24-70 too short for full frame?

[clicstudio]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

24-70 too short for full frame?

for birds... sure.

 

[JonJT]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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

 

[wickidwombat]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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. :