 |
|
|
lord_malone
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 9, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 496
|
|
Review Date: Sep 22, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $975.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
focal range, f/2.8, L build quality, lens hood design, AF accuracy, minimum close distance focusing for macro
|
|
Cons:
|
Feels a bit strange to have to reverse zoom (lens potruding) to make the lens go wider.
|
|
|
Having previously owned and used the long discontinued EF 28-80 f2.8-4L, I was in no particular hurry to reacquire a mid-range zoom. Though the lens was optically a stellar performer, I always wished that it had a constant 2.8 aperture. I proceeded to go with the UWA (16-35) and the long (70-200), and filled the gap with a 50mm, which satisfied my shooting needs for quite a while. However, a new direction I've taken in photography has me wanting/needing to shoot more in the focal ranges I typically shied away from. I always knew that the likely candidates were the 24-105L or 24-70L. I considered third party offerings, which all seemed to be very good in their own right, but L build quality always wins me over in the end. And once again, this lens did not disappoint as far as that goes. I decided to try the 24-105L first, which turned out to be a great lens in its own right. However, I found that having a 2.8 max aperture was more favorable than the IS, extra reach and weight savings of the 24-105L. At first I thought it was a bit strange how the lens extends out from the body when zooming wide, but like most things Canon I got used to it pretty quick. The lens hood is well designed in that it covers the entire front element as you zoom in or out while remaining stationary itself. It's a bit massive, but it does the job and does it well. A great lens optically, it performs well even at max aperture throughout the zoom range. AF performance in low light is what prompted me to seek out this lens to begin with. Again, it does it amazingly well. I found the zoom ring on my particular copy to be somewhat loose and not as tight as it was on the 24-105L. Perhaps it is because the 24-105L was new, whereas I purchased the 24-70L second hand (the previous owner obviously putting it through its paces). Either way it doesn't take away from the fact that this lens deserves to be held in high regard. I do understand that there were questions concerning QC and copy variances, but I feel that it's nothing a good lens calibration can't fix. Overall, I'm only upset at myself for not picking up this lens sooner. It really is a spectacular lens.
|
|
 Sep 22, 2007
|
|
Andre Laubner
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 2, 2007
Location: China
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Sep 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,340.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
bokeh; fast, silent and accurate AF; range; color; contrast; sharpness!
|
|
Cons:
|
Lenshood feels a little loose
|
|
|
My first L lens and I am more than impressed. Heavy and huge
(I might have to mount my flash on the cam all the time to have enough counterweight.).
|
|
|
Sep 5, 2007
|
|
Don Farra
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 4, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice images!
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy and large.
|
|
|
First Canon zoom L lens and was shocked by the images it produces. The image quality is equal to or in some case bette than the prime lens counterparts. Perfect for weddings where high IQ, flexiablity, fast focusing low light performance (wide open) is required. It's a keeper.
|
|
|
Sep 5, 2007
|
|
robinng
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 1, 2003
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 47
|
|
Review Date: Sep 5, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
built, silent and fast focus, sharpness, good color!
|
|
Cons:
|
weight (heavy for my small hand), front barrel goes out when use 24mm (not as nice as my previous nikon 17-55 f2.8 DX)
|
|
i bought this for my 5D. it a prefect combo when shooting wedding event or bridal session. here are my recent work done by this excellent lense: http://www.robinng.com/blog/?p=1314
my next lense will be the 24mm f1.4 and 85mm f1.8
thanks FM review for the chance giving here.
regards,
Robin
http://www.robinng.com/blog
|
|
|
Sep 5, 2007
|
|
diesel88
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 17, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Aug 31, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,139.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, Range, F2.8, Sharpness/Contrast/Color, The hood covers the lens when it's zooming in..
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, No IS (both I can live with)
|
|
|
Finally ordered this beast through BH, arrived yesterday after a week of shipping/delivery...
in short.. I can fully understand why it is more than double than my 28-135mm is usm..
