# 24-70 dilemmas



## reneecook3 (Nov 4, 2015)

Hi, 

I am researching lenses and have so many questions I decided to just post in here and see if more knowledgeable people could help me out! 

Background: I have a canon t3i that came with kit lens plus a 50/1.8 and 35/2.0.

Mostly, I take pictures of my kids, family activities/ events. My sister and I swap family photo sessions too. I could see myself getting even more into photography someday, possibly learning to do natural light outdoor portrait sessions, newborn or birth photography. 

That being said, I'd like to save up and get another good lens. I've considered just getting the 50/1.4 as an upgrade from my 50/1.8... I've read that it's a huge difference, but I'm not really sure what the huge difference is. Any input there? 

Also, I really like my prime lenses, but with kiddos, I've thought it might be easier to have a zoom around for every day stuff... since they move a lot!! For a while, I've had an eye on something like a 24-70/2.8 lens. The newer one from canon is astronomical in cost. Not sure if I could justify that price right now. Also, I noticed they don't have Image Stabilization... what are people's opinions on that? Should I prioritize that? (Tamron has a 24-70/2.8 with VC Image Stablization... I don't even know what that means...) Would that be a comparable lens to the Canon?  

I've also seen a Tamron 28-75/2.8, with no IS, for $500 compared to the 24-70/2.8 from canon, also with no IS for $1800.

I see Canon 24-70/2.8 L series for around $800 though, compared to the 24-70/2.8 II for $1800. What is the difference between those two? 

It's likely I'll never own the top of the line canon professional camera, but it's also likely I'd upgrade my body slightly one day (like, if it ever just stopped working...) So I would want to make sure any lens I buy would work on a future canon camera I might own too. Are there any restrictions here? I read something about EF-S lenses not working on some cameras but I got confused. 

I know that is a lot of questions! Thanks in advance for considering and for any help


----------



## Derrel (Nov 4, 2015)

Yes, the Canon EF-S line of lenses is pretty much useless on anything except a Canon APS-C body. So...there is that one big issue that Canon designed in: incompatibility with the whole range of camera bodies.

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 is *a noisy focuser*, has an auto/manual focusing switch that should be disengaged to do manual focus override or MF, is not always a good focuser in low light, flares easily when shot toward the light, has harsh, hashy, nervous bokeh on many background types...it creates horrible, "jittery" bokeh on backlighted foliage for example, like overhead deciduous trees as one really good example. The Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 on the other hand is a good focuser, focuses well even in low light, and focuses quietly, plus it has nice bokeh, and can be shot toward the light. One is an econ-50, the other is a professional grade lens. I owned both for several years and shot them on two different Canon bodies. I disliked the f/1.8 model for its limitations, and really liked the f/1.4 model for its strengths.

The pre-VC Tamron has a reputation for sharpness, the newer VC model, not so much; they are different designs.

The 24-70 Mark II is $1800 because it is the best 24-70 on the market. The earlier lens is $800 because it is older. Canon's newer, Mark II versions of it's L-series zooms really are kick-ass lenses. They're just what the professionals need and want for today's higher-MP cameras, and they're built pretty solidly.

*Image Stabiliser* has been added to several Canon zooms. Should you assign that high priority? I dunno...it is a handy feature sometimes. The answer is a long one, potentially. But if you need to ask, I would say no, probably not.


----------



## Punisher911 (Nov 4, 2015)

I personally have the 24-105 f/4 L lens for daily activities and such..   Got it 10/10 condition used for 650.  So that would be my suggestion for a daily/walk around lens.  Of course, get the f/2.8 version if it's in your budget.

From what research I've done, the 50mm f/1.4 isn't worth the price difference over the f/1.8.  At least in the new 50mm STM model.  I've read a few reviews for the 70-200mm f/2.8 L lenses that compare older to the newer mkii that state there was quite an improvement in pic quality with the newer mkii version.  (not that the older version is bad)  The 70-200 f/2.8 mkii is listed as the most popular "pro" portrait lens, so that speaks to it's image quality.  I suspect that would hold just as true for the 24-70 family.  For a day to day general lens, I'm sure the non-mkii varieties will be more than enough in the quality department for you.  Not too mention, much lighter to carry.  The mkii 70-200 is a TANK!  Can't speak for the 24-70 mkii weight, but I'd bet it's much heavier than the older one.

