# Picking the Best 24-70mm f/2.8 Lens by WOMP



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 15, 2012)

Video is here.

It's video oriented, so the Tamron lens wins by virtue of having a stabilizer.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 15, 2012)

Thanks for the link - however, you generally know some review is crap when it talks about "the best" and not "most appropriate for usage scenario xyz" 

In this case the criteria are supposed to be: ...


> Elements like the best sharpness, bokeh, vignetting and brightness, and optical stabilization are put into account, and Kevin and John pick their winner.


... which ignores the fact that for events and such IS is no good because of motion blur and the small "lock on" time for IS, and in addition to that a faster af is critical in these situations - and the Canon has the clear advantage here.

Disclaimer: I do think Canon needs a kick in the a**, the 24-70Lii is overpriced atm and it's great Tamron released a competitive lens which probably is preferable for many cases (if really need to trade f2.8 for limited zoom range).


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 15, 2012)

YAAR (yet another amateur review ) ... but thanks for the link. He didn't mention the new Canon 24-70/4is btw?

However, you generally know some review is crap when it talks about "the best" and not "most appropriate for usage scenario xyz"  In this case the criteria are supposed to be: ...


> Elements like the best sharpness, bokeh, vignetting and brightness, and optical stabilization are put into account, and Kevin and John pick their winner.


... which ignores the fact that for events and such (except "posed" shots) IS is no good because of motion blur and the small "lock on" time for IS, and in addition to that a faster af is critical in these situations - and the Canon has the clear advantage here.

Disclaimer: I do think Canon needs a kick in the a**, the 24-70Lii is overpriced atm and it's great Tamron released a competitive lens which probably is preferable for many cases (if you really need to trade f2.8 for limited zoom range).


----------



## c-law (Nov 15, 2012)

To be fair, he said that it was the best for him and that you should go back to look over their results to see which is best to you.

Chris


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Nov 15, 2012)

For events, wouldn't the focal range of 24-70 *mainly* be utilized for taking still shots of groups of people posing for a shot with or without flash where IS would be more handy especially in low light/indoor locations? Honestly I would think the percentage of motion/candid/unposed shots at an event where IS would not be needed would be a pretty small in comparison to the overall batch of event shots?

I would think most of the candid shots where motion blur is highly more likely, are people walking up/down stage, mingling at a social event, or a bride walking down the aisle where utilizing a longer telephoto range like between 70-200 would be more suited?

My point that I am trying to address is to all those that can't understand why there should be an IS in this 24-70 focal range. On another note, I did select the Canon 24-70 2.8 II over Tamron because I place a higher value in the overall sharpness/image quality over image stabilization.


----------



## Viggo (Nov 15, 2012)

Smashing lenses makes me care less about the "review" and more about the idiots and their stupid waste of great equipment...


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 15, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Smashing lenses makes me care less about the "review" and more about the idiots and their stupid waste of great equipment...



It made me wonder whether they've paid for the lenses out of their own pockets.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Nov 15, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> YAAR (yet another amateur review ) ... but thanks for the link. He didn't mention the new Canon 24-70/4is btw?



Not that I've noticed, which is why I've added f/2.8 to the title.


----------



## elflord (Nov 15, 2012)

Canon 14-24 said:


> For events, wouldn't the focal range of 24-70 *mainly* be utilized for taking still shots of groups of people posing for a shot with or without flash where IS would be more handy especially in low light/indoor locations? Honestly I would think the percentage of motion/candid/unposed shots at an event where IS would not be needed would be a pretty small in comparison to the overall batch of event shots?



People move all the time. Even breathing involves some motion. In a wide to normal unposed shot which is likely to contain multiple subjects in the same frame, the chance of someone moving enough to not only make the picture less sharp but also introduce visible motion artifact is that much higher. 

Many photographers like to use a shutter speed of 1/60 or faster for this reason. There is little need for IS when using a standard zoom at this shutter speed or faster. Professional event photographers will usually use a flash if there is not much available light. If IS is _needed_ for most poorly lit events, why do so many event photographers choose lenses without it as their standard zooms ?

For longer shots, you not only have a better chance of locking in on a single stationary subject, a shutter speed of 1/60 or so is probably too slow unless you have IS or use some support.


----------



## Northstar (Nov 15, 2012)

Highly doubt they destroyed real lenses....most likely some special effects/movie magic involved.


----------



## Dylan777 (Nov 16, 2012)

IS will not do any good when you can't even focus in low light. At f2.8, the lens shows no sharpness. I tried it and hated it.

And...with low budget reviews, they didn't destroyed real lenses - it's more like Canon coffee cup.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 16, 2012)

I love how they smashed those lenses. Very entertaining to watch. ;D


----------



## K-amps (Nov 16, 2012)

Viggo said:


> Smashing lenses makes me care less about the "review" and more about the idiots and their stupid waste of great equipment...



They look like rich dudes.... they did a piece on the 5d3 vs D800 and smashed the 5d3 in the end... painful, but the review was hilarious...


Err Dylan might smack me for it... maybe it was a 10D


----------

