answers: 77

  1. Pastor
    06.11.2015

    For a long time no one has written something here ...
    Unlike the specimen, the trunk does not fall out of my review, although the glass is no longer new. I also met with soap at 70mm on the open, but rather soap in the corners, in the center sharply. In addition, the soap is noticeable in comparison with the fixes, and if you look, for example, at Tamron 17-50 2.8 (I understand that the crop glass, but it seems that the focal glass is the same), then the soap does not immediately scare you. Artistry in 24-70 is not special, in any case, so it is customary to say. But in my opinion, it is quite good for portraits, moreover, the softness of 70 2.8 is just right for female portraits. But in the form of a workhorse, the lens is very pleasing. At 7d in any terrible downpour, you can shoot at least the whole day - the kit is indestructible. On the full frame, I used it only on the first dime - a very nice picture (though more thanks to the dime here). But because of the insecurity and slowness of the nickel, it was not necessary to report from 24-70.

    Reply

  2. Andrei
    05.01.2016

    tell me, how for video shooting, will there be a big loss if you replace your 24-105 f4 L?

    Reply

    • Pastor
      10.02.2016

      I would leave 24-105... For video, high aperture is not as important as stub and focal lengths. Many DSLR operators love 24-105 4lis. But to shoot at 24-70 2.8L is a rarity. This lens is more for photography than for video, I think.

      Reply

  3. Alexey
    05.01.2016

    “But with the image quality, the lens from this review let us down a little (I'm talking about a specific instance that I got for review). The main drawback is poor sharpness at F / 2.8, especially at 70mm. ”
    =================================
    Arkady, this lens has a feature - front (front) lens and there is an adjustment lens. any, even a minor blow - and the centering / alignment of the lens unit gets lost. Therefore, it is always necessary to check exactly at 70mm by 2.8 - if it is frank soap, then the lens must be re-adjusted. In the second version, the design was changed. In addition, the guides wear out strongly, which loosens the fastening and the lens again begins to soap at the long end. Repair and adjustment - about $ 170
    Compared to the second version, the first has a significantly more beautiful bokeh, which is better than many fixes.

    Reply

    • Pastor
      10.02.2016

      I agree, the old 24-70 2.8l bowl is more interesting. I thought about changing it to a new one, but then I realized that I was too lazy to chase sharpness, and the rest of the old man is no worse, and bokeh is better. Not even the colors more. The case when a newer version turned out to be worse for me than the old one. In the case of 70-200, on the contrary, the new one turned out to be more interesting than the old one both in sharpness and in bokeh.

      Reply

      • Anton
        03.04.2016

        The first version gives a more tube image, the second is dry and boring for me

        Reply

      • Pastor
        04.04.2016

        Are you talking about 70-200 or 24-70? If 24-70, then I completely agree, she gives a warm lamp color - yes :)

        Reply

  4. Anton
    03.04.2016

    I have been working in the industry for about 6 years. This is the most popular lens among both reporters and fashion photographers, including in the West. In general, just # 1. Those details, all sorts of stabilizers, etc., the pros don't care about that, take them and take them off until you wipe your hands ...

    Reply

  5. Pastor
    13.12.2016

    Recently I decided to compare this 24-70 2.8 ff with the sigma 18-35 1.8 on crop. Given roughly the same flu of these sets, it was interesting to compare how much ff would be better. And what was my surprise when the sigma produced higher sharpness and, in general, no less interesting bokeh. All other things being equal, a new crop with a zoom of 1.8 will be cheaper than an old ff with a zoom of f2.8, which means that for less money you can get at least no less high-quality image. Sigma, having released 18-35 and 50-100 with f1.8, hints that ff is not so necessary. And also in sigma a pleasant trifle was the ability to work on ff from 28 to 35mm only with a vignette, without black corners. It turns out, having bought a cheaper 18-35 you get almost a replacement for sigma 24-35 f2, but with a slightly higher aperture.
    I really hope that in the near future someone will be able to provide Arkady with an overview of at least one of the three new superlight sigma zooms.

    Reply

    • Alexander
      02.12.2021

      I now have 200d and stgma 18-35, so I'm thinking of switching to full frame and 24-70 2.8, but is it worth it? In fact, I will get 15 mm more focal length, ala fifty kopecks 1.8 on a crop, but you can buy fifty dollars on a crop or 85 1.8, I don’t even know, I shoot videos in 95 percent

      Reply

  6. anonym
    28.04.2018

    I do not believe

    Reply

  7. Fighter
    28.04.2018

    Super!)

    Reply

  8. Mr. Boggy
    21.06.2018

    A good zoom for ff but on new crop it is necessary to adjust, and indeed now in these crop it makes no sense after you test ff. Only where detail and a tele-range are needed. For everyone who wants to buy this glass for the first time, do not forget that this is a zoom, just a zoom. On the crop, this glass will still be a little odd, a small mirror and a sprinkled focus sensor, plus small pixels — these are all factors this lens does not really like. It's like a taxi driver used to working on a Toyota sedan to offer a de-matiz assuring that she also drives no worse, he will immediately send you to the forest and away.

