24 - 70 2.8L USM

Thanks Bill.
I will check into those as well. I agree with you on the foot zooming. Too
often I get caught in the ranges when I forget the first rule of photography
someone once told me : the secret to a great picture is one giant step
forward.

"Bill" wrote in message ...
Robbie wrote:

Thanks for the information. Yes, I have taken many shots at the 18 mm
setting. I am going to miss that... Maybe I will see if they make a "L"
that
covers the 18 - 50+ range.

Canon makes the 17-40 f/4 L, and it's an excellent performer at the wide
end, beating the 16-35 f/2.8 L at twice the price. It's one of the real
price/performance gems.

In the longer range, the Canon 70-200 f/4 L is also a price/performance
gem.

These two lenses are professional quality at consumer prices. Sure they
cost more than say a 55-200 f/4-5.6, but they perform a heck of a lot
better and they cost half of what their f/2.8 siblings cost.

Some people buy the 17-85 IS for their digital camera, and while it's a
decent walk around lense, it just doesn't perform that great at the wide
end. If all you want is one lense, then the 17-85 IS might do. But why
buy an interchangeable DSLR if you only want one lense?

For about the same price, the 17-40 f/4 L easily beats it. And since I
recommend a minimum of two lenses, the 70-200 f/4 L is another good
choice. With those two lenses alone, you have most of the range needed
for good coverage. The slight gap at 40-70 can be easily corrected with
a little "foot zooming".

Thanks for the feedback!

"nick c" wrote in message
...
Robbie wrote:
From everything that I have read, this seems to be a great all around
"L"
lens. I am using a 20D. There is a 45.00 rebate making the price 1114
over
at B&H. Besides the price being the most obvious downside, would others
here
steer away from this lens in lieu of a different model? I really want
good
sharp images, and the range seems fine (24-70). I will be going from the
18-55 kit lens into this, so I expect the results will be obvious. I
should
also be able to use this lens on future versions (like the 5D), right?

Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions.



I have the 24-70 L f2.8 lens and it's indeed a good lens. I also
borrowed the new 24-105 L f4 lens (which I used on the 1DMK2) and for
about the same price as the 24-70 L lens, I suggest you seriously
consider the new 24-105 L f4 lens as your "all around" lens. However,
when the lens is used with the 20D I would not consider 24mm converted
to 38.4mm to be sufficiently wide enough to be considered an "all round"
lens. Indoors, the lens may not be wide enough to satisfy a need.
Therefore, I suggest you plan accordingly, consider the 24-105 L f4 lens
with the goal of later obtaining the inexpensive yet great 17-40 L f4
lens and much later adding the low cost 70-200 L f4 lens. Now, as they
say in Yankee land, you've got it made in the shade.

Bill wrote:

With those two lenses alone, you have most of the range needed
for good coverage. The slight gap at 40-70 can be easily corrected with
a little "foot zooming".


A 50mm f/1.8 EF is an excellent gap filler.

;-)

In article , Bill
wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:

With those two lenses alone, you have most of the range needed
for good coverage. The slight gap at 40-70 can be easily corrected with
a little "foot zooming".

A 50mm f/1.8 EF is an excellent gap filler.

;-)

I don't really think so...it's only 10mm longer than the 17-40. If you
had the 16-35, and 70-200, then a 50mm would fit better in the middle.
But whatever works...

Adding the 50mm still makes a lot of sense because of the f1.8. There
are times where having that capability is really nice. Even sacrificing
the "proper" focal length is worth getting the extra light gathering
capacity.

Take into very careful consideration that carrying 4 lbs. of camera and
lens around on your neck is not unusual to turn into a heavy burden, if
you are just casually playing tourist on vacation day after day. It is
a whole lot different to be on a 'photo expedition' or getting pay as a
pro, to carry around a 2lb lens, than if you have to lug it around as
your walkaround lens! Some can tolerate, but some cannot!

jean wrote:
"nick c" a écrit dans le message de
...

Robbie wrote:

From everything that I have read, this seems to be a great all around

"L"

lens. I am using a 20D. There is a 45.00 rebate making the price 1114

over

at B&H. Besides the price being the most obvious downside, would others

here

steer away from this lens in lieu of a different model? I really want

good

sharp images, and the range seems fine (24-70). I will be going from the
18-55 kit lens into this, so I expect the results will be obvious. I

should

also be able to use this lens on future versions (like the 5D), right?

Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions.



I have the 24-70 L f2.8 lens and it's indeed a good lens. I also
borrowed the new 24-105 L f4 lens (which I used on the 1DMK2) and for
about the same price as the 24-70 L lens, I suggest you seriously
consider the new 24-105 L f4 lens as your "all around" lens. However,
when the lens is used with the 20D I would not consider 24mm converted
to 38.4mm to be sufficiently wide enough to be considered an "all round"
lens. Indoors, the lens may not be wide enough to satisfy a need.
Therefore, I suggest you plan accordingly, consider the 24-105 L f4 lens
with the goal of later obtaining the inexpensive yet great 17-40 L f4
lens and much later adding the low cost 70-200 L f4 lens. Now, as they
say in Yankee land, you've got it made in the shade.



