28-70mm 2.8L

[Gatorsv80]

Anyone still using the Canon 28-70mm 2.8L? Would it be worth looking into buying instead of the 24-70L mark I? What are your thoughts?

 

[birdman]

Gators, my uncle is a wedding photographer and that is his lens of choice. Great sharpness, good colors, many say better sharpness than 24-70 version I. They used lead in the glass in that era and it gives a slightly different look.

My uncle uses (2) two 30d bodies and a 5d Classic. Good results and it is a WORKHORSE! Unfortunately, they still sell for high dollar

 

[D.Sim]

If i were given a choice between the 28-70, and the 24-70 Mk I, I'd happily go for the 28-70. Even with 4mm less on the wide end, which is a LOT, I prefer the IQ and contrast from that lens. Not too easy to get ahold of though, unfortunately

 

[Bluesmachine]

There's one on ebay now, current bid £156, 1 day left. I imagine the price may creep up with 11 bids currently

 

[tron]

Back in the 1990s, I was not completely satisfied with its sharpness when I was printing b/w at size a little less than 30cm x 40cm (less than 12x16 inches). So I switched to 28mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.4 which seemed pretty sharp! When I upgraded to 5DmkII I partly exchanged it (and saved 550 euros...)

 

[pwp]

My 28-70 f/2.8 was kind of OK on the old EOS-1n film body but was punished by the then massive sensor of the original 11.4 megapixel 1Ds of 2003. Since the update to the 24-70 f/2.8 there has been a marginal improvement but the 3 copies I've had have all been a great disappointment. There are good copies around which a few lucky photographers have, but my experience is all too common. There have been a million threads over the years discussing the feeble quality of most 24-70 f/2.8 zooms. If you have a good one treat it well!

Until the 24-70 f/2.8 MkII ships I'm getting very completely satisfying results with a pre-owned 24-105 f/4is. Definitely look at this lens ahead of an ancient 28-70 f/2.8. Most of them were dogs from an era when Canon and the rest were still learning their way around L quality zooms. Recall the dreadful 17-35mm f/2.8L of 1996. Errgh!

HTH,
Paul Wright