Before I even mount it on my 5D, I knew it was going to be a great lens but once I took test shots and reviewed it on my monitor, I was just blown away with its sharpness, and contrast. Color was also unbelievably good...
Aside from the absense of IS and its weight, I can't even think of anymore cons.
Now when I save enough for 16-35mm f2.8 usm, and 70-200mm f2.8 is usm, I'll be done completing my collection.
|
|
|
Aug 31, 2007
|
|
DmitriM
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 18, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1780
|
|
Review Date: Aug 28, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $950.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
quality,build
|
|
Cons:
|
dust. It does get in,but can withstand it much better than other lenses
no IS...
|
|
Owned this one for a few years.One of the best lenses to own. Sure it's expensive,but you get the top quality. You can get away with sigma or Tamron,which can be very close,but if you want the best,this is the one. Hopefully Canon will release an IS version of this lens. It would be a huge success. IS lenses get cheaper and cheaper. I don't see a reason why they can't make this happen..for a few hundred $$ more.(though,there are some IS lenses that cost $200)
Most of my shots in my fashion section of my website were taken with this lens( www.dmitrimarkine.com )
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2007
|
|
imageos
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 21, 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Aug 14, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
heavy, good balance with 30D Grip and mark II, zoom smoth, the hood system...buid...i shoot offen in rain...it doesn`t bother me at all
|
|
Cons:
|
just 24...on other hand..it`s perfect for me with 1.3X
|
|
|
perfect for range..it`s sharp, except 70mm 2.8, even 4..sometimes...sometimes, with 580exII, i think the focus is more acurate..
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2007
|
|
dipstik
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Aug 13, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Range, speed, weather sealing, image quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
Size & weight, the barrel has become loose when fully extended, overall peculiar design
|
|
I shoot this lens on a 5D, and love the versatility it offers. Full frame @ 24mm is wide enough for a lot of applications, while 70mm is perfect for portraits.
The image quality from this lens is also great, as is its focusing speed and ability to close focus.
The only downside is its size and weight, but that is to be expected from a 2.8 lens.
I also appreciate the weather sealing. Even though I don't shoot with a weather-sealed body, I'm convinced the rubber gasket around the mount prevents a lot of dust from entering my camera. 
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2007
|
|
dclement7
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 12, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 63
|
|
Review Date: Aug 4, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
This lens is Tack Sharp wide open and just gets better from there. I just cannot say enough positive things about this lens. If you can afford it, "Run...don't walk" and get one. You will not be disappointed.
|
|
Cons:
|
Absolutely Nothing!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 4, 2007
|
|
Anthony Chandl
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 27, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 27, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,099.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast, heavy and solid. It is a professional lens. I have excellent vision and this is better an what I normally see. 2.8, L, Canon and great for full-frame. Need I say more. I bought this at $600 cheaper from a doctor who used it for 13 photos. Ummm, yeah. There is a god.
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing really. It is what it is. Weight is expected. Cost is lessened by used status. If you can't use this lens, then you need you get your eyes tested and not the lens recalibrated.
|
|
|
I must say that the feel and weight of this lens was a big pull. I am going to have to sell my 17-40mm EF and 50mm 1.8 II (maybe even my 70-200mm f/4) on eBay to pay for this, but it is so worth it. It was so fast on the new Mark III body today, and superb on my EOS 3. Just putting this lens on my body I knew what a wonderful piece of technology this was. It is a great middle ground zoom lens in those important prime areas (24mm, 35mm, 50mm). In Cambodia this lens would have given me much better portraits, but would have been useless in the Angkor temples. For Peru, it should be ideal insofar as it fills in that medium space but allows for lower light. I hate flash, so for me this is a godsend.
