about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
534 898014 Mar 26, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
89% of reviewers $1,192.24
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.69
8.38
9.3
ef_24-70_28u_1_

Specifications:
This new lens does what many pros thought couldn't be done - replace the previous L-series 28-70 f/2.8 lens with something even better. Extended coverage to an ultra-wide angle 24mm makes it ideal for digital as well as film shooters, and the optics are even better than before with two Aspherical elements and a totally new UD glass element. It's now sealed and gasketed against dust and moisture, and a new processing unit makes the AF faster than ever.


 


Page:  10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20>  next
          
FatBoyAl
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 668
Review Date: Oct 5, 2007 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros: Design, hood, 2.8, bokeh
Cons:
No IS, short focal range

I reviewed this lens in July of this year, having just received it after trading my 24-105. No doubt the brick is a great lens and the debate about it and the 24-105 will rage until either the brick gets IS or the 24-105 becomes a 2.8.
That said, I recently traded my brick for my beloved 24-105. While 2.8 is nice, once you're at that aperture, and have used all the ISO range you can (or want to use), then there's nothing but slower shutter speeds. On the brick, with it's weight, that means blur. Sure, you can shoot at 1600ISO and 2.8 and get some really good shots even in low-light. But with the 24-105, you can take the same situation and move ISO up.
The difference is one stop - 2.8 vs 4.0, but with IS, the 24-105 wins. OK, let's be fair - there are two situations where 2.8 will beat 4.0/IS: portraits and low-light with moving subjects. Portraits benefit from the bokeh, no doubt. I won't argue that. And IS doesn't stop moving subjects, so concert shots are better done with the larger aperture. To tell the truth, of course, 2.8 isn't really enough for low-light anyway. Ask anyone shooting indoor highschool sports.
Then there's the 70mm vs 105mm. There's just too many times for me where that extra 35mm is needed. For a walkaround on my crop, the brick just wasn't long enough. Or short enough, honestly, tho the 24-105 shares that con.
Like my recently reaquired 100-400, I'll never again sell the 24-105.


Oct 5, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add FatBoyAl to your Buddy List  
ladki
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 30
Review Date: Oct 4, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Fast - SHARP - Awesome Color and Bokeh.... perfect for what I was going to do....
Cons:
none --- not even the weight

I used to have this baby before I got robbed and lost this and my 20D...... When I got my money back -- I bought this lens back but returned it... and got the 24-105L just because it was new had just been released..... biggest mistake of my life....

Now I have my baby back and I am never going to let go of it... :D


Oct 4, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add ladki to your Buddy List  
Chris Bunjamin
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 5, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 289
Review Date: Oct 1, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: awesome build quality, sharp lens, good in low light.
Cons:
canadian price!, kindda slow focussing on fast moving objects.

This is my first L-lens and I was surprised on how heavy it was holding it the first time. Great colors, contrast, sharp pics, and nice bokeh! I shot it pretty dark environment without flash and the pics still turn out pretty good. The only thing im concerned about the lens, it focuses pretty slow when I was shooting fast moving objects at the track.

Oct 1, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Chris Bunjamin to your Buddy List  
corny
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 16, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 15
Review Date: Sep 25, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Get a sharp one and there is little to beat it in terms of flexibility, colour and overall performance.
Cons:
Lens hood enourmous and prone to getting knocked.

Now on my third and this one is great on my 5D. Punchy colours, fast focus and 24mm wide angle.

The hood is prone to being knocked and dislidged the end ring on mine (now repaired) so be careful. Try before you buy although 1dmkIII lens calibration may help with the 'copy' issues.


Sep 25, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add corny to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add lord_malone to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Andre Laubner to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Don Farra to your Buddy List  
robinng
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 1, 2003
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 47
Review Date: Sep 4, 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 4, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add robinng to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add diesel88 to your Buddy List  
DmitriM
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: May 18, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1903
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add DmitriM to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add imageos to your Buddy List  
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. Smile


Aug 13, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add dipstik to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add dclement7 to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Anthony Chandl to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add bpittam to your Buddy List  
FatBoyAl
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Sep 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 668
Review Date: Jul 5, 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 5, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add FatBoyAl to your Buddy List  

   



Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
534 898014 Mar 26, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
89% of reviewers $1,192.24
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.69
8.38
9.3
ef_24-70_28u_1_


Page:  10 · 11 · 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 · 19 · 20>  next