    Reply

  9. Mr. Boggy
    21.06.2018

    And in general, if the company’s kenon itself does not have a distinct zoom under the crop except for the rattle 17-55 2.8 in which the wind is walking, then it's time to release the available ff in the 1000d form factor. Everyone will start right away with ff and not be tormented by the pangs of choosing glasses, because even film glasses on ff bypass circumspect shitheads.

    Reply

    • koba
      27.11.2018

      Sftsht will never release something normal for cropping, otherwise it will not be able to sell full-frame lenses and systems for high prices. The companies work only to make a profit and not to make customers happy, this is always secondary for them, objects of simple advertising and nothing more. Defects in top-end lenses are clearly planned in the standardization departments of companies so that they fail on time, otherwise they receive less money both for sales and for service. Only Leica works without defects on goods, but of course he sets prices 10 times higher than the cost price in order to get what others get due to high circulation. And since manufacturers of photographic equipment do not see any threat from Chinese manufacturers, since the fluorescent equipment, due to some features, is almost completely protected from fakes and the appearance of cheap alternatives, they are very arrogant, with a purely Japanese disregard for everyone else in the world (who has been to Japan knows that the Japanese are worse than the Zionist Jews [not ordinary Jews!] - they don't even consider anyone else to be human!), and they do everything as we show them their own marketing, how to rip off more money from the rest of the world. All photographic equipment is sold for about five times the price, such markups have not existed for a long time in other areas of production. And the imaginary competition between Japanese companies is for foreigners, there is a large clan behind each manufacturer and they divide everything perfectly, some are even relatives. You say this glass has problems with sharpness, so what? All the same, everyone will go and buy it, now the second version, slightly improved.

      Reply

  10. Andrii
    23.02.2020

    Privit. Tell me the decal of running gears that are not expensive objects for canon 6d 2? I respect you more beautifully than beasts, but who are not more beautiful than brothers?

    Reply

    • Basil
      23.02.2020

      For you for any purpose? Budget?

      Reply

      • Andrii
        24.02.2020

        For commercials?

        Reply

      • Andrii
        24.02.2020

        Thinking like I’m taking a zoom, I don’t know which one? Kenonivsky chi third-party?

        Reply

      • B. R. P.
        24.02.2020

        For inexpensive third-party calls, please make Tamron 28-75 2,8, so you need to zoom in in such a range.

        Reply

  11. Mr. Boggy
    16.06.2021

    This lens was created in the era of 1D and Ds, and the crop was 6 megapixels. No one even thought that the crop would have 10 or even 20 megapixels, even the ff sensor with 21 megapixels appeared much later ... Therefore, there is no need to demand much from this glass, there is also a fluorite insert introduces its own artifacts - it has a pronounced crystalline structure, it is then noticeably in the photo. But in any case, this lens is good as an artistic zoom, 2.8 is quite working.

    Reply

  12. Dmitry Kostin
    17.06.2021

    Yesterday I read reviews about this lens on the foto_ru club / vlador / olegasphoto / lensclub, and noticed that the lens has enough different polarities.
    Some praise the constructiveness and restrainedly write about the lack of sharpness, others scold them write soapy and so on.
    I also saw such a statement that in comparison with the 24-70 / 2.8L II USM, its first version, as well as the 28-70 / 2.8, are “firewood”.
    Recommendations are very frequent to look at the second version, which costs 1.5 times more expensive than Sigma ART 24-70 / 2.8 and Tokina 24-70 / 2.8.
    I wanted to ask - is there a difference in quality among these lenses?
    Is he really that soapy in full frame?
    What are the main problems with the 24-70 / 2.8 besides the backlash of the trunk (and as a result of replacing the guides)?

    Reply

    • Zhukhvan
      22.05.2023

      24-70 “firewood that should burn in the ovens” like the opinion of Tsaplin, who had a similarly rickety lens, extrapolated to all existing specimens. A normal lens, they shot on it until the second version and were happy.

      Reply

      • Zhukhvan
        22.05.2023

        and on problems - chromate, and not as sharp on open 24 as fixes.

        Reply

  13. Anatol
    25.03.2023

    Thanks to the author for the detailed information. I have been using this lens since 2010 and am very pleased with it.
    The information in the article is not entirely clear to me: - “there is a window with a focusing distance scale in meters and feet with additional marks for shooting in the IR spectrum
    (on 24, 28, 35, 50 and 70 mm)”
    These marks indicate the focal length of the lens and are needed to set the hyperfocal distance for landscape photography. I turn off autofocus, crop and determine the actual focal length for this picture, in the focus distance window I combine the infinity sign with the red mark of the current focal length of the lens. With an aperture of F11-F16, everything will be sharp in the picture from the minimum distance to infinity. A simple and ingenious solution, there is no need to calculate the hyperfocal distance using a formula or a calculator.

    Reply

  14. Load more comments ...

Reply

 

 

Top
mobility. computer