Compared to the 10-24mm, is this better at sharpness? What justifies the more expensive price with not being as wide?
258269
If I can quote Ken Rockwell: "Compared to the 12-24mm which it replaces, the 10-24mm is more cheaply built. The 12-24mm was built to semi-pro standards, but this new 10-24mm feels more dinky and I suspect will break if you bang the front of it into anything hard enough." And "the 10-24mm gets longer as zoomed, while the 12-24mm stays the same size as seen here" The 12-24 can be at f4 throughout it's range; the 10-24 is a variable aperture of f3.5 - f4.5
358176
Yes. Two completely different lens. 24mm is twice as wide as the 50. Especially is u are not shooting a full frame dslr
811134
while i have never had the 70-200, i've had other canon lenses, including the red strip 24-105 4L, and other tamron lenses...from my experience this 24-70 will be as sharp or sharper than them all...tho, like all lenses, you should not shoot at full open 2.8 for best sharpness...i shoot at 3.2, and with the image stab i is no problem...and fully open to 24mm the outer portion may be less sharp, but that holds for all wide angle zooms...this is as good as the best, it is among the best.
219910
Its a great lens but obviously very different from the 10-18mm f4. I use the 24mm Zeiss almost exclusively indoors because it gets me to an equivalent focal length close to 35mm and helps with low light because of the wide 1.8 aperture. It also gets the nice shallow depth of field with that wide aperture and nice bokeh. I would love to own the 10-18 f4 but it would really be for a totally different purpose - super wide outdoor landscapes. Also, it's a slower lens with that f4 aperture and won't get a shallow depth of field under really any circumstances.
1337629
Image quality between the 24-70 and 28-75 is leaps and bounds. The 24-70 is just as sharp as Canons 24-70 version. Not to mention having VC. Definitely worth it if you have the money. I owned the 28-75 and it was a great lens for what is was but the 24-70 is such a step up in my opinion. Cheers
357733
I love the range of this lens. I travel a lot and bring it with me all the time using it with a D800. I rarely use my bag and most often the camera and lens sit on the flood of my car. Haven't had any issues with build quality. I have several prime lenses for quality but the 24-120 is good enough for memories and small (13x19) prints. Haven't tried a 24x36 print from it. It's a good performer but not as good as the 24-70. If you are looking for a travel/walkabout lens it is great. If you are looking to sell your work or print larger prints get the 24-70.
681556
The 15mm wide angle is nice, but I had image quality issue with my copy of this lens. I don't think it's worth the money. I just recently bought the Canon 10-24mm lens and am much happier with it as a wide angle choice. Don't get sucked in by the fact that it's got a nice general purpose range. Its quality just doesn't match its cost.
824635
Yes, definitively! A little narrower angle of view doesn't really make that much difference! I have used this lens for over two years and never think of switching it to 24-70!
1687599
Michael - Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I just educated myself on the 10-22 mm and decided that is the lens for me! Now to save up... :)
523657
I have been using the 24-70 2.8 for a while now on my 7D and I find that the range is not optimal for outdoors. I can get some great shots at 70 mm, but at 24 mm the shots just are not wide enough - close but not there. Upgrading (or downgrading) to the 17-55 2.8 IS USM this week. I think it will be a way better lens for a cropped sensor camera. It will allow me to get some landscape shots that I was just not able to achieve with the 24-70.Side note: tried the 24-70 2.8 on my friend's 5D MII and it was awesome - It would be my lens of choice if I had a full frame camera.
1716986
All the reviews that compare this lens with the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark I, state there is very little differance betwen the two lenses. I own the Canon 28-70 F/2.8. It is a very sharp lens. I can't see paying the more expensive price for the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark I if they perform the same. However, the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark II appears to be the better of the three lens. It is more expensive of course. In my opinion, the price differance between the Canon 28-70 F/2.8 and the Canon 24-70 F/2.8 Mark II doesnt match the small improvement in image quality, unless you are shooting professionally and need the best quality possible. You can't go wrong with the Canon 28-70 F/2.8 for the price, just keep in mind it is an older lens and if it needs repaired, Canon probably won't repair it.
2011960
I have owned the 17-40L. It's a good lens. Its advantage over the 24-105 is only in the FL 17-24mm. For folks whose main interest is wide angle landscape images, the 17-40 has that advantage. In all other respects, I think the 24-105 wind, hands down. Its sharpness and detail is at least the equal of the 17-40, and of course it has the typical Canon L lens colors and contrast (all good). I really like the reach, out to 105mm, of the 24-105. Its weight, length, and balance are excellent for a lens of this focal length. It has become my favorite lens for the Canon 70D.
323361
I don't have the 28mm 1.8 but borrowed it before my purchase of the 24mm 1.4. It's a very good lens that is much lighter and obviously cheaper than the 24 1.4. The advantage of the 24 is obviously the extra stop of light or so. The 24 also was somewhat sharper than the 28(to my eyes), especially stopped down equally. You can't go wrong with either. Just depends on your price point and needs.
1941236
Because a 10mm focal length lens is different from an 18mm focal length lens. Aperture, while important, is simply how much light the lens can let in (it affects depth of field as well); it has nothing to do with the angle and field of view of the lens. This lens and your lens should look very similar when they are both zoomed to the same focal lengths (18-24mm, the only focal lengths where they overlap). If you buy this lens and only use it from 18-24mm you are wasting your money. The reason people buy this lens for its extremely wide focal lengths (10-14mm). They give a perspective that cannot be gained in any other way, especially on DX. Few lenses get this wide and even less get this wide on DX. This is the only lens from Nikon that gets this wide on DX. That's why it's so expensive. Despite what someone else said, this is not a pro lens. I'm not sure any of the DX lenses are pro lenses. It is very much consumer grade quality; it has cheaper construction and more distortion. The Nikon 12-24mm is semi-pro (better, more durable construction) and is accordingly more expensive. But this one has a wider angle of view (shorter focal length), and that's what will be key to most folks. Just be careful with it and the distortion can be corrected with software.
942878
In my experience, you'll get very much the same pic with the 10-24 between 18-24mm as you would with the 18-105. That's one reason I sold it. The 10-24 should be shot at 10mm, which is why you're buying it in the first place and why it costs so much (Just my opinion of course). http://www.amazon.com/review/R1HCPRMG89GYZO/ref=cm_cr_dp_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN;=B0026FCKC8&nodeID;=502394&tag;=&linkCode;=
1716981
This Lens is phenomenal! I also have the 6d and together they are great. Don't waste your money on the 24-70. At first, I was not too sure about the 28-70L , but after Using it at a few events, it is proven to be an awesome lens. My copy is tack sharp and the only difference is 4mm.
1674522
I bought the 24-105 lens recently because I thought the IS would make up for my lack of a higher aperture in low-light situations. It does to an extent, but I have decided that I want the f/2.8 for other reasons. So I'm trying to sell my 24-105 so I can buy the 24-70. I do wish the 24-70 had IS, but it's really not necessary because it's just a faster lens. It really depends on your use. If you are using it for weddings, you may want to consider the 24-70 because of the faster focusing and better handling in low-light situations. If you are using it for a general walk-around lens, the 24-105 will do just fine. I love mine and I almost want to keep it and buy the 24-70, but I can't afford both right now and I need the 24-70 for my business. You can see some sample photos from the 24-105 at my website: www.sarakelley.net. Email me there if you want more input or have any questions.