# 24-70 too short for full frame?



## clicstudio (Feb 13, 2012)

I already preordered the new 24-70
II and I am really looking forward to replacing my existing 24-70.
I am also waiting for the 1D X. I never owned a full frame camera (I have a 1D IV) so I am concerned about the lens being too "short"...
I find myself having to move too close to the subject most of the time to get a close up. 
With a FF the lens is going to be wider and shorter still. I wish they did a 24-105 2.8 instead. That would have been the perfect FF lens. 
I also hate the new hood. I keep the hood on the 24-70 on all The time. 
First of all it looks great cause you don't see the
Lens extended or retracted. Second, it protects the lens and the mechanism. 
When you put the camera down the hood
Acts as support for the lens. Now, with the new hood, if the lens is extended, the pressure Point is on the tip and I believe the "play" will eventually "bend" the lens
Or at least damage the mechanism... 
Also these flower type hoods leak light and flare
Like crazy.


----------



## motorhead (Feb 13, 2012)

Certainly the old 50mm "standard" lens was never truly successful back in the 35mm days. From memory the true standard by popular vote was around 80 or 85mm.

But I bought my 24-70 for a 35mm body and it was very successful, I've since used a crop 30D and have only quite recently returned to full-frame with a 5D2. I use the 24-70 as my "walk-about" lens, but generally have other choices available for special purposes.

I suppose it all depends how YOU see the world. I do tend to see the world in slightly tele lens focal lengths, definitely not a wide-angle person naturally. The second lens I bought demonstrates this perfectly, it was the 70-200. It's a very useful zoom, but probably not as used as the 24-70.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 13, 2012)

Personally I find the 24-70mm much more useful on my EOS-3 film camera than I do on my cropped 7D. On a cropped camera it gives you are weird kind of telephoto but not really and a kind of wide angle but not really either. It's strange on a cropped camera, but that's just my opinion.

They could do 24-105 f2.8 but it would weigh a ton and a half. But every major manufacturer doesn't make a 24-70 f2.8 because it's a crappy focal length. It's a very good length, it gives you good wide angle and decent normal range @ f2.8. You are asking if it's "too short" even though it's not suppose to be a "long lens". It's a normal zoom lens, that's all.


----------



## outsider (Feb 13, 2012)

Aren't focal lengths just a personal preference and personal shooting style?
I prefer tight shots (full frame or cropped), while others prefer the wide angle view of the world.
So no, I would not say that the 24-70 is too short for full frame.

Maybe consider what *YOUR* personal preference and shooting style is, and *THEN* choose a lens to compliment that style rather then ordering a lens then complaining it doesn't cover the longer zoom ranges.

So in the meantime (while you wait for the 1Dx) why don't you rent/borrow a 5Dmk2 for a weekend, and see what the world looks like through your existing 24-70mm.


----------



## Chris Burch (Feb 13, 2012)

It depends on what you are shooting. I'm mostly an event photographer and I use my 24-70 on a 5DMkII almost all of the time. I would love a little more range at the far end of the zoom, but I use the 24mm end a lot. Frequently at events, I don't have the luxury of backing very far away from my subjects, so I need the wide zoom capability. If there is a stage involved, I usually use a 70-200 f/2.8. I will admit that if there was a 24-105 f/2.8, I would be thrilled, but there is no such animal.


----------



## Astro (Feb 13, 2012)

> 24-70 too short for full frame?



for birds... sure.


----------



## JonJT (Feb 13, 2012)

as others have said, you will get the less DOF with the same perspective and framing if you use a FF camera. I have to say, though, with my fastest lenses, I can get a dof that is inches deep at 5-10 feet. that's plenty small.


----------



## lonelywhitelights (Feb 13, 2012)

the 24-105mm f/4 is affordable, why not just buy that instead? the f/4 L lenses are noted by some as being sharper across all apertures and the zoom range than the f/2.8 lenses and having a full frame sensor means you'll be able to push the ISO a little higher to compensate for the smaller aperture and not have any noticeable noise/grain


----------



## Caps18 (Feb 13, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> They could do 24-105 f2.8 but it would weigh a ton and a half. But every major manufacturer doesn't make a 24-70 f2.8 because it's a crappy focal length. It's a very good length, it gives you good wide angle and decent normal range @ f2.8. You are asking if it's "too short" even though it's not suppose to be a "long lens". It's a normal zoom lens, that's all.


