As a part-time sports and event photographer, I think I am long overdue to add a 24-70mm f2.8 lens to my bag. The only lens more useful seems to be a 70-200mm f2.8, which I own. I have been getting by with an EF 24-105mm f4, but I am ready to upgrade in time for the homecoming game and indoor basketball.
Just when I thought an EF 24-70mm would be a no-brainer and simply a matter of finding a good used copy for about $1,400, I more or less instantly become aware of
1. RF 24-70mm f2.8 at $2,400 (new)
2. Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DG OS HSM Art $1,200 (new)
3. RF 28-70 f2 $3,100 (new)
and all of a sudden I am in the familiar place: analysis paralysis and incessant video review watching.
Who has good advice on how I should approach this choice?
I do have 6D as my second body, so an EF version of any lens has some additional appeal from that perspective.
As usual, I am probably overlooking another valid option, but I have my hands full with these four.
Canon EOS 6D Sony a6500 Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +4 more
OP atolk • Regular Member • Posts: 120
Re: 24-70mm f2.8 seemed like a no-brainer
In reply to atolk • Aug 30, 2022
When I write 24-70mm f2.8 I imply version 2. Someone in my area is selling the original in a "good working condition" for $600 OBO. Should I be considering it? Probably shouldn't try to skimp on a lens that promises to become a workhorse.
A detailed review of Sigma and Canon 24-70mm side by side gives it to Canon by a score of 4-1, with Sigma getting dinged specifically for AF performance shooting indoor basketball. But the 2018 review did not use an R6, so maybe the camera shares the blame.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=emb-HfhZVRg
Canon EOS 6D Sony a6500 Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +4 more
Jan_K • New Member • Posts: 21
Re: 24-70mm f2.8 seemed like a no-brainer
In reply to atolk • Aug 30, 2022
atolk wrote:As a part-time sports and event photographer, I think I am long overdue to add a 24-70mm f2.8 lens to my bag. The only lens more useful seems to be a 70-200mm f2.8, which I own. I have been getting by with an EF 24-105mm f4, but I am ready to upgrade in time for the homecoming game and indoor basketball.
Just when I thought an EF 24-70mm would be a no-brainer and simply a matter of finding a good used copy for about $1,400, I more or less instantly become aware of
1. RF 24-70mm f2.8 at $2,400 (new)
2. Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DG OS HSM Art $1,200 (new)
3. RF 28-70 f2 $3,100 (new)
and all of a sudden I am in the familiar place: analysis paralysis and incessant video review watching.
Who has good advice on how I should approach this choice?
I do have 6D as my second body, so an EF version of any lens has some additional appeal from that perspective.
As usual, I am probably overlooking another valid option, but I have my hands full with these four.
To me it seems like an EF-mount lens would be most suitable. The RF versions are much more expensive, so the chances of your 6D being replaced as a 2nd body decrease significantly. As the 6D will stay, an EF version makes most sense. (Unless you also intend to keep the 24-105 as a back up as well). Also since you managed with the EF24-105 F4 so far, putting in that much cash for RF versions does not seem a logical decision from an economical perspective.
If you can (relatively) easily afford them, the RF versions seem great options from purely the photographic perspective. And if you are pretty sure your future lies in RF mount, it may well be worth the investment.
I have a Tamron 24-70 G2 lens with EF mount, which I use on an R5 or R6. I already owned it from shooting DSLR. It is not my most often used lens, but it performs nicely. I used it for some cycling (Tour de France) recently and I did not notice any problems with the autofocus or burst rates. Intending to stay on the RF-mount I did consider the RF24-70 as a future replacement, but in comparison with my current Tamron I do not get really better specs (same zoom range, f2.8, stabilisation, approximately same size (incl adapter). I would probably need to add over 1500 in addition to a trade in on the Tamron, and I do not want to invest that much and hardly gain anything spec-wise.
I did not watch the youtube comparison video you shared, but in my experience modern lenses do AF pretty well, although some are a bit better than others. With sports, your focus technique and timing are likely more important then the AF performance of a decent lens. The chances of missing that really very important shot due to the lens not focussing adequately are (in my personal opinion) very small. So AF comparisons on Youtube I always take with some grain of salt as I doubt most (amateur) photographers would actually really notice a difference in shots they miss due to poor AF performance.
Regards and success with your analysis.