The only drawbacks to the 24-70 f2,8 L are the size and weight, I lugged
one in France last year so I know. I just bought a 17-40 f4 L and it made a
great travelling lens (27-64 in 35mm speak). Coupled with a 70-200 f4 L and
a 1,4 teleconverter would be all (most) of what you would need while on the
road. I carry a 75-300 f4,5-5,6 IS but the L zoom lens and a teleconverter
would be better for overall sharpness.

Jean



I agree with you Jean. The 24-70 L f2.8 lens is a heavy lens, although a
good one. The 24-105 L f4 is slightly lighter yet also a good lens but I
can't say that it will not seem heavy after a days shooting. I use my
70-200 L f4 lens as a people lens. The distance lens I use is the 70-300
DO IS lens and it too is a good lens.

Robbie wrote:
Thanks for the feedback!

I neglected to tell you if you're into wide angle shooting, the
Tokina 12-24 f4 lens would make for a good companion.



"nick c" wrote in message
...

Robbie wrote:

From everything that I have read, this seems to be a great all around

"L"

lens. I am using a 20D. There is a 45.00 rebate making the price 1114

over

at B&H. Besides the price being the most obvious downside, would others

here

steer away from this lens in lieu of a different model? I really want

good

sharp images, and the range seems fine (24-70). I will be going from the
18-55 kit lens into this, so I expect the results will be obvious. I

should

also be able to use this lens on future versions (like the 5D), right?

Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions.



I have the 24-70 L f2.8 lens and it's indeed a good lens. I also
borrowed the new 24-105 L f4 lens (which I used on the 1DMK2) and for
about the same price as the 24-70 L lens, I suggest you seriously
consider the new 24-105 L f4 lens as your "all around" lens. However,
when the lens is used with the 20D I would not consider 24mm converted
to 38.4mm to be sufficiently wide enough to be considered an "all round"
lens. Indoors, the lens may not be wide enough to satisfy a need.
Therefore, I suggest you plan accordingly, consider the 24-105 L f4 lens
with the goal of later obtaining the inexpensive yet great 17-40 L f4
lens and much later adding the low cost 70-200 L f4 lens. Now, as they
say in Yankee land, you've got it made in the shade.

Skip M wrote:
"Robbie" wrote in message
news:OLo4f.5301$2Y2.2915@trnddc05...

From everything that I have read, this seems to be a great all around "L"
lens. I am using a 20D. There is a 45.00 rebate making the price 1114 over
at B&H. Besides the price being the most obvious downside, would others
here
steer away from this lens in lieu of a different model? I really want good
sharp images, and the range seems fine (24-70). I will be going from the
18-55 kit lens into this, so I expect the results will be obvious. I
should
also be able to use this lens on future versions (like the 5D), right?

Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions.



We bought two of them, for our 20Ds, a few months ago, and we've been
extremely happy with their performance, ever since.
But, we are also getting a 24-104 f4L IS when they start to ship, we've
found that the IS in our 28-135 lenses is invaluable in some circumstances,
and the extra reach can be critical.

Skip, I went back to the store yesterday and bought the 24-105 L IS F4
lens I borrowed and spent the day with. It will take the place of the
28-135 IS lens, which I gave to my son.


The 28-135 IS is another lens to consider, much less expensive. Not up to
"L" quality, neither in optics or build quality, but a good performer in its
own right.

"Robbie" wrote in message
news:_%t4f.1231$oy3.961@trnddc04...
Thanks for the information. Yes, I have taken many shots at the 18 mm
setting. I am going to miss that... Maybe I will see if they make a "L"
that
covers the 18 - 50+ range.

If you really need a very wide angle lens, plan "B" might be to shoot a
couple of shots with the 24-70 and stitch them together with one of the
several excellent stitching programs available out there?

I could be wrong, but I suspect that the 24-70 USM F2.8 would be the "staple
diet" lens of many Canon photographers. I wouldn't part with mine for love
nor money (well OK, probably both, but it would have to be a lot of both!)

For what it's worth I recently bought my 24-70 - did a few test shots - and
then put the kit lens on an auction site the very same day - and can
honestly say I've never been happier to see the ass-end of a hunk of junk.

Cockpit Colin wrote:
"Robbie" wrote in message
news:_%t4f.1231$oy3.961@trnddc04...

Thanks for the information. Yes, I have taken many shots at the 18 mm
setting. I am going to miss that... Maybe I will see if they make a "L"
that
covers the 18 - 50+ range.


If you really need a very wide angle lens, plan "B" might be to shoot a
couple of shots with the 24-70 and stitch them together with one of the
several excellent stitching programs available out there?

I could be wrong, but I suspect that the 24-70 USM F2.8 would be the "staple
diet" lens of many Canon photographers. I wouldn't part with mine for love
nor money (well OK, probably both, but it would have to be a lot of both!)

For what it's worth I recently bought my 24-70 - did a few test shots - and
then put the kit lens on an auction site the very same day - and can
honestly say I've never been happier to see the ass-end of a hunk of junk.



SO which gym did you enroll in to get the strength to wield a camera
with one of these dinosaurs on it?

--
Douglas...
Specifications are good to read but
When it comes to judging Digital Cameras...
I'm in the "how do the pictures look" category.