Some of us wouldn't mind the extra weight to avoid having to change out lenses or buy a 135mm. 

I had considered the 24-70, but went with the 16-35mm and 85mm instead. I am glad that I did.

I use my 300mm (with a 1.4x sometimes) and that is long enough on my 5Dm2. Well, for pictures of the Moon and planets it isn't long enough. But it still works well.


----------



## Viggo (Feb 13, 2012)

I liked the 31-91mm focal much more useful for walkaround and such on the mk4. I replaced it with the 35 L, then to my current 24 L II, but I wished it was 30mm or 28mm on the 1d X instead. So yeah, I found both the 24 and the 70 mm too short on FF, but LOVED the 24-70 on 1,3 crop...


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 13, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > They could do 24-105 f2.8 but it would weigh a ton and a half. But every major manufacturer doesn't make a 24-70 f2.8 because it's a crappy focal length. It's a very good length, it gives you good wide angle and decent normal range @ f2.8. You are asking if it's "too short" even though it's not suppose to be a "long lens". It's a normal zoom lens, that's all.
> ...



Well, Normally I'm not bothered by weight either however, I've heard that a 24-105 f2.8 prototype has made and was as large and heavy as a 70-200 f2.8 IS II. Now, I don't have a problem with the 70-200 II but a lens that big for the 24-105 focal length would be getting a little ridiculous.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 13, 2012)

The 24-70 is more of a indoor low light zoom. 24-70mm is fine for most indoor shots such as weddings, etc, if it isn't, the 70-200mm f/2.8 on your second body will take care of the longer shots.

I really would not use it as a walk-around outdoor lens. since you normally have much more space outdoors, then a longer lens is handier.

So, it really depends on what you are photographing, not which lens is too long or too short.


----------



## xROELOFx (Feb 13, 2012)

i use it all the time for portraits, it is my most used lens on the 5D mk II.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 13, 2012)

Caps18 said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > They could do 24-105 f2.8 but it would weigh a ton and a half. But every major manufacturer doesn't make a 24-70 f2.8 because it's a crappy focal length. It's a very good length, it gives you good wide angle and decent normal range @ f2.8. You are asking if it's "too short" even though it's not suppose to be a "long lens". It's a normal zoom lens, that's all.
> ...


this is the combo i like too 16-35 on an APS-H body gives you 20-48mm f2.8 and takes away any corner softness great for group shots or some interesting angles then the 85 on FF is perfect for portraits / couples etc


----------



## vbi (Feb 14, 2012)

I find the upper end too short for portraits as my preference is to shoot those at 135+. But...if you want a all-round lens to use in tight spaces, then you only have 2 choices - the 24-70 or the 24-105. The F4 vs F2.8 doesn't really bother me, but I find the 24-105 quite soft wide open on the 5D2. So I tend to switch between the 24-70 and the 70-200.

Conversely, the 24-70 works really well on a crop sensor for glamour as I don't like to go below an "apparent 35mm" due to distortions, and I get a better top end.

But...it is all down to personal style. What do you like to shoot and how do you like to shoot it.


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 14, 2012)

motorhead said:


> Certainly the old 50mm "standard" lens was never truly successful back in the 35mm days. From memory the true standard by popular vote was around 80 or 85mm.



The 50mm was for full length shots, the 135mm for head and shoulders. (in film days). 

Even though I use zoom lens most of the time, those are the lengths that I still seem to end up with when I look at the exif. 