Edit:  to above post, the older 50mm f/1.8 ii is a noisy focuser, the new STM variety is not.


----------



## DB_Cro (Nov 4, 2015)

The 24-70 is probably the best general/regular zoom range lens Canon makes, like the 70-200 is in the tele 
end of things hence the price. It's virtually flawless. However, I don't think that range is something I'd use
on a crop body camera unless you're planing on going to a full frame later, which you say you don't intend to do.

24-70 would be a 38-112 on your (and my) camera and while the long end is useful, it's virtually unusable inside
in smaller rooms because it's not wide enough. What I use is a Tamron 17-50 and while it's not as good as the 
Canon 17-55 version (look that up) it's still great and gives you a range of 27-80, which is obviously aimed at the
range you get with the 24-70 on a full frame camera.

I can't afford any of that FF goodness but it would actually make my life easier since I could live with only the
24-70 and 70-200 for 99% of the shots, and I can't seem to find such nice  coverage on the crop bodies without
using at least 3 lenses. 

Also, I don't think the 50 F/1.4 is THAT much better unless you shoot both at F/1.8.

People seem to like the Tamron 24-70 too, but I've never even touched it.

tl;dr - I'd rather buy the 17-55 F/2.8 IS Canon for the crop bodies.

p.s. Here's a few shots with my T2i using the 24-70 2.8 Canon (first two) and 50 F/1.4 (the other two).
Click the images to get full EXIF info on Flickr.

(24-70)



Josipa #4 [Explored #15] by Dalibor Bauernfrajnd, on Flickr




Josipa #2 by Dalibor Bauernfrajnd, on Flickr

(50 1.4)



Aletta (2) by Dalibor Bauernfrajnd, on Flickr




Aletta (1) by Dalibor Bauernfrajnd, on Flickr


----------



## ronlane (Nov 4, 2015)

The decision about the 24-70 is something that I have been looking at myself.

At this point, I am considering the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L because it is a quality lens and there are some to be found used, as people upgrade to the new mark II. I think other than being a newer technology, the 24-70 L the barrel extends, where as, the mark II does not..


----------



## reneecook3 (Nov 4, 2015)

Wow! This is all helpful so far. 

Okay, so it sounds like knowing the difference between a full frame camera and a crop body camera would make my search a little easier... can anyone explain it? (in layman's terms...) 

I infer from the context of some of these replies that my t3i is not a full frame camera  
Is that worth an upgrade instead of new lens? Are the full frame cameras from canon only the super high end top of the line Mark ones or all the upgrades above the Rebel T series a full frame?  And am I also right then that I can't get any EF lenses for my Rebel t3i? 

DB_Pro, am I right in understanding that the 17-55 ish range would function like a 24-70 on my t3i? 

I think I also understand that for a t3i, I'd have to get the 24-70/2.8 L NOT The new II version... is that right? If correct, do people think the 24-70/2.8 L is a good one, or would the 17-55 work?


----------



## Punisher911 (Nov 4, 2015)

You have the APS-C crop sensor in your T3i.  Yes, you can use both EF (full frame) and EF-S (crop sensor) lenses.  Quality glass is a worthy upgrade for any modern DSLR.  You can get the mkii variety of the lens if you can afford/want it.  It will work just fine.

However,  be aware that your camera "crops" into the photo.  So using a 50mm EF lens on your camera will give you a field of view comparable to a 80mm lens because of the crop factor of your sensor.


----------



## DB_Cro (Nov 4, 2015)

reneecook3 said:


> DB_Pro, am I right in understanding that the 17-55 ish range would function like a 24-70 on my t3i?



