DSLRUsers.com

Hey Canonophiles,

Does anybody have any experience with using the 24-70 1:2.8 'L' zoom on a 20D (or 300D/350D)? How's the resolution and the distortion?

Cheers,

You might want to have a look at this review

It's a great lens. I leave it on my 20D.

Great idea, buy a camera, too.We'll be happy to welcome you to the Corral, I'll put it to a vote and we might even make you Sherriff.

Thanks for the link,

The talk of the need for calibration is a little off-putting although the concensus seems to be that if you get a good one it is a cracker. I did briefly have the 28-70 'L' lens 10 years ago and found it quite good on film.

A major concern to me is close focussing and just how tight the lens can get on a subject. I'd be using it for detail shots of design and functional components of motorcycles - like an oil gauge or a speedo/tacho - I guess a little smaller thaqn the area of an A4 sheet fo paper.

My wedding shooting partner uses the 24-70L on his 20D. I'm not terribly certain it is a particularly sharp copy of the lens. Then again I know another wedding photog who uses the 24-70 with his 10D and his images are quite soft as well.
Comparing side by side with most of my D70 images with no/low sharpening from any of my lenses (17-55, 24, 85, 80-200 or even 18-70) both of us agree the images are quite soft from the 20D despite maximum sharpening settings when in jpeg. It pulls up well in RAW and bumping up sharpening though. Using the Canon 50mm improves it somewhat but still not as sharp as the d70 with Nikkors.
I'm not sure if this is simply due to the weak AA filter on the D70, as I had assumed that with the extra 2mp, there would be a slight resolution advantage to the 20D. Then again, it just could be his lenses. My partner has even gone to the extent of buying an adaptor mount to use my 24mm and 80-200 (and gives up autofocus) and he is much happier with the sharpness of those images, although I don't see alot of difference.
I any case neither of us are terribly worried about it as we don't need too sharp an image for wedding photos. Composing, capturing (sometimes creating) the moment takes much more precedence than such minutiae as these technical factors. Sharpness can always be improved a little in post.
In terms of distortion, there's nothing out of the ordinary that I have noticed. Obviously it is a zoom, but it stands up quite well to the primes in this area. However, I don't shoot too much architecture and again I don't really analyse this side of things too much unless it's quite glaringly obvious (can also be fixed somewhat in post)
I envy his high ISO and sometimes smoother tones and richer/vibrant colours. He envies my sharpness, texture and natural/true to life colours. The grass is always greener on the other side.

Not sure if this is helpful to you Sheetshooter. Good luck with your choice. I'm sure you'd create some fantastic images all the same. BTW - my partner had his 24-70 sitting on the back seat of the car which fell out onto the ashpalt as the bridal party were getting in. It landed lens mount first (Yes, it was uncapped - I didn't need to admonish him, he's quite rueful of the fact) and now doesn't fit properly on the camera mount. It is currently at Canon getting a quote for repair.

Excellent info Julian,

Just the clue I was hoping ofr too. Another lens of appeal is the Nikkor 17-55. Either on the forum or by PM would you please relate your views on that lens?

I think that there are some givens in this early stage of the digital era. Nikon imaging (forget the lenses for a minute) is sharper and Canon colour management is better (call it the Digic II effect if you will).

Moving forward from the camera, its chip and technology to what sits on the lens flange the goal posts shift considerable. Much as I am loath to say it within the hallowed portals of the Big 'C' Corral, I am no fan of Canon glass - especially in shorter focal lengths. In researching the 24-70 and thers on the internet I find this notion of the 'bad copy' of the lens frequently raised. That fits in entirely with my thoughts on Canon - a wide range of acceptable tolerances plagues them in my opinion.

Cheers, (and sorry to ruffle the feathers of any hard-case Canon fans)

Glad I could help.
I'll try to write a brief mini-review of the 17-55. I had been intending to do so for a while but hadn't gotten around to do it. I planned to post a few wedding images that I've shot with it, but feel I should probably ask the wedding couples in question first.
I'll post one soon.