about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
528 909262 Dec 16, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
88% of reviewers $1,189.84
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.68
8.36
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
          
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: On



Registered: Sep 4, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 671
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  
petr vokurek
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 16, 2007
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 12
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 don´t 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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add petr vokurek to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Sammy Bates to your Buddy List  
Santoso
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 23, 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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Santoso to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add sumocomputers to your Buddy List  
Jia Wang
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 2, 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 120
Review Date: May 17, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: - Beautiful bokeh - Responsive and fast AF - Solid built
Cons:
- Weight - Extending barrel

Finally got my copy of this lens after a 3 years long wait (to save up as well as improve my photography skills to justify this super lens)...

I must say that in today's world of DSLR and 1.3-1.6x crop factor bodies, 24mm is hardly wide enough... But what I was looking for was a zoom to plug the gap between my EF17-40.. f4L and Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 lenses... Been doing without it for many years, mainly because I uses my 50mm f1.4 to fill in the gap...

Was toying with the idea of getting a 24-105mm f4L too, but figured that I would rather have the wider aperture than the stretch of the focal length and IS...

Optics-wise, I'm more than happy with the quality and the bokeh is extremely smooth... Probably due to the circular blade apertures of this lens...

I did a short test-shoot with this lens at a shopping mall and boy this lens rocks!
http://www.pbase.com/jiawang/vivo_2470_test


May 17, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Jia Wang to your Buddy List  
JohnnyCat
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 9, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: May 14, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Good Color
Cons:
Not Sharp out of the Box

My experience with 3 Canon L lenses is that they are not sharp out of the box. All 3 L lenses I have owned had to be sent back to the factory in California for calibration. After 70-200 L 2.8 IS USM was returned it blew me away beyond my expectations. Didn't realize a lense could be so sharp. 24-105 F4 just too slow, not sure I would recommend this lense. I sold it. However, the 24-70 L USM is just right. Especially on a 5D. I'm an amateur but the difference of the L lenses on a 5D is considerable. I'm always shocked at how good some pictures come out on the 5D without always trying. However 20D/24-70 L 2.8 also rates as a good combination; If your considering moving up try this combo, you won't be dissapointed, that is after Canon "adjusts" your lense for a "second time." PJP

May 14, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add JohnnyCat to your Buddy List  
Pablo Vicente
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 24, 2007
Location: Belgium
Posts: 160
Review Date: Apr 29, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Fast and reliable focus, 2.8 @ 3200 ISO leaves the tripod home when needed, good hood for sun and shock protection, so sharp I don't always need the normally obliged unsharp mask, details in pixels, nice constrast
Cons:
expensive price, weight requires steady hands, attracts bystanders

Having used this lens in fashion, street, event and nature photography it is what stays on the camera as standard.Requires steady hands and you won't need to work out your arms a lot when using this with a cam+ grip + speedlite unit.Difference with standard lenses is obvious at 100 per cent.The 28-105 USM II does perfom very well and costs 1/4 the price.What to choose ? Depends on your return-on-investment plans and the need of a fast lens.

I have shot concerts @ 5.6 , but L @ 2.8 really makes a difference.I would not recommend it to a person new to photography because of the high price better invested in prints and studying ( I started with 100 dollar lenses ) , but rather to someone who already knows what he/she is doing and wants to climb up.

Most studio portraits on my site are done with this lens.For extreme close ups I like to use the 700-200 2.8 and the 100 2.8 macro.


greetings,


Pablo

www.PabloVicente.com
www.digitalpixels.net


Apr 29, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Pablo Vicente to your Buddy List  
retrofocus
Online
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 19, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 4251
Review Date: Apr 19, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,154.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Well built lens. Constant max. aperture f2.8 between 24-70mm. Fast autofocus. Excellent optical quality. Very good color reproduction and nearly perfect contrast.
Cons:
None

I bought this lens as addition to my Canon 100-400mm L lens and the Sigma 10-20mm lens. Since I use a D-SLR with a crop factor of 1.6, the efficient focal length of this lens is 38-112mm. It is a fast lens, nicely applicable for some close-up and portrait photographies. The autofocus with a silent USM drive is fast and reliable. The front lens does not move when focusing. It also allows to manually change the focus in the AF mode.
Since I already have a Sigma 10-20mm lens it did not matter to me that this Canon lens provides only a relatively small wide angle range on my Rebel XT.
This lens is heavy, but I prefer better to have an excellent buit quality with metal instead of plastic frames.