I sometimes just use the 70-200II for a sequence of shots and on my last set I ended up shooting though a doorway to get the full length


----------



## Old Shooter (Feb 14, 2012)

Chris Burch said:


> It depends on what you are shooting. I'm mostly an event photographer and I use my 24-70 on a 5DMkII almost all of the time. I would love a little more range at the far end of the zoom, but I use the 24mm end a lot. Frequently at events, I don't have the luxury of backing very far away from my subjects, so I need the wide zoom capability. If there is a stage involved, I usually use a 70-200 f/2.8. I will admit that if there was a 24-105 f/2.8, I would be thrilled, but there is no such animal.



I think you nailed it here, Chris... It is an "Event Photographer's" lens - great description! When I was shooting weddings full time; my 28-70 was on the front of my film camera 90-95% of the time... Why? Because weddings are just a big, non-stop event... At least that's how I viewed/photographed them...

I could go from shooting a six-person group shot to a tight little portrait of the flower girl and ring bearer without changing my lens... It always delivered great images for me...

This new v.2 is right there on my B&H Wish List! ;D


----------



## clicstudio (Feb 15, 2012)

Daniel Flather said:


> _I already preordered the new 24-70_
> 
> Then the point is moot. Why ask now?


The 24-70 is my only lens. I tried the 24-105 and didnt like it. I want to have the new technology, the better glass and the 2.8. I wouldn't want to buy a 10 year old lens. New camera and new lens.
Im getting it anyway. I just feel it's gonna be too short. 
If i were to consider an F4 lens, Maybe I should get a 70-200 f4 for $600 as a second lens. I don't need IS. 
And it is small and light.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 15, 2012)

clicstudio said:


> I already preordered the new 24-70
> II and I am really looking forward to replacing my existing 24-70.
> I am also waiting for the 1D X. I never owned a full frame camera (I have a 1D IV) so I am concerned about the lens being too "short"...
> I find myself having to move too close to the subject most of the time to get a close up.
> ...



Only you can answer that.

Personally I'm thrilled they went for pure image quality over extended range as well as for the huge weight savings and much smaller size. I'm very, very glad they did not make it a 24-105 2.8. 

My 70-300L (and 70-200L previously) have 70mm+ covered. On FF I often go out with just a 24 1.4 II and 70-300L. I may end up selling the 24 1.4 II for the 24-70 II, depending (on it's actual quality and whether or not Canon lays a stinker with the 5D3/3D/5DX/3DX/etc.).

When I want to go longer the extra 30mm isn't often enough enough extra to really be any big deal of a loss to me at all on the 24-70/100 zoom.


----------



## decltype (Feb 16, 2012)

clicstudio said:


> I want to have the new technology, the better glass and the 2.8. *I wouldn't want to buy a 10 year old lens*. New camera and new lens.



Couldn't agree more. They didn't know much about good lens design back in the days of George W. Bush and Windows XP. Lenses like the 35 f/1.4, 135 f/2 and 300 f/2.8 IS simply aren't up to the standards of today's photographers. :


----------



## briansquibb (Feb 16, 2012)

decltype said:


> Couldn't agree more. They didn't know much about good lens design back in the days of George W. Bush and Windows XP. Lenses like the 35 f/1.4, 135 f/2 and 300 f/2.8 IS simply aren't up to the standards of today's photographers. :


 8) 8) 8)


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 16, 2012)

decltype said:


> clicstudio said:
> 
> 
> > I want to have the new technology, the better glass and the 2.8. *I wouldn't want to buy a 10 year old lens*.
> ...



While I would be hesitant to wish Windows XP and George W. Bush to return, you are giving examples of non-IS lenses, while the comment was directed towards a lens with an older IS. And there certainly is a difference, I just tried the 100-400L in comparison to the 70-300L myself and the improvement in IS technology does not seem to be a marketing hype to me. Thus, I guess some people might say "better no IS and f2.8 than an old one and f4".


----------



## vbi (Feb 16, 2012)

decltype said:


> Couldn't agree more. They didn't know much about good lens design back in the days of George W. Bush and Windows XP. Lenses like the 35 f/1.4, 135 f/2 and 300 f/2.8 IS simply aren't up to the standards of today's photographers. :



Interesting to see that Canon have used the 135 F2 for most of the preview images from the 1DX.