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2007
|
|
bpittam
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 19, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 45
|
|
Review Date: Jul 25, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Tack sharp at 50-70mm, but if my copy was sharp at 24mm (f/2.8) I would be thrilled.
|
|
Cons:
|
Softness at 24mm, heavy
|
|
|
I have sent my lens in 3x for repair and still back focusing at 24mm, but sharp at 70mm. I talked to a Canon Supervisor they themselves are not the ones who say if the lens gets replaced for a new one. I will be sending the lens and camera in for a 2nd time together to see if they can fix the issue. However the lens focuses the same on (3) camera bodies. I am just frustrated with the Canon support and technical knowledge of the lenses....
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2007
|
|
FatBoyAl
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Sep 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 631
|
|
Review Date: Jul 6, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Size, weight (for helping damp movement), build quality, image quality, hood!
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight (for carrying all day)
|
|
|
OK, so I traded my much used 24-105 for this beauty. If you read my review for that lens, you'll see I spent a good amount of time deciding between that lens and this one when I did the initial purchase. The 24-105 has IS and the extra reach. This lens has the 2.8. I thought, like many do prior to using both, that those were the differentiating factors. From a 'reading the specs' viewpoint, those are the differences. From a 'looking at the shots' viewpoint, there's just something...extra...with the 24-70.
My 24-105 was sharp - both wide open and at both ends. Great color, contrast, clarity. Shots took USM well. And I used it all the time, everywhere. I used my 17-40 inside for group shots, but the rest of the time, I had on the 24-105. But there always seemed to be something missing. I don't know, occasionally it wowed.
The 24-70, however, seldom seems to fail to wow. In that regard it reminds me more of my 17-40 than the 24-105. This is a wonderful lens!
Then there's bokeh. The 24-105 had decent background blur in situations where you allowed for it. Close to subject with some distance to the background. Decent, but not special. The 24-70 provides absolutely amazing bokeh - and while shot composition is always going to play a part, this lens delivers the goods consistently, especially at 2.8.
I actually like the hood, like the weight except on 110 degree days when the strap is making my neck sweat like a water fountain, love the build and USM focusing.
Now, with having used both, I will still stand by my statements in choosing either: unless your shooting style demands the 2.8 this lens offers (for instance low-light concert shots where the extra stop is the only way to get a shot) or the extra focal length of the 24-105, it's purely a personal choice. Both lenses offer great IQ, L quality and are terrific to shoot with.
I think I'm keeping this one, tho!
|
|
|
Jul 6, 2007
|
|
petr vokurek
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 16, 2007
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Jun 25, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness right from f 2,8, well built, reliability...overall quality
|
|
Cons:
|
I donīt like the fact that the front barrel goes out when zooming towards the wide end. In this respect I much prefer the 17-40/4 that stays the same when zooming. On the other hand, this design helps to make the best use of the deep lens hood.
|
|
|
This is a must lens if you are an event photographer using a FF camera- this and the 70-200/2,8. With this combo you are able to do practicly anything. On an Eos 5d this lens is extremly useful for general shooting. What I like best about it is the fact it never lets me down and I can always rely on its performance even wide open. I use it at f 2,8 very often and the reults are always sharp. I am not a pixel-peeper and judge by real-life photos. I actually find it sharper in the corners at f 2,8 than my EF 28/1,8. Also the build quality is very good and it has served me well ever since I got it some 5 years ago. If you stop the lens down to some f8-11 you get really impressive sharpness throughout the frame. One aspect I find a little annoying is its weight-not for hand held shooting but when used on tripod vertically- the whole set-up is then very heavy and unbalanced. For this reason I practically never use it on tripod vertically and prefer the lighter 17-40/4 or primes. The 70-200/2,8 has this problem solved by the rotating tripod collar.