P.S. Sorry for mentioning another option... just happen to own that one
KEG • Veteran Member • Posts: 5,072
Re: 24-70mm f2.8 seemed like a no-brainer
In reply to atolk • Aug 30, 2022
3
atolk wrote: When I write 24-70mm f2.8 I imply version 2. Someone in my area is selling the original in a "good working condition" for $600 OBO. Should I be considering it? Probably shouldn't try to skimp on a lens that promises to become a workhorse.
Avoid.
A detailed review of Sigma and Canon 24-70mm side by side gives it to Canon by a score of 4-1, with Sigma getting dinged specifically for AF performance shooting indoor basketball. But the 2018 review did not use an R6, so maybe the camera shares the blame. //www.youtube.com/watch?v=emb-HfhZVRg
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS R Canon EOS M6 II Canon EF-M 32mm F1.4 Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM +23 more
yerach • Regular Member • Posts: 368
Re: 24-70mm f2.8 seemed like a no-brainer
In reply to atolk • Aug 30, 2022
1
atolk wrote:As a part-time sports and event photographer, I think I am long overdue to add a 24-70mm f2.8 lens to my bag. The only lens more useful seems to be a 70-200mm f2.8, which I own. I have been getting by with an EF 24-105mm f4, but I am ready to upgrade in time for the homecoming game and indoor basketball.
Just when I thought an EF 24-70mm would be a no-brainer and simply a matter of finding a good used copy for about $1,400, I more or less instantly become aware of
1. RF 24-70mm f2.8 at $2,400 (new)
2. Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DG OS HSM Art $1,200 (new)
3. RF 28-70 f2 $3,100 (new)
and all of a sudden I am in the familiar place: analysis paralysis and incessant video review watching.
Who has good advice on how I should approach this choice?
I do have 6D as my second body, so an EF version of any lens has some additional appeal from that perspective.
As usual, I am probably overlooking another valid option, but I have my hands full with these four.
RF lenses in general are apparently sharper (not that the EF 24-70 was a slouch...), and overall better optically, i own the 28-70 and it's probably one of the nicest zooms i've ever owned, the 24-70 also seems like a great lens, i had a little chance to play with it before i chose the 28-70.
BUT we're speaking twice the nearly price (for the 24-70) or more (for the 28-70), so it really comes down to what you're compromising for it (a longer holiday, a new prime, a couple dozen beers, or bread and milk...).
the best bargain here is definitely the sigma, it seems to be comparable to the EF, and in some aspects even better, plus it's back compatible with your 6D.
whatever you choose good luck with it!
-- hide signature --
canon at hand nikon at heart
Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 28-70mm F2L USM Canon RF 85mm F1.2L USM Canon RF 50mm F1.8 STM +1 more
Re: 24-70mm f2.8 seemed like a no-brainer
In reply to atolk • Aug 30, 2022
I have used the original EF 24-70 f2.8 for many years. I have a great copy of the lens and used the lens for years. I still have the lens, but have not tried in on my R5. I like using my RF 24-105 f4 and find it very fun to use.
I have kept the lens for two reasons, one I have a nice copy, two the used price is not worth selling the lens. With that said, unless you are under big financial pressure, I would go with either the EF II or the RF lens. If you are doing commercial work you need to have reliable high quality equipment. I have heard there were a lot of copy variations of lens quality with the version 1 of the lens. In addition, I have read several older versions of lens are having issues with an internal ribbon cable failing.
I don't know much about the Sigma version you are talking about, I did buy a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX about 18 years ago and I never really liked the lens. I actually gave the lens to a friend. I am not saying not to consider the Sigma, I find their newer Art lenses delivering amazing quality.
Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Sigma 14mm F1.8 Art Canon RF 24-105mm F4L IS USM Canon RF 15-35mm F2.8L IS USM +16 more
CameraCarl • Veteran Member • Posts: 9,449
Re: 24-70mm f2.8 seemed like a no-brainer
In reply to atolk • Aug 30, 2022
One thing to keep in mind when buying an EF lens with plans to adapt it is the length of the adapter. When I first made the move from the EF to the RF platform, I figured what difference can the adapter make? It is light enough and the adapted lenses work fine, if not better. But then after living with adapted wide angle lenses for a few months, I began to realize that the adapter made the whole setup so much bigger. An EF 16-35 f4 is a reasonable lens on a DSLR but when you make it an inch longer it no longer fits easily in any of my camera bags, it looks and feels like a telephoto zoom. It just got to feeling so ungainly that when I went to reach for the lens and the adapter when leaving my office, I often wound up thinking, meh!, I can live without it on this trip. Now I just grab my RF 16mm and the 16-35 is gathering dust. So, extrapolating my experience to your conundrum: adding an adapter to an already big lens is going to make it even bigger. If it were me, I wouldn't buy the EF. I'd save my money for the RF.