----------



## decltype (Feb 16, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> decltype said:
> 
> 
> > clicstudio said:
> ...



*Removes tongue from cheek* Of course lenses, coatings, IS, etc. are getting better. It may even be the case that high quality primes like the 135 L are a dying breed, now that we have stabilized zooms that can match, or even exceed them in terms of raw image quality. Who uses a 200mm f/2.8 L II anymore?

But the way I read the OP, they have made a blanket decision to not even consider 10+ year-old lenses. That, to me, sounds like cutting yourself short, as some of the very best glass is that old (or several decades older, some would say )


----------



## 7enderbender (Feb 16, 2012)

decltype said:


> *Removes tongue from cheek* Of course lenses, coatings, IS, etc. are getting better. It may even be the case that high quality primes like the 135 L are a dying breed, now that we have stabilized zooms that can match, or even exceed them in terms of raw image quality. Who uses a 200mm f/2.8 L II anymore?
> 
> But the way I read the OP, they have made a blanket decision to not even consider 10+ year-old lenses. That, to me, sounds like cutting yourself short, as some of the very best glass is that old (or several decades older, some would say )




I'm one of those old farts who still uses the 200 2.8LII and the 135L. I'm not interested in the 70-200. No doubt it's a great lens and zooms have come a long long way. But still not my preference for what I do. The argument that "old lens" designs are obsolete sounds silly to me. Yes, there are a few improvements here and there but the underlying designs have been around for decades and some of the old lenses are as good as the new stuff optically - and many of them are build a lot better. And by looking at a lot the results I'd say that decade old Leitz lenses on a film Leica or the M9 still blow a lot of other "modern" designs away. And that doesn't even consider medium format or larger yet. And I don't really believe that good primes are a dying breed. Lots of people are still using them and loving them. If I had to limit myself to 2 or maybe three lenses I'd still go with a good 50 the 135L and perhaps something wide like a 24L or 21 Distagon. Done. No need for IS or zooms.


----------



## LACityPhotoCom (Feb 16, 2012)

I think the 24-70 is a superb focal length for FF. 24 is wide enough for architecture/landscapes and 70 is just about approaching portrait use.


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 17, 2012)

Nikon users call their 3 big pro lenses the "holly trinity". 14-24, 24-70, and 70-200. I have read more than one Nikon user say they have the 14-24 and 70-200, and a 50mm f1.4. They see no reason for the middle ground 24-70.

Me on the other hand, I love my 24-105mm f4 IS.


----------



## decltype (Feb 17, 2012)

7enderbender said:


> I'm one of those old farts who still uses the 200 2.8LII and the 135L. I'm not interested in the 70-200. No doubt it's a great lens and zooms have come a long long way. But still not my preference for what I do. The argument that "old lens" designs are obsolete sounds silly to me. Yes, there are a few improvements here and there but the underlying designs have been around for decades and some of the old lenses are as good as the new stuff optically - and many of them are build a lot better. And by looking at a lot the results I'd say that decade old Leitz lenses on a film Leica or the M9 still blow a lot of other "modern" designs away. And that doesn't even consider medium format or larger yet. And I don't really believe that good primes are a dying breed. Lots of people are still using them and loving them. If I had to limit myself to 2 or maybe three lenses I'd still go with a good 50 the 135L and perhaps something wide like a 24L or 21 Distagon. Done. No need for IS or zooms.



Actually, I'm a prime user myself. I've owned six different 70-200's and ended up selling them all. 85L and 135L do the job admirably. I don't use my 200 2.8 much as I seldom need that focal length.


----------



## birdman (Feb 17, 2012)

I had the 24-70 (original version) and while impressed by the colors, felt it was not as sharp as it should have been. I hear the 28-70L was arguably a better lens. 

As far as being too short, I don't think so. 70mm, even on FF, is a nice walk-around focal length. I have the 28-135, and rarely use it over 100mm. If you want ultimate combo, 24-70 & 70-200. Of course, not everyone can spend that kind of dough.


----------