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2007
|
|
Sammy Bates
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Feb 23, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 229
|
|
Review Date: Jun 9, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,064.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent build, very sharp images, fast AF, vivid colors, wonderful saturation, creamy bokeh, smooth zoom
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Like many others, I had to choose between this lens and the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. In the end I decided that I would have to go with this lens because it "fits" my needs better. I mount it on the Canon 30D w/battery grip and it is simply fits my hand perfectly. I use a Tokina 12-24 f/4.0 for my ultra wide shots and the 70-200mm f/4.0L IS USM for my telephoto needs, so I wasn't concerned with the relatively short long end. In addition, I almost always use a tripod, so I felt that the IS feature on the 24-105mm was more than compensated for by this lens' faster aperture.
I feel that the weight for this lens is very reasonable considering it's a 2.8 lens and built extremely well. I know that a lot of reviewers complain about its weight, but they knew exactly what it weighed before the bought it, so why complain? I love the heft and feel of this glass on my camera and really feel that it is perfect. I was concerned needlessly about whether, or not I would get a good copy. This thing is razor sharp and gives me a beautiful bokeh wide open, so it would work as a portrait lens if I needed it for that, but I don't. Its minimum focus distance is around 15" and maximum magnification is 1:3.5, so I could use it as a macro lens if I needed to, but I don't. I keep this lens mounted 90% of the time and feel that it is ideal as my "walk-around" lens. As I said, I use it on my 30D, but when I upgrade to the 5D (hopefully) next year I believe that it will really start to shine.
|
|
|
Jun 9, 2007
|
|
Santoso
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 24, 2007
Location: Indonesia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 21, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
All rounder, sharpness, build, bokeh, contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
This is a dream lens for most Canonian because it covers the widely used angle. IMHO every Canon user who shoots event and wedding should have one. It is the perfect companion for your 70-200 f/2.8. If you like to sent back your lens and keep complaining about sharpness, then you should buy prime lens instead.
|
|
|
May 21, 2007
|
|
sumocomputers
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 8, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 18, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,150.00
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Once sent to Canon, very sharp, nice color, and great bokeh.
|
|
Cons:
|
On 1.6X crop, not wide enough at 24mm (38mm) and not long enough on the other end at 70mm (112mm). Canon - can I see an EF 10-135L f/2 IS for $500 please? ;-)
Had to be sent to Canon for major work. Caused me to feel that my photography skills were inferior! Well, maybe they still are, but a bum lens doesn't help...
|
|
|
I bought this lens about a year ago along with a 70-200L f/2.8 IS. I am using them with the 30D body.
I was impressed with both, but being fairly new to photography, it has only been in the last 2-3 months that I have really understood what sharp & soft mean, and what front & back focusing mean.
Took this lens and the 70-200 & 10-22 on a recent trip to the Southwest USA. While they all performed well, the 24-70 definitely was soft and had some autofocus issues. The 70-200 was sharp, but again had some autofocus issues. I was able to get some acceptable photos between good luck, manual focusing, and tweaking in Aperture. I learned a hard lesson though. BTW, the 10-22 probably gave me some of the best keeper photos - and it is "Non-L" & "Non-IS" !!! :-)
Sent both of the L lenses back to Canon recently - they both had issues (24-70 had the lens element replaced, the 70-200 had backfocus issues and was adjusted). Now? What a difference! Focus better on both, and both are very sharp.
As sad as it is after spending several thousands of dollars on Canon gear - here is my recommendation:
As soon as you buy your new Canon Lens, send it to Canon for calibration (take a couple of shots for comparison later if you want). There is a very good chance they will find something wrong, and fix it. Then start shooting and measurbating and pixel peeping. That is how bad Canon's QC seems to be. Some even report having to send it back 2 or 3 times before getting the problem resolved. Do it if necessary, especially on these very expensive lenses of the L class. Otherwise you may learn a hard lesson like me. Also don't forget that the body can sometimes be to blame.
Now you know why I gave it a low rating. I rated it on how I got it out of the box - not it's real potential. In that case it would get a 9 overall.
|
|
|
May 18, 2007
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
531
|
879250
|
Mar 22, 2013
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
89% of reviewers
|
$1,193.60
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.70
|
8.39
|
9.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