Re: 24-70mm f2.8 seemed like a no-brainer
In reply to atolk • Aug 30, 2022
I love the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM mkII on my R5. The RF version has one advantage: it has les harsh bokeh. That might be more important than a (probably hypothetical) tiny bit more sharpness and contrast or ILIS. When paying more to get better bokeh the f/2.0 zoom is probably more interesting, as the price difference between the two RF zooms is relatively small.
-- hide signature --
45 is more than enough, but 500.000 isn't
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Sony a7 IV Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +24 more
OP atolk • Regular Member • Posts: 120
Re: 24-70mm f2.8 seemed like a no-brainer
thunder storm wrote: I love the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 USM mkII on my R5. The RF version has one advantage: it has les harsh bokeh. That might be more important than a (probably hypothetical) tiny bit more sharpness and contrast or ILIS. When paying more to get better bokeh the f/2.0 zoom is probably more interesting, as the price difference between the two RF zooms is relatively small.
Well argued. Bokeh shape on a 24-70mm is not a consideration to me. IS at sports shooting speeds of 1/640-1/2000s is said to be a non-issue, in fact people have repeatedly told me to turn it off at 1/1000s on my tele zoom lenses, but I can't bring myself to do it.
Canon EOS 6D Sony a6500 Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +4 more
Jose Rocha • Senior Member • Posts: 1,169
Re: 24-70mm f2.8 seemed like a no-brainer
In reply to atolk • Aug 31, 2022
I went through a long process as well with lots of review watching, and even contacted sellers to provide samples taken with their lenses.
In the end, I had two contenders: the RF 24-70 new for 2100€, or the EF 24-70 II used for 1500€. The EF II is a remarkable lens but I wouldn't like to use it forever with the adapter. Also, it would be hard to sell it in a few years as DSLRs are dead anyway, and 1500€ for that lens, used, it's hard to swallow...
For that reason I went with the RF and, after taking it with me on vacations, I am extremely happy with the results. It's a no-brainer if you want top quality. The AF is incredible, it's completely silent and basically instantaneous, and the IS is very nice. Sharpness and bokeh is even better than I thought, I'm very impressed (on a R6). For these reasons I think that 2100€ were well spent, but that's only because it's my most used focal range by far.
Fujifilm X100V Sony a7 III Sony FE 55mm F1.8
R2D2 • Forum Pro • Posts: 27,535
Re: 24-70mm f2.8 seemed like a no-brainer
In reply to atolk • Aug 31, 2022
atolk wrote:As a part-time sports and event photographer, I think I am long overdue to add a 24-70mm f2.8 lens to my bag. The only lens more useful seems to be a 70-200mm f2.8, which I own. I have been getting by with an EF 24-105mm f4, but I am ready to upgrade in time for the homecoming game and indoor basketball.
Just when I thought an EF 24-70mm would be a no-brainer and simply a matter of finding a good used copy for about $1,400, I more or less instantly become aware of
1. RF 24-70mm f2.8 at $2,400 (new)
2. Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DG OS HSM Art $1,200 (new)
3. RF 28-70 f2 $3,100 (new)
and all of a sudden I am in the familiar place: analysis paralysis and incessant video review watching.
Who has good advice on how I should approach this choice?
I do have 6D as my second body, so an EF version of any lens has some additional appeal from that perspective.
As usual, I am probably overlooking another valid option, but I have my hands full with these four.
If there’s any way you can afford the 28-70 I would choose it over any of the others based on the max aperture advantage alone. Being able to double your shutter speed (or halve your ISO) when shooting indoor sports is simply invaluable. Eye AF is just fast enough for basketball (you have an R5/R6?), and this lens is Sharp wide open.
Yes, it’s big, but it’s fine if you’re out on a dedicated shoot, right?
Best of luck with your quest!
R2
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EOS R6 Canon EOS R7 +1 more
Re: 24-70mm f2.8 seemed like a no-brainer
For me it was 1000 for the EF vs 2500 for the RF.
1500 vs 2100 is a way smaller price difference.