Yeah. Sort of. 27-88 like I mentioned, not as wide as 24-70 on FF, so, yeah, your T3i is not full frame. 

Maybe you'd like a FF body, who knows, 6D is where the fun starts on the Canon side and the main advantage is
being able to raise the ISO a lot more, read: shoot in low light with less noise & grain in your images. Also, FF
bodies blow out the background more.

Negative thing is that for the price of 6D which is the lowest end FF body (slow focusing, only 1 cross type focus point,
under 4 frames a second) you can get the top of the line crop body - the 7D mkII which is an animal.

You can use both crop-only and FF lenses on a crop sensor body, but not the other way around, on a FF body you NEED
expensive FF lenses (look at lens names, EF-S is crop only).

Good thing about forking out all this money is.. you might never need to upgrade.. like.. EVER.. if you get a 6D and lenses
that 99% of people would put on it.. the 24-70 and 70-200.

On your crop body, the 17-55 is the best lens there is in that range, it's virtually flawless like the 24-70 for FF and it's like
half the money and still has stabilization. Waste of money if you ever upgrade to FF since you can't use it on a FF tho.

Anyways, the aps-c sensor bodies like yours have smaller sensors then the FF bodies so let's say the sensor sees only a part
of the full image of a FF sensor (hence the commonly used "crop body" term), the result is like cropping the mid portion of
the image.

To get the FF (35mm) equivalent filed of view you need to multiply the numbers by 1.6x on the Canon side, and 1.5x on the Nikon
side. So.. 17x1.6-55x1.6 = 28x88mm. If you were to use a 24-70 on a FF body it would be exactly 24-70mm, so, wider and shorter.


----------



## reneecook3 (Nov 4, 2015)

Punisher911 said:


> You have the APS-C crop sensor in your T3i.  Yes, you can use both EF (full frame) and EF-S (crop sensor) lenses.  Quality glass is a worthy upgrade for any modern DSLR.  You can get the mkii variety of the lens if you can afford/want it.  It will work just fine.
> 
> However,  be aware that your camera "crops" into the photo.  So using a 50mm EF lens on your camera will give you a field of view comparable to a 80mm lens because of the crop factor of your sensor.



a previous commenter (Derrel) said "Yes, the Canon EF-S line of lenses is pretty much useless on anything except a Canon APS-C body."  I think I misunderstood him. So I do have the APS-C sensor in mine. Where is the incompatibility? Or is it just that if I were to ever get a full frame camera, the lenses would function differently?


----------



## jaomul (Nov 4, 2015)

If you are looking for an f2.8 zoom you could buy the 17-55 Canon as suggested, there is also the tamrons as suggested, then there is also a sigma 17-50mm f2.8 is that is highly recommended. 

The thing with a 24-70 on your camera is 24 isn't that wide if you want to use it as a day to day lens.

Personally, if I was looking at the 24-70 I'd try to get a 17-50 and a 50-150 f2.8 from sigma, both with optical stabilization. For less money than a 24-70 you'd have 17-150 covered with a fast pair of zooms.

The problem If that route suited is the 59-150 os is only available second hand now as it's discontinued


----------



## reneecook3 (Nov 4, 2015)

jaomul - thanks! that's a good rec. i'm on the fence about sigma, not because i care very much about brand, but i read that the way they design them means you risk it not being compatible with a newer canon camera if i ever upgrade... any thoughts about that?


----------



## reneecook3 (Nov 4, 2015)

DB - thanks! that's super helpful!!! didn't realize some of the D lettered camera models were still crop body. I'm sure I would never need a camera nicer than the 7D! like you said, it's a beast. Probably quite good, even for an amateur photographer who does some portrait sessions here and there, right?


----------



## DB_Cro (Nov 4, 2015)

jaomul said:


> If you are looking for an f2.8 zoom you could buy the 17-55 Canon as suggested, there is also the tamrons as suggested, then there is also a sigma 17-50mm f2.8 is that is highly recommended.



I own the stabilized Tamron 17-50, and I'd recommend the Sigma over it, but the Canon version is the last lens in that range that anyone would need to buy so
it's well worth the extra money.