Apr 19, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add retrofocus to your Buddy List  
PhotoproX
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Apr 6, 2007
Location: Albania
Posts: 0
Review Date: Apr 15, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,300.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: sharpness, contrast, flare resistance, close focusing
Cons:
not that fast if you´re used to prime lenses, external focusing (covered under the hood though)

Possibly one of the best quality mid-range zooms available today with great IQ and good range from wide to light tele. This one allows both group shots and single portraits (and everything in between) in one package.

The lens is not too heavy and balances well on the 5D. At 70mm its as sharp it gets even wide open and produces pleasing bokeh. The wide end is a little worse, still on a very high level though.

Looks like I found my ideal travel and landscape lens.

Coming from Canons L primes, constant 2.8 aperture is not really fast and even the cheapo 50/1.8 beats it at 50mm. But then, the 50 sucks at every other focal length...


Apr 15, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add PhotoproX to your Buddy List  
emandavi
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 998
Review Date: Apr 4, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: sharp 2.8 lens (isn't that why we buy it?). Great as an all around lens, especially on a 1.6 factor camera. With this lens on a 1Ds MII, and a 70-200 2.8 L IS on my 20D, I don't ever have to change lenses.
Cons:
When using Full frame camera, 70mm just isn't enough sometimes, and I hate to be switching lenses in the middle of an event, so I have 2 cameras on me.

Poor price, since Tamron does something comparable for under $400. This lens is beautiful for head and shoulder shots on a 1.6 crop camera. I was able to buy a used 28-75mm lens (Tamron) 4 days after buying this lens, and it beats the Tamron, no contest. But if I was able to buy the Tamron prior to spending money on this lens, I wouldn't be writing this review. The Tamron isn't as sharp at 2.8, and the focus isn't as dependable, but you can get some real winning photos with the Tamron lens if you're not going to blow the prints up larger than 11x14. I'm speaking of shots taken at the 2.8 aperture of course (why else would we spend the money if it wasn't for the 2.8?)?

Apr 4, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add emandavi to your Buddy List  
Aryo
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Nov 13, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 15
Review Date: Mar 29, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Excellent image quality/build.
Cons:
None.

Honestly, I've been too busy actually using the lens to post a review. For what I shoot, this is an excellent choice for the sharpness and clarity. The focusing is quick and silent. This lens is the workhorse of my setup because it's so versatile. The construction is quite sturdy and with proper care will last for a long time. If you're looking to cover a broad range without spending a lot on numerous lenses, this is a good start (followed by the 70-200mm L [all are good]).


Mar 29, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Aryo to your Buddy List  
kenscott
Offline
Image Upload: On

Registered: Sep 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 17
Review Date: Mar 21, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,219.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Great range, sharp and fast.
Cons:
heavy

I bought this lens from Calumet photo the week of March 12th 2007 and I have noticed a few things that Canon updated silently. I noticed that the AF switch is different from other versions that I have seen. I also noticed that the Zoom internals are different. The lens used to zoom out slightly after you hit 50mm on the way to 70mm. With my 24-70 it goes from full-out at 24mm to full-in at 70mm. On the older versions you had to get it to 50mm to be as short as possible to pack it away. I feel that the zoom is more dampened in a nice way. I think that they changed the zooming internal workings of the lens. The other versions that I have used have slipped around a little too much. Doing a test VS my canon 50mm 1.4 at 2.8 the prime 50mm is only slightly sharper than this zoom. I really enjoy this lens.

Enjoy,

Ken



Mar 21, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add kenscott to your Buddy List  
aeubank
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 20, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 608
Review Date: Mar 20, 2007 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Beautiful bokeh, good light and vignette control. Very sharp. A must-have for a serious photographer. If you whip this baby out, you'd better know how to take pictures.
Cons:
Attracts quite a bit of attention (not that that's a bad thing).


This lens is a must-have for any serious photographer. I've had mine for some time and I love the fact that this lens always delivers. Others have stated that they have received a soft copy, but mine is definitely sharp at all focal lengths.

I chose this lens over the 24-105 f4 mainly because I know and appreciate the value of having that additional stop that this lens allows at f2.8 which is twice the light over the f4 model. Even without IS this lens delivers big results. It's not cheap but you get what you pay for. Build quality is superb and will probably last many years to come. When you have this lens on your camera, people know you mean business. It seems to attract attention everywhere it goes.

Some have complained about the weight of the lens, but it feels just right for me. Overall, you can't go wrong with this lens. Rock solid Canon reliability and quality.


Mar 20, 2007
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add aeubank to your Buddy List  

   



Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
528 909262 Dec 16, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
88% of reviewers $1,189.84
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.68
8.36
9.3
ef_24-70_28u_1_


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