-- hide signature --
45 is more than enough, but 500.000 isn't
Canon EOS 6D Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Sony a7 IV Canon EF-S 15-85mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM +24 more
OP atolk • Regular Member • Posts: 120
Re: 24-70mm f2.8 seemed like a no-brainer
In reply to atolk • Sep 2, 2022
Thanks to all who contributed their thoughts. In the end, no one said anything that would steer me away from the EF 24-70 f2.8, which I picked up locally today for $1100. The buyer threw in a CP filter, which he says costs $100. He used it to photograph cars and airplanes. I will have to see if I can use it effectively for my outdoor sports and event shoots (deep dark sky? any other useful effects?)
Thanks to all who contributed. The $2K I saved by walking away from the RF 28-70 f2 will be put to good use one of these days.
Canon EOS 6D Sony a6500 Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS II USM Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM +4 more
R2D2 • Forum Pro • Posts: 27,535
Re: 24-70mm f2.8 seemed like a no-brainer
In reply to atolk • Sep 2, 2022
1
atolk wrote:Thanks to all who contributed their thoughts. In the end, no one said anything that would steer me away from the EF 24-70 f2.8, which I picked up locally today for $1100. The buyer threw in a CP filter, which he says costs $100. He used it to photograph cars and airplanes. I will have to see if I can use it effectively for my outdoor sports and event shoots (deep dark sky? any other useful effects?)
Thanks to all who contributed. The $2K I saved by walking away from the RF 28-70 f2 will be put to good use one of these days.
Congrats on the new lens! That one has served photogs very well over the years. Enjoy!
R2
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5 Canon EOS R6 Canon EOS R7 +1 more
BlueRay2 • Forum Pro • Posts: 14,816
Re: 24-70mm f2.8 seemed like a no-brainer
In reply to atolk • Sep 2, 2022
atolk wrote:When I write 24-70mm f2.8 I imply version 2. Someone in my area is selling the original in a "good working condition" for $600 OBO. Should I be considering it? Probably shouldn't try to skimp on a lens that promises to become a workhorse.
A detailed review of Sigma and Canon 24-70mm side by side gives it to Canon by a score of 4-1, with Sigma getting dinged specifically for AF performance shooting indoor basketball. But the 2018 review did not use an R6, so maybe the camera shares the blame.
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=emb-HfhZVRg
I have had this lens since 2013. i feel like there are a bunch of primes in that range rolled up together to make this superb lens. now that someone is offering this lens to you for $600 - a lens that goes for $1900, new. apparently there are 2 issues with this lens:
1- this lens is stolen and the guy wants to clear it asap.
2- this lens has an inherent or a severe problem that takes a lot of money to fix.
i strongly recommend to stay away from this lens clearly as far as possible.
-- hide signature --
Unexamined world isn't worth living in. "Socrates"
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads
You may also like
Latest sample galleries
Latest in-depth reviews
The Aura Carver 10.1" HD Digital Frame is a great way to put your portfolio on display and a great way to surface forgotten memories. The colors are vibrant, and the build quality is solid, but the Carver isn't without a few quirks.
With a bigger battery and better video capabilities, the Fujifilm X-S20 could be the vlogging machine content creators have been waiting for.
The Sony a7CR is a high-resolution addition to the company's compact full-frame a7C series. So what did we make of it and where does it leave the a7 IV that it sits just above?
Lomography's LomoChrome '92 is designed to mimic the look of classic drugstore film that used to fill family photo albums. As we discovered, to shoot with it is to embrace the unexpected, from strange color shifts to odd textures and oversized grain.
The LowePro PhotoSport Outdoor is a camera pack for photographers who also need a well-designed daypack for hiking and other outdoor use. If that sounds like you, the PhotoSport Outdoor may be a great choice, but as with any hybrid product, there are a few tradeoffs.
Latest buying guides
If you want a compact camera that produces great quality photos without the hassle of changing lenses, there are plenty of choices available for every budget. Read on to find out which portable enthusiast compacts are our favorites.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel and recommended the best.
'What's the best mirrorless camera?' We're glad you asked.
What’s the best camera for around $2000? This price point gives you access to some of the most all-round capable cameras available. Excellent image quality, powerful autofocus and great looking video are the least you can expect. We've picked the models that really stand out.
Above $2500 cameras tend to become increasingly specialized, making it difficult to select a 'best' option. We case our eye over the options costing more than $2500 but less than $4000, to find the best all-rounder.