----------



## DB_Cro (Nov 4, 2015)

reneecook3 said:


> jaomul - thanks! that's a good rec. i'm on the fence about sigma, not because i care very much about brand, but i read that the way they design them means you risk it not being compatible with a newer canon camera if i ever upgrade... any thoughts about that?



Same thing applies for Tamron.


----------



## jaomul (Nov 4, 2015)

reneecook3 said:


> jaomul - thanks! that's a good rec. i'm on the fence about sigma, not because i care very much about brand, but i read that the way they design them means you risk it not being compatible with a newer canon camera if i ever upgrade... any thoughts about that?



This unfortunately is true. I do believe sigma are pretty good at updates if required but have never done that. Their newer lenses can be updated with a dock that can be bought, no doubt original Canon lenses are the safest bet


----------



## DB_Cro (Nov 4, 2015)

reneecook3 said:


> a previous commenter (Derrel) said "Yes, the Canon EF-S line of lenses is pretty much useless on anything except a Canon APS-C body."  I think I misunderstood him. So I do have the APS-C sensor in mine. Where is the incompatibility? Or is it just that if I were to ever get a full frame camera, the lenses would function differently?



Not differently, they'd be unusable at the beginning of the range (huge black circle on the image) if you can mount them at all, and most you
can't (the literally can't be attached.)



reneecook3 said:


> DB - thanks! that's super helpful!!! didn't realize some of the D lettered camera models were still crop body. I'm sure I would never need a camera nicer than the 7D! like you said, it's a beast. Probably quite good, even for an amateur photographer who does some portrait sessions here and there, right?



All of them have a "D" in their names. 
The Rebel line, or, better labeled in EU as the 3 digit models (500D, 550D, 600D, 650D...) are entry level crop models, all of them.
The 2 digit models are better, let's call them semi-pro crop bodies, the current one is 70D.
And then there's the single digit ones which can be full frame (1Ds in various generations and the current 1DX, 5D, 6D), 1.3x crop
(1D mark2,3,4.. without the "s") and 1.6x crop, which is the top of the line 7D and newer 7D mark II.

Since you're not aware of the differences and what your needs will be in a few years, it's hard to tell if you'd be better off with a 6D or 7D.
6D's image quality is significantly better then any of the crop models, even the top of the line 7D-2.
6D will produce usable images at ISO 10.000, and the 7D will start falling apart at 3200, much like your T3i.

That's just it. What do you need? 7D focuses faster, has a lot more focusing points, works amazing for action, fast moving subjects (kids apply!)
sports etc. Crop sensor is a bonus for sports since it turns your 200mm lens into a 300mm+ = more reach etc. However, going from a T3i to a
7D m2 will result in such a small improvement regarding image quality that you'd probably think you're doing something wrong. It would help
you to capture the image faster/easier, but won't give a significantly better image. 6D would.

How about something in-between?
70D is exactly in the midle re: features and speed between your T3i and a 7D markII and costs just a bit more then what you paid for a T3i.

But then there's new Rebel models.. 

Both 70D and 7D markII use the same 20mpix sensor, and there's a newer 24mpix sensor available in T6i and T6s. 
Better image quality, but not as good at high ISO as 70D/7d markII. Bare in mind these high ISO differences between
all the crop body Canons mentioned are very small. Nikon has  been kicking Canon's ass in this department for years now.

*Anyways, the reason I jumped in here is that I notice a lot of people not being aware of the crop vs FF differences and end up
buying a 24-70 and then don't understand why can't they zoom out more, and the PRO photographer who usually recommends
this lens forgets about the 1.6x crop since he's been shooting full frame for years probably.*

Bottom line, 17-55 Canon is 95% perfomance of the 24-70 Canon and better suited to the crop body.
If you insist on 24-70 (which is what I'd pick if I was going to upgrade to FF soon), you'll likely be in the market for another lens,
the ultra wide stuff like the 10-20 sigma f/3.5 that's also great.

