 |
|
|
S. PINSON
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 10, 2007
Location: France
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 10, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,500.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very good range on FF ; Very well built ; Very Sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
|
If you have a FF camera, this is THE lens you must have.
|
|
 Feb 10, 2007
|
|
golden1245
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 25, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 306
|
|
Review Date: Feb 10, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Colours are saturated and contrasty, very solid build, not as big as you'd think it'd be. Pretty sharp at F2.8, very sharp from F4 and beyond.
|
|
Cons:
|
None that I can think of right now!
|
|
|
Like many people, I read through countless reviews and studied pages and pages of pictures tagged with Canon 24-70mm on Flickr, Smugmug etc before buying due to mixed reviews. But I bit the bullet and bought this beast to go with my 30D. I already had the 20mm f2.8, 28mm f1.8 and the 50mm f1.4, but i was tired of switching lenses at events, that and the 20mm F2.8 was crummy, but the other two were awesome lenses and I was afraid to part with them to finace the zoom but I'm glad I did.
Maybe I got a good copy?? But definately worthy of L quality, usually the widest aperature isn't quite usuable on most lenses (like my 20 f2,8 which was sharp starting at f6.3?!), but 2.8 on this lense is very sharp already, by 4 it's amazing. Focusing it super fast, Heavy but solid and balanced. Needs steadier hands to take shots, but that can be perfected with practice. Shots are contrasty and saturated, I love it!
It's not as sharp as my 50mm f1.4 was, but the colours are much nicer.
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2007
|
|
Simon Pope
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 1, 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 9, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, Excellent colour and contrast, Nicely balanced on the 5D with Batt Grip
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens hood is pretty big but does the job well
|
|
|
A real workhorse of a lens. I bought it new and have worked it hard for a couple of years and with all the abuse it has taken it is still dead sharp.
As a walk around lens it covers 80% of shots that I require and copes well with low light and bad weather that I am often faced with in this country!
When I use this lens for my interior shoots and in the studio it really comes into its own prducing fantastic colour repoduction and contrast.
I was tempted and tried the newer 24-105 f/4 L IS but found that it didn't perform to as high a standard even with the IS.
I highly recommend this lens
|
|
|
Feb 9, 2007
|
|
Tom Steele
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 15, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 287
|
|
Review Date: Jan 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
It is well built, with good crisp L glass and is a solid performer.
|
|
Cons:
|
It does not have IS and it is fairly large and heavy.
|
|
|
I wanted to love this lens, I really did. I researched it like crazy and was excited to use it. But I find myself reaching for my 70-200 f/4 L IS most of the time.
I'm an amateur and camera shake is still my enemy. I have gotten some very sharp images out of this lens (even at 1/80), so I know I have a good copy, but I also get too many images that aren't crisp.
It is me - not the lens, but it still says something that I can pick up my 70-200 f/4 L IS or 100-400 L IS and take excellent, crystal clear photos while this lens leaves me with more throwaways by far.
In short, there is nothing wrong with the lens, but I believe it would be much more lens for the money if it included IS. If I had it to do over again, I might have gone for the 24-105 f/4 L IS lens. I'm going to hang onto it for a while though, and see if I can improve enough to take better advantage of this lens, and if not - someone here can take it off my hands and make magic with it. It's a good lens.
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2007
|
|
dpanicc1
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 21, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 204
|
|
Review Date: Jan 22, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
|
|
Pros:
|
The image quality is excellent--tack sharp with good color and contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
You're lucky if it focuses where you want it to focus.
|
|
|
I would have given this lens a completely different review if 20 percent of my photos not in focus, were in focus. I have had iot back to Canon three times and it is still not right. It is now a paperweight and I would never sell it on eBay for fear my rating would decline. Too bad because when it works it works well. I may have a bad copy--a lemon--but others have the same complaint about this lens.
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2007
|
|
beaucroft
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 25, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 20, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Built like a brick, sharp across range, great bokeh, has a pretty red line around it.
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight of a brick, lens hood size, awkward lens cap, pricey
|
|
This is a hell of a lens. It is my do-it-all lens and I now rarely use primes in this range. Autofocus is completely silent and fast. Colour is accurate with very little fringing of high-contrast areas.
Have used this lens with spectacular results on a 10D and a 20D. I now have a full-frame 5D and this lens has really come alive. At 24mm it is excellent.
It carries a big price-tag, but then I've spent a fortune on sub-standard lenses that didn't cut it, so sold off at a loss. Conclusion: buy cheap, buy twice - buy this.
