I recall, as I made notes, are that the earlier 24-70L has less distortion than the Mark II in the 50mm to 70mm range. Depending upon which focal ranges are most important, the earlier 24-70L might be worth considering. I would probably try to rent each version before buying, to be sure.

In the end, I decided upon the 16-35mm 2.8L II as my primary target for saving money, determining it met my needs best on a 1.3x-crop-factor 1D2N, while still being very useful on a 5D. Already having a 35L and 50L, plus the excellent little 40mm 2.8 STM, of course, also entered into the equation.

I have found the 35L or 40mm STM can be wonderful one-lens solutions for a wide range of circumstances, on either a FF or cropped-frame camera. If they were weather-sealed, they would be perfect! (I live in the wet, green, nearly-tropical southeast corner of Texas.) The 40mm is wonderfully more compact, while the 35L can shoot at wider apertures.

These very expensive zooms cover such a short focal range too as well. I've been completely underhwlemed with the utility of mozt zooms. The only zooms that I would consider are the constant aperture ones like the 24-105L that actually cover a wide range.

The difference from 24mm to 70mm is not that big despite what some might say, I'd rather just use primes unless you're shooting sports. You get some very high quality optics even out of the cheapest of primes thanks to the simplicity of their design.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow