Will I see any diffference if I fit a 24-70 f2.8L to my Canon 700D?

[thegman]

Hi, I've been thinking about buying a new lens either 24-70 f2.8 or 24-100 f4 to fit on my 700D. My friend , who has given me so much good advice, says I'm wasting my money and that I should buy a full frame camera if I want to use this type of lens. I know the crop factor will still have to be considered but will I see any improvement in sharpness, contrast and colour? Any advice will be great.

[FootLoose]

According to this site, a new 24-100 will be released very shortly, so you might pick up the old version for a good price as retailers try to clear old stock.

Your friend may be right though, as I have heard elsewhere that you have to use the 24-100 on a FF to truly appreciate it.

[Manfred M]

I can't comment on the specific Canon lenses, but I had both the Nikon f/2.8 24-70mm and the f/2.8 70-200mm lenses that I was shooting on my crop frame camera for some time (over a year) before I got my full-frame body. The 24-70mm is probably my favourite lens on the crop frame body; it is fast and I like the focal range it covers with the crop factor. I knew I would be stepping up to a full-frame body eventually, which is why I started buying full-frame lenses.

The downside; the cost, size, weight and to some extent, lack of stabilzation (I believe this is the case for the Canon too). On the other hand the build quality and optical quality are superb.

[thegman]

Thanks Manfred, I also plan to move up to full frame I was just wanting to spread the cost, start off with the FF lenses then the camera.

[george013]

If the price is no problem, I think it is worth to invest in FF-lenses. It makes it easier to switch to FF if you want.
And on a crop camera you use the best part of the lens, the centre. Further, optical there should be no difference.

I see Manfred posted too and mentioned the weight. Me personal like the heavier weight of a FF. It's much more stable.

George

[DanK]

My friend , who has given me so much good advice, says I'm wasting my money and that I should buy a full frame camera if I want to use this type of lens.

I assume you mean the 24-105.

For all practical purposes, the only issue you have to consider in buying one of those lenses for a crop sensor camera is whether the focal length ranges are what you want, given the narrower field of view and hence greater reach on a crop. And the key is what YOU want.

If what you want is a walk-around lens, my view is that they are both too long at the short end for a crop. For other purposes, they can be fine. For example, when I shot only a crop, I used a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8, a cheap alternative to the 24-70, as my main lens for inside flash candid work. I had very little interest in wide angle lenses for that purpose, so I didn't miss a shorter short end. However, I rarely used it as an outdoor walk around. For a walk around, I used the EF-S 15-85.

I think you may be posing the question backwards. Rather than asking: 'I would like to use such and such a lens; should I buy a FF body to go with it?', ask 'I would like to do the following things with a new lens; which lens will let me do that with my current camera?' There are plenty of lenses that will accomplish on your body what these lenses will accomplish on a FF.

Re quality: in a word, no. Higher quality glass is higher quality glass. It's a bit more complicated than this because of pixel pitch, but the bottom line is that if you switch to substantially higher quality glass, you will see an impact regardless of sensor size.

[Manfred M]

Thanks Manfred, I also plan to move up to full frame I was just wanting to spread the cost, start off with the FF lenses then the camera.

Sounds to be exactly what I did. If you are planning to go FF eventually, then buying Ff glass ahead of time makes perfect sense to me. It does exactly what you say; if spreads out the cost of converting to FF.

[Geoff F]

I was in a similar position last year, Gerry.

My 24-105 had developed a fault (for the second time) so I thought about a Canon 24-70 as a replacement. Using a 7D

Eventually purchased a Tamron 24-70 instead and it is definitely the best lens I have used. It also has stabilisation.

Much better than my 24-105; although I did get it repaired and now use it as a rough use lens. But I've never been totally happy with that lens which has always produced variable results.

How wide you want to go depends on what you shoot. 24 mm on a crop camera is quite wide enough for me and I rarely shoot at 24 mm.

[NorthernFocus]

Good glass is good glass. And FF glass on a cropped sensor body looks even better yet. Only the sharpest, center part of the glass is used and there is virtually no vignette. And it's planning ahead if you ever plan to go to a FF body. So I don't get where people come from when they say good FF lenses don't perform as well on cropped bodies. The quality may not be necessary for someone's particular needs but, and forgive me if I've already said this, good glass is good glass

[William W]

Hi, I've been thinking about buying a new lens either 24-70 f2.8 or 24-100 f4 to fit on my 700D. My friend , who has given me so much good advice, says I'm wasting my money and that I should buy a full frame camera if I want to use this type of lens. I know the crop factor will still have to be considered but will I see any improvement in sharpness, contrast and colour? Any advice will be great.

Compared to what?

WW

[William W]

Thanks Manfred, I also plan to move up to full frame I was just wanting to spread the cost, start off with the FF lenses then the camera.

Why?

WW

[Glenn NK]

Hi, I've been thinking about buying a new lens either 24-70 f2.8 or 24-100 f4 to fit on my 700D. My friend , who has given me so much good advice, says I'm wasting my money and that I should buy a full frame camera if I want to use this type of lens. I know the crop factor will still have to be considered but will I see any improvement in sharpness, contrast and colour? Any advice will be great.

First off, I assume that you have the "kit lens". The 24-70 Mark II will be an improvement.

By all accounts (photo forums), the 24-70 f/2.8 Mark II is an excellent lens (the "non-Mark II" was not as good).

I have the 24-105, and it's a good lens, but not as good as the new 24-70 Mark II. If a newer version is in the works (rumour?), I'd certainly wait and see before buying the present version.

As for wasting your money: of course the crop factor applies, but it doesn't make any lens less good.

If I was choosing between a 24-105 Mark II (assuming it exists) and a 24-70 Mark II, I'd take the 24-105, but who knows for sure when a Mark II will appear? I would suggest that a Mark II is due.

For my own use, the extra stop of the 24-70 isn't a big deal although some think it is.

I'm not going to get into the Crop/FF debate as it's quite pointless.

Glenn

[Manfred M]

One other issue that has not been addressed is size of the final images will have an impact on this question.

If you shoot at a reasonable aperture and display only on a computer screen; differences in image quality are going to be hard to see, but on the other hand; make large prints, and you will definitely see higher image quality with the pro glass.

[Glenn NK]

Thanks Manfred - I forgot to mention that.

Glenn

[Adrian]

We have crop and full frame Canons (7D, 70D, 6D, 5DIII) 24-105L, 24-70L mk II and a bunch of other stuff.

Youc an take an ext rely good picture with a kit lens or a 24-105 or a 24-70II: this depends a great deal more on your that limitations of the lens or camera. Do not expect to see some incredible difference between a kit lens and a 10 times more expensive 24-70L Mk II in normal shooting.

I bought the upper end L glass because:I particularly wanted the f2.8 ability and the cost was not my priority. If you are not super
critical then the 24-105 is a very good general purpose lens on both crop and FF. 24 is not wide angle on a Canon crop (it is 36mm) and not that wide on FF either: I bought the 16-35L which I use a great deal, especially indoors.

L glass is a massive price premium (it is l'ishly expensive, an L of a price), much bigger, much heavier and more expensive to insure. It might improve your pictures - a bit. A bit is important to some, as is maybe better weather sealing etc. You will have to look very hard indeed to see a measurable quality difference between the relatively budget 24-105L and the 24-70 Mk II especially at middling apertures, even at 100%. 99% of viewers of say an A3 print will not be able to detect a difference if a non fringe area is cropped to produce identical framing. Lens reviews measure minute differences at the extremes usually.

This analysis is based purely on my opinions and personal experience. The 24-70 II is a brilliant lens, and I don't want to put you of, just don't be unrealistic about any transformative effects.

Kind regards, Adrian

[ajohnw]

I've used a 24-105mm of crop for a long time. I found it fine for most situations that are just shoot what's there. I always intended to get something wider to go with it but never have. It's fine for general landscapes etc. I've mentioned this before and some one did a search on all of the shots that they had taken and found that even on crop it covered the vast bulk of them. In other words in makes a very decent lens cap even on crop.

The main gain of the F2.8 lens would be the ability to get more controlled blur of backgrounds especially at shorter distances. However Canon do the 17-55mm F2.8 for crop. I'd guess there will be a considerable price difference to the L lens. It's what I aught to buy but I do have a full frame camera but to be honest haven't used it for ages. I'm inclined to feel with what's available these days FF doesn't offer that much really other than supposedly better lenses which can still be used on crop anyway. The only argument against that is that using the same lens it's possible to crop and an APS view out of a FF view. The resolution apart from pixel counts in most cases will be exactly the same. The pixel count density is likely to be higher on crop anyway so if the lens is up to it .................... better resolution. All a load of crap really. Take a look at the true pro camera pixel counts such as the 1DX and Nikons equivalent and tell people who use them that they just don't have the resolution.

John
-

[JR1]

I use both D7100 and D4s/D810s

You need to remember that the top end lenses are optimised by Canon and Nikon for their top end cameras, on a D700 it will not be as good as on a D4s or D810 Canon similar camera.

Will you notice the difference, perhaps not, All my lenses are the "N"ano coted ones, if you are going to spend the money go for the best, never ever get a crop frame lens even for crop sensors as you will end up buying again if you go ff

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/...-f-2-8l-ii-usm

However I find 24-70 a pointless lens, to be honest, so little range, personally I would opt for the 24-105 especially if a new one is about to appear

[ajohnw]

From my experiences Jeremy there is more risk involved with Nikon crop lenses than Canon. That is just an impression. I feel Nikon tend to make more extreme zoom lenses and in that area nothing comes for free. All seem to make their own lemons though at times.

Canon did makes some nvg lenses for 6mp 300D's but that didn't last for long and they were probably adequate for 6mp.

John
-

[george013]

You need to remember that the top end lenses are optimised by Canon and Nikon for their top end cameras, on a D700 it will not be as good as on a D4s or D810 Canon similar camera.

I allways wondered what that means. Optical there is a lens that creates an image and a sensor that registers that image. I don't mean the in-camera processing.

George

[Manfred M]

You need to remember that the top end lenses are optimised by Canon and Nikon for their top end cameras, on a D700 it will not be as good as on a D4s or D810 Canon similar camera.

Unless there is a specific and significant difference in the optical stack thickness in front of the sensor, this statement seems to not make any sense to me from a technical standpoint. You are shooting to a smaller image circle than with a full-frame camera, so if anything, one would expect better edge performance and no other technical downsides

However I find 24-70 a pointless lens, to be honest, so little range, personally I would opt for the 24-105 especially if a new one is about to appear

Acutally, the 24-70mm is the lens I use most frequently; probably 50% - 60% of my shooting. From a technical standpoint, it should provide a better image due to its lower zoom range. In this and in longer zoom ranges; pro lenses have tended to be less than 3x because of image quality concerns.