Below are a few examples taken with it:
http://www.pbase.com/beaucroft/image/58128749
http://www.pbase.com/beaucroft/image/63493370
http://www.pbase.com/beaucroft/image/58189105
http://www.pbase.com/beaucroft/image/58560500
|
|
|
Jan 20, 2007
|
|
frostyIntrepid
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 25, 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 9, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
good build, fast AF
|
|
Cons:
|
weight
|
|
|
when I first got my copy, it tends to backfocus a little and autofocusing seems inconsistent at 24mm. Sent it in for calibration and it's tack sharp now, even wide open.
|
|
|
Jan 9, 2007
|
|
John Abbey
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 6, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 6, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
The lens is very well made and produces sharp images stopped down. Makes a pretty good portrait lens on a 1.6x body.
|
|
Cons:
|
My copy is soft and not very sharp at 2.8. The focal range is also a little odd on a 1.6 crop camera like the 20D.
|
|
|
Overall I am happy with lens. However, I find my copy is not very sharp when shooting wide open at 2.8. It is very sharp when stopped down to around f/5.6. It is a good general purpose lens for a 1.6x crop camera, but it is not very wide. The lens is also heavy on a 20D but it does not bother me as it is made well. The zoom and focus rings are very smooth and seem to be made well. I am just kind of dissapointed that it is not very sharp at 2.8.
|
|
|
Jan 6, 2007
|
|
n210s
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: May 6, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 151
|
|
Review Date: Jan 6, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $850.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great construction. Very solid. Extremely fast focus and very accurate. Excellent weather sealant. Very sharp from f2.8, nice brokeh, extremely good color.
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
This is my second of this lens(sold it when I was using film). I had recently bought the 5D, so this lens is back. This particular one is sharper then my first one. Having used the 28-80L and 28-70L, this is the best of the three. It's very sharp at wide open and has very nice contrasty color. Distortion at wide open is very little. I was debating this and the 24-105IS. We can go on and on about the two lens, but I opted for this because of f2.8. It is a perfect combo as I can go iso1000-1600 on the 5D at f2.8 and still freeze my subject in low light condition. The weight doesn't bother me at all since I am used to carry around the 1D, 28-80L,70-700IS and 550EX. This lens is a must for general or wedding photography. It is well built and extremely rugged. Recommended!!
|
|
|
Jan 6, 2007
|
|
peter qu
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 7, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jan 4, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
None
|
|
Cons:
|
Two bad copies. May be I am unlucky.
|
|
|
There are probably bad copies of this lens out there and I was unlucky enough to get two lens in a row that are bad.
First one has back-focus problem. Shooting test against 18-55mm kitlens, 50mm f/1.8 and 28-135mm IS confirms the problem. Return to BH photo for exchange.
Second lens is even worse. The electrical contact on the lens has problem. It won't communicate with the camera. When I first mount the lens onto the camera, it works fine. After a new shoot, it stops working. The camera can't autofocus it and can't shoot. The ERR 99 message on the camera confirms it is a bad copy.
So, I am returning it too.
This makes me really appreciate my 28-135 IS lens and 50mm f/1.8. I really want to love 24-70L, but, it disappoints me twice already.
|
|
|
Jan 4, 2007
|
|
reedtess
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Feb 4, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 762
|
|
Review Date: Jan 4, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,150.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
very fast AF,well built,sharp, just the right size and weight for me
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
It's purely a joy working with this lens.I sold all my lenses(60mm macro,50mm 2.5 and 70-200 f4) and my Rebel XT to acquire 30d with Canon 24-70 and I have never regret what I did.
I needed one lens that can do most of my photography style so I won't have to carry heavy loads in my bag and this lens prefectly fit.I am sill amazed after 4 months on how fast this lens can focus even in a low light condition.The sharpness is side by side to primes that I have tried.And for the reach,I just need to take a couple of steps and I get my shot. Perhaps, Canon 70-200 2.8 would be a great additional to cover more grounds.
I really enjoy this lens, it's a pro's PRO.
|
|
|
Jan 4, 2007
|
|
shortsorceress
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 26, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 130
|
|
Review Date: Dec 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Good construction and durability [survived me dropping it after photographing my last wedding], I use this as my walkaround lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight may be considered a negative to some, it is a little heavier than what I am use to, but that doesn't really bother me.
|
|
|
Since purchasing this lens about six months ago I have switched to using it almost entirely. Every once in awhile I find myself wishing it had a little more reach, but for most of my day-to-day photographing this works out nicely.
I have taken over 20k of images with this lens and each and every one of them turn out sharp and the saturation and contrast are perfect.
I do a lot of work in low light situations and this lens is perfect for what I want to do. I would highly recommend this lens to everyone.
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2006
|
|
Offline
|
|
Review Date: Dec 24, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp. Excellent focus accuracy and speed. Great contrast and colors too!
|
|
Cons:
|
Lens hood is big but well designed.
|
|
|
This is truely a world class lens. I originally had the 24-105 f/4 L IS, which is a wonderful lens, but I was never content with it after borrowing a friends 24-70. The enhanced focusing of the 30d at 2.8 or wider really makes this lens shine. I miss the extra range out to 105 and of course the IS, but I have no regrets with this lens.
