Canon EF 24-70 for Landscape

I presently use a Canon EF 17-40mm for wide angle landscapes. I have a 70-200mm f4 for situations requiring longer focal lengths, but I have that gap between 40 and 70. I am thinking about adding the 24-70 to my collection.

For those of you who have used this lens how do you like the sharpness, color and contrast from it? My 17-40 is a bit soft on the edges. How is the 24-70? I have all but ruled out the 24-105 because I don't need IS. I shoot from a tripod 99.9% of the time. Thanks for any opinions here.

I love my tamron 28-75 2.8. Sharp and cheap. Slow auto focus but you said for landscapes.

Thanks, Paul. I hadn't thought of the Tamron.

I have both the 17-40 and the 24-70. I consider the 24-70 to be the sharper of the two lenses.

I haven't worked with a third party lens in this range at all so I can't really comment of the Tamron.

Same here. Used a 16-35mm and 70-200mm only for a long time. Got the 24-70mm and was quite blown away by the image quality. It's a keeper! Works perfectly for video also on my 5D2.

Here's a test on the 24-70 with great ratings:
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/143/cat/11
It's a great site for comparing lens quality

I have the Canon 24-70 2.8L and love it both for it sharpness and color quality.

I'm not trying to ruin the party here because we all like to purchase more gear! :) However, in this situation, I think you really have to ask yourself if having the gap between 40mm-70mm is worth all the money and extra weight the 24-70mm will bring. I mean the difference between 40mm and 50mm say is a few steps forward or back. The difference between 70mm and 60mm is the same steps forward or back. Therefore there really isn't a real gap in your focal range. It's much more convenient just repositioning yourself and your tripod than juggling lenses every shot. While there are circumstances where you can't move due to issues like edges of cliffs ;), most of the time there's room to change your position. It might be worth spending the money on something that can help you achieve something you can't already do with your current lens selection. Just my 2 cents worth! :)

Cheers,
Jay DiMichele
www.jasondimichele.com

You didn't mention whether you were using a FF camera or a crop sensor, but I'm assuming FF. In that case, the 24-70 has amazing image quality from edge to edge. Personally, I got by with only shooting a 17-35mm lens for everything from landscapes to street photography for four years so if your only reason for getting the lens is for a little bit of reach then i would save your money because this lens is not cheap. And the lens is really bulky.

Great comments from everyone. Jason, you make a good point, but on some shoots I estimate that my shots will be between 35 and 100 so I know in those situations I would bring the 24-70 and the 70-200 and that would be the best combo. If I know my shots will be ultra-wide to only about 60 or so then I can leave the 70-200 behind. Having more lenses gives me more options when I only want to take 2 into the field. You are right that I don't absolutely have to get the 24-70, but that isn't the argument I am making to my wife right now

Richard, I use a full frame. Thanks,

The 24-70 is a great lens, it lives on my camera body. With a little micro-adjustment it absolutely sings (my copy needed a bit of fine tuning)

24-70mm is my main lens as used on the 1Ds mark III and love it. I also had the 17-40 but it came off my Tamrac MAS belt in the excitement of photographing the best tornado funnel I'd ever seen in June last year. Replaced it with the 16-35 - a much better lens. I actually did some comparison on the 2 wide angle lenses and found that the 17-40 had loss of sharpness and vignetting at wide open apertures, fine after F8. I was planning on selling the 17-40 to buy the 16-35 until I lost it!
3rd lens is the 100-400mm.

I have the 24-70, but might get the 24-105 if given the chance to do it over. I would rarely use IS, but I rarely use f/2.8 now. However, I would use 71-105mm very often. Keep in mind that the 70mm on the 24-70 is noticeably shorter than the 70mm on the 70-200. It would be nice to have something that would completely span that range. The f/2.8 would come in handy for night photography but I haven't put in the practice time.

Mat, what do you mean when you say the 70mm on the 24-70 is shorter than the 70mm on the 70-200?

Daniel, not all mm are true...I remember reading about all the xxx-400 zooms and some only went to a true 380.

I have the same lenses as you! But I have a 50mmF1.4 to plug the gap sharper light and cheaper than the 24-70L but not a zoom. My back thanks me for the weight saving and my pocket for the $$

Thanks, everyone. Much appreciated.

I've got its predecessor the 28-70 and I love it. The shutter is much smoother than the one on the 24-105, which is quite loud and clunky. I think the 24-70 might be heavier though than mine...I would definitely get that before the 24-105 as I am sure it is a sharper lens...

I have 28-70 and I use it all the time. I have both a crop factor and full frame camera and the lens is just fantastic on both of them.

-Jay

I've owned the Canon EF 24-70/2.8L and two copies of the 24-105/4L IS. My first copy of the 24-105 was o.k. but nowhere near as sharp as the 24-70. My second 24-105 was just as sharp so I sold the 24-70. Bad move on my part. I should have spent more time studying the differences between the lenses. It's well documented that the 24-105 suffers from barrel distortion and is prone to CA/PF. The 24-70 was a much better lens in these respects. The 24-70 also had an indefinable quality that is difficult to describe. The best way I can put it, is that the images from the 24-70 had more of a "3D" quality to them.

I'm looking forward to the 24-70/2.8L Mark II that is rumored to be coming out, hopefully sometime within the next year.