Thoughts on this, lens owners out there? I have yet to get a normal zoom for my 6D due to dithering about "which one". I would like to have decent performance at minimum focus distance for a walkaround zoom. I hear such good things about the f/2.8 II, but have seen one review stating that performance is so-so at close range. I wonder if I would be happier with the less stellar 24-70 f/4 IS with the close-to-macro performance or with the Sigma or Canon 24-105s or with a good copy of the Tamron f/2.8.
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 II performance at minimum focus distance?
- Thread starter NancyP
- Start date
Besides the 24-70 f/4 IS, none of the options you listed have significantly different max magnification specs (0.21x for the 24-70 f/2.8 II, 0.2x for the Tamron and 0.19x for the Sigma, and 0.23x for the 24-105L). What max mag do you need? I guess you could always use extension tubes or bring a separate macro lens. I like bringing a 100mm macro because it gives me a longer focal length than the 24-70.
If you're trying to do it all in one lens, the the 24-70 f/4 IS might be the lens for you, although reports state that the working distance at 0.7x is really short and may interfere with lighting.
If you're trying to do it all in one lens, the the 24-70 f/4 IS might be the lens for you, although reports state that the working distance at 0.7x is really short and may interfere with lighting.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
Random Orbits said:
The OP is asking about optical performance at the MFD, which some reviews have suggested is not very good with the 24-70/2.8L II. Personally, I haven't had any issues with mine, although no doubt for the same framing the 100L would deliver a sharper picture.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Yes, which was why I asked whether or not the question is really about MFD or about max magnification because most people I've talked to are more concerned about the latter than the former. I haven't had any issues with my 24-70 II at MFD either, whereas I avoid being close to MFD with the 50L because it can be atrocious.
Upvote
0
That makes 3 of us - my 24-70 II seems just fine at MFD. I guess Nancy needs to decide what it more important - IS & psuedo-macro performance or f/2.8 and slightly sharper photos.Random Orbits said:
Upvote
0
From my (rather limited, I own this lens for a month or so) experience, I've yet to notice any significant softness at MFD @ 70mm. But as neuro already pointed out, where there is a need for closeup, 100L is far superior.
Depends on how often do you want to use 24-70/2.8L II at MFD. That lens is far from which you can call macrolens, you may be better off with 24-70/4L IS.
Depends on how often do you want to use 24-70/2.8L II at MFD. That lens is far from which you can call macrolens, you may be better off with 24-70/4L IS.
Upvote
0
I have the feeling that if I go for a two-lens landscape - near macro - macro setup, I would be best served by the 24-70 f/2.8 II and my existing 180 f/3.5L macro lens, and of course a tripod. I just keep looking for ways not to spend $2,200.00 on that zoom.....I suspect that I will give in eventually. 4 primes including that same macro are the default now.
Upvote
0
I have the 180 macro as well and it's going to hard to find anything (other than the 100L macro) that you'll be happy with, macro-wise. In terms of not wanting to spend the money, all I can say is that you are extremely unlikely to regret the purchase. It's a phenomenal lens 8)NancyP said:
Upvote
0
People like the 100mm f/2.8L macro, but I just can't imagine anything better than the 180L macro, particularly shooting it at f/3.5 at near 1:1 for the yummy bokeh to set off your detail of interest. It is well worth giving up IS to get that bokeh. Another favorite lens is my birding lens, the 400mm f/5.6L - no IS here either.
Upvote
0
I love my 180mm macro, too, and used the 400 5.6 for many years before moving up to the 300 2.8 IS II. I really miss the small size.NancyP said:
Upvote
0
I'm happy with my 24-105L. Besides having that extra 30mm, it's also lighter. It's a truly good all-around lens. I'd love changing to the more expensive and sharper 24-70mm F2.8 II but can't find any justification for it since I do have some primes for low-light/studio work. Here are some samples of the 24-105L at MFD.
Upvote
0
