Canon 24-70 2.8 L : any issues

[Xenedis]

if I have a desperate need for 21-23 mm, I'm screwed

You think you're screwed.

For a number of years I've had no focal length between 35mm and 70mm.

I'm not entirely sure what I'd even DO with those focal lengths, but at any rate, the sky is falling.

[Scotty72]

I'm not entirely sure what I'd even DO with those focal lengths, but at any rate, the sky is falling.

Well, at about 40mm, you'd get a good mid-shot of the end of the world... wide enough to establish setting whilst long enough to capture the details of terrified civilians kissing their ar#es good-bye.

Looks like you'll need a 24-70L too.

Scotty

[Xenedis]

Looks like you'll need a 24-70L too.

Nah. Great lens, and the one I'd choose if I wanted a standard zoom, but I have no use for it.

[Dylan & Marianne]

I've had one for a long time and have had no issues with its image quality (until we dropped it a year ago and we haven't fixed it since - images slightly softer than they used to be!)
I take alot of the landscape panoramas with this lens. The major downside for landscapes is the weight of this lens and the fact that it doesn't come with a tripod mount. Putting it up vertically for long exposures and depending on how permanently you want to screw on the quickplate to your body (like super super firmly that you have to struggle and pop a few veins to ever get it off), you may get some drooping of the lens during the exposure.

[Scotty72]

I've had one for a long time and have had no issues with its image quality (until we dropped it a year ago and we haven't fixed it since - images slightly softer than they used to be!)
I take alot of the landscape panoramas with this lens. The major downside for landscapes is the weight of this lens and the fact that it doesn't come with a tripod mount. Putting it up vertically for long exposures and depending on how permanently you want to screw on the quickplate to your body (like super super firmly that you have to struggle and pop a few veins to ever get it off), you may get some drooping of the lens during the exposure.

Thanks...

The 24-105L is a little the same (though a little lighter). I find when it is stuck on, the tripod itself becomes a good vice grip

[sonofcoco]

I have the 24-70mm and really like it. Had an issue with the image quality when I first got it (wasn't as good as I expected it to be, especially after paying the amount of cash it costs), but took it in to the Canon Service Centre in Ulsan and they had a tinker with it and my 40D and when I got it back it was very good. And it only cost $30 (the tinkering that is, not the lens obviously)

[wardiej]

The 24-70L is my walk around lens and never comes off my camera. I have another body and 100-400L if i want to go longer. I never have had cause to worry about the IQ of the lens as all my failures can be attributed to myself. It seems to be very rugged as it definitely has not been babied, although it has never been dropped.

Wardie

[Bennymiata]

Try the Sigma version and save yourself $$$$.

You'll be surprised at how good the Sigma is.

[Pine]

[QUOTE=Tannin;894580]You won't find any mention of catastrophic failures of the 24-70 in the Internet because, when this lens was introduced, the Internet hadn't been invented yet.

Now that's a story the Internet has been around for much longer time than that

However a lot of us predate the Internet

Regards

[iwkyb]

I have the 24-70 and had no issue with it so far. Very solidly built. The only problem is that most people are expecting to see a new version sometime next year.