Thinking about it, you might even buy the 10-20 sigma and the 17-50 sigma for the price of 17-55 canon alone.
Something to think about.


----------



## sabbath999 (Nov 4, 2015)

I understand money doesn't grow on trees, but...

IMHO the whole reason of choosing your camera system is because you want to own the lens family that company makes. One chooses Canon to shoot Canon lenses, Nikon to shoot Nikon lenses, etc.

If I wanted a Sigma lens, I would buy a Sigma camera (I don't, by the way). 

You chose Canon, IMHO this means save up your pennies and buy L glass. L glass is what Canon is all about.


----------



## DB_Cro (Nov 4, 2015)

L lenses on a crop body, especially the wide end stuff doesn't make much sense.

He might consider the 17-40L F/4, but again, the 17-55 is a better lens in every single way and the
only reason it's not sporting a red line (L lens stuff) is marketing & politics.

I was choosing between Canon and Nikon (not Sony, Olympus etc) because I knew there were good
lenses available for those 2 brands, and not only the original brand stuff because I knew I couldn't
afford those.

Suggesting that an amateur photographer with the cheapest plastic crop-sensor body should need and/or
want L glass only is not something I'd agree with.

Most Rebel shooters don't even know (or care) what "L" glass is.

So, yeah, he doesn't need to spend $5000 on 2-3 lenses right now.
If he WAS someone who needs that, he wouldn't be asking 
about it here.


----------



## sabbath999 (Nov 5, 2015)

DB_Cro said:


> Suggesting that an amateur photographer with the cheapest plastic crop-sensor body should need and/or
> want L glass only is not something I'd agree with.
> 
> Most Rebel shooters don't even know (or care) what "L" glass is.
> ...



You don't have to spend $5000 to get 2-3 L lenses, and frankly the off-brand stuff we are talking about is not significantly superior to the kit lenses. Yes, it's a bit faster, but image-quality wise absolutely not.

For example, one of the lenses I most recommend is the used 100-300 f/5.6 L. I bought mine used for $56 off the Bay. You can often catch the 17-4o f/4 L on the Bay for $450, and it is VASTLY superior to the off brands.

I've shot the Tamron 17-50 and the Sigma 17-50 both via swapping with friends at events, and they are (IMHO) not worth buying... I'd rather shoot the kit lens, or better yet the nifty 50.

EDITED TO ADD: If you were to use my plan, pay $100 for the 100-300 L, buy the Nifty 50, and pick up the 17-40L f/4 for $500, that gets you set with almost all of the range you are likely to use for $700... the only thing left to add would be a fast 85mm for portraits down the road.


----------



## DB_Cro (Nov 5, 2015)

I have no experience with the 100-300, but have used most other L lenses on the exact body the original poster
is asking about. I more or less disagree with everything you said. Yes, the 17-50 Tamron and Sigma aren't "all that"
but they're A LOT better then the kit lens and the 17-55 2.8 Canon (non-L) is also better then the 17-40L IMHO.

Also, there's plenty of reviews that compare the 70-200 2.8 lenses out there and (Nothrup's video is interesting) 
which finds that both the Tamron and Sigma do some stuff even better then the Canon version and while the 
Canon IS the best of them all (for other reasons, not image quality) it's just a lot of money.

I'll be buying the 70-200 sigma for 40% of the price of the canon version.
I've used them all, the Canon is better, but not THAT better. The money I save will be used to replace the
17-50 tamron with a 17-55 Canon where the difference IS bigger and worth spending extra IMHO.

Bottom line, again, considering what the OP is shooting and that he has a few hundred $ worth cheapo body
and is not a PRO, every lens worth more then the body IMHO is overkill.


----------



## sabbath999 (Nov 5, 2015)

DB_Cro said:


> Bottom line, again, considering what the OP is shooting and that he has a few hundred $ worth cheapo body
> and is not a PRO, every lens worth more then the body IMHO is overkill.



Choices are good.

