24-70 too short for full frame?

[briansquibb]

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]

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.

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. :

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]

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]

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.

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. :

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".

*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]

*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]

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]

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]

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]

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.