I just think one is best served by buying the best glass she or he can afford. To each their own, I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with it... but that's OK, we offer two different approaches and perhaps the conversation will inform folks about both points of view (I think both have valid points to consider).


----------



## DB_Cro (Nov 5, 2015)

I agree that the Canon stuff is better then off-brand (but virtually everyone will tell you that the 17-55 non-L is better then 17-40L too),
but even me, making money with my shots daily can't justify the huge price difference between the Sigma 70-200 and Canon 70-200
for example.

An amateur with $1k to spend would likely benefit more from buying 10-20 and 17-50 Sigma lenses then a single, good canon, 17-40 or 17-55,
since all of these are a lot better then the kit lens, but yeah, you don't even agree with that.

If I could afford this stuff I wouldn't even read reviews and try out all these lenses, I'd go out, buy a mid range FF Canon or Nikon with the
original 24-70 and 70-200 and would be able to do 99% of what I need and do it at the quality level that I'd like to have.

But I'm working with 1/4 the budget and still getting at least 80% of that quality just by knowing how to use the stuff that I have.
Sux living in a 3rd world country, all this gear costs a lot more then in USA and we earn A LOT less.

Been saving up for the 70-200 Sigma for 6 months now working 2 jobs and having virtually zero living expenses. :-/
That lens will allow me to do a LOT more then my current 55-250IS because of the F/4-5.6 aperture.

I've had the original 70-200 Canon here more then once for various jobs (fashion show/casting, BMX/Inline skate show/competition etc)
and it's amazing, but I need the stabilization. Tried the 70-200 F/4 IS from Canon, it's again - great, but I can't live with "only" F/4 on a 
body that starts falling apart over ISO 800, which is the same body the OP has, so, again, this makes the Sigma a better choice.


----------



## DB_Cro (Nov 5, 2015)

Oh, also, don't forget the new Sigma ART line of lenses.
Their primes are kicking Canon's ass at the moment.


----------



## reneecook3 (Nov 5, 2015)

DB_Cro said:


> *Anyways, the reason I jumped in here is that I notice a lot of people not being aware of the crop vs FF differences and end up
> buying a 24-70 and then don't understand why can't they zoom out more, and the PRO photographer who usually recommends
> this lens forgets about the 1.6x crop since he's been shooting full frame for years probably.*



DB (and others who chimed in on the 24-70 questions) - Thanks, yes, I didn't realize that!! I want the range of 24-70 so now i understand on my crop body, i'd be better off with the 17-55. plus it's cheaper! win! 

Also, Thanks for the explanation of the whole D lettering thing. Looks like (right now on Amazon) 6D and 7D Mk ii are about the same price. So, for that price point, the 6D is better (except sports, which I don't need...)? 

Can I use my canon prime lenses  (50/1.8 and 35/2.0) on that 6D? 
Also, am I correct in understanding the downside would be if I bought the 17-55 before upgrading to a 6D, then I wouldn't be able to use the 17-55 on the 6D? (probably could resell for 50-70% of value...)


----------



## Punisher911 (Nov 5, 2015)

Correct...  On all accounts.


----------



## Rob5589 (Nov 5, 2015)

_ If _you move to the 6D, check out Canon refurb's. Mine was had for 1099 and cannot tell the difference between it and a new one. Same warranty as well.


----------



## reneecook3 (Nov 6, 2015)

Why is the sigma 17-70/ f 2.8-4 cheaper than the sigma 17-50/f 2.8?


----------



## weepete (Nov 6, 2015)

It's not a constant f2.8 throught the focal range.  It is a lens well worth considering IMO with a very useful focal range on a crop sensor camera. Sharpness is pretty good too, though its not a patch on the L glass. I was just about to recomend you look at the sigma 17-70mm f2.8-4 "contemporary" lens along with the canon 15-85mm if you are not going to upgrade to full frame soon.


----------



## Rob5589 (Nov 6, 2015)

I used the Sigma 17-50 2.8 on my Nikon D5200 and was very happy with it. Sharp and quick to focus.


----------