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2006
|
|
bbudman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 22, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 617
|
|
Review Date: Dec 23, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,024.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Robust build quality, Weather sealing, Quiet and fast autofocus, F/2.8 aperture, Super sharp even wide open. Did I mention super sharp?
|
|
Cons:
|
Slightly heavy but quality glass is going to be this way!
|
|
|
When I first decided I had an interest in this lens I tried one at my local retail camera shop. Honestly the sharpness was no better that my EF 28-105 USM II. Sure the contrast and colors were better but wide open it was a disappointment. I tried a second copy a few weeks later with the same result. I ended up buying the Sigma 24-70 EX DG Macro and used it for a few months before selling it. It was pretty sharp wide open but the autofocus was noisy and the manual focus override annoyed me. For some time I have considered buying the 24-105 L IS but in the end I just wanted the F/2.8 aperture because I prefer faster glass over IS for my shooting style. Finally I broke down and purchased one from B&H because I figured I would give it another chance. Plenty of people I know own this lens and love it and I figured if I did get another soft copy I would return it to Canon for calibration. As luck would have it I did receive a sharp copy. In fact this lens is as sharp wide open at all focal lengths as my 70-200 F/2.8L IS!
I am so happy I bought this lens. On my 1.3x Mark II N this lens is great. It is wide enough for a walk around lens and the photo quality far exceeds my expectations. The color and contrast just blows me away. I have shot indoors as well as outside and all of the photos so far are sharp as a razor. This lens has yet to miss focus and even indoors without flash I have yet to see it hunt for focus! Outdoors stopped down it gets even sharper! At F/5.6 it is amazing. Sure is has some weight to it especially attached to my 1 series body but I can handle it. I am really looking forward to vacation next week because this lens is going to be attached to one body at all times. It is that good! The other nice thing is the zoom. I love the fact that the lens gets shorter with the increase in focal length. With the hood attached the lens never appears to change size with focal length unlike the Sigma. Finally the autofocus has to be praised. It is the most quiet lens I own. It is so quiet that had I not seen the image pop in to focus I would not have known it was working at all. Thumbs up to Canon on this one! I rated this a 10 across the board. I got a great deal when I purchased mine but I would have gladly paid more had I known it would be this good.
|
|
|
Dec 23, 2006
|
|
jlafontaine
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 22, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Contrast, build, reverse zooming mechanism.
|
|
Cons:
|
Wish it was a bit smaller
|
|
|
I've taken thousands of pictures with this lens on my 5d I'm amazed by the image quality. I upgraded from the Tamron 28-75 F28 DI bla bla bla bla... and it was worth every penny. I loved the Tamron, but this one has a much better build, focussing mechanism, and IQ! I must admit that at F/5.6 I could hardly tell the difference between the two lens, Canon having a slight advantage, but I shoot mostly F/2.8 and this is where the Tamron fails. The Tamron was MUCH to soft at F2.8. If you are on a budget and shoot mostly F4 or higher, get the Tamron, else get the Canon, you won't regret it.
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2006
|
|
Brikwall
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 2, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Dec 19, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,379.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Exceptional image and build quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I needed something wider to compliment my 70-200mm f/2.8L USM. I looked at a number of options, including other Canon models (EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 and EF 24-105mm f/4L IS) as well as Tamron's 17-50mm f/2.8 and 28-75mm f/2.8. I kept coming back to this lens.
The Tamrons, despite the significant difference in price, simply didn't have the same feel as the Canon L-series lenses. The EF-S 17-55mm was rejected since I can't use it with my 35mm film camera. The 24-105mm f/4L, although being a very nice lens, was also unsuitable: IS and an extended focal range just don't make up for the loss of one f-stop and the nicer bokeh for portrait work.
Some people complain about the weight of this lens but, compared to the 70-200mm f/2.8L, it feels significantly lighter. And, being shorter than the 70-200, it also seems to be better balanced on the RebelXT. I also don't see the over-sized lens hood as an issue since it remains fixed as the lens extends and retracts during zooming. Instead, I see this as additional protection for the barrel when it's extended and, more than likely, at its weakest.
Some people also complain about the focal range being "odd" or "impractical" when used on a 1.6x FOVCF body like the RebelXT (38-112mm equivalent). Personally, I find the "roughly" 35mm wide-end acceptable for group shots and some interiors (larger rooms). I don't do a lot of landscape photography, so don't lament the loss of the 24-35mm (35mm equiv.) focal range when used on my RebelXT (of course, I still have that capability when used on my film body). I like the fact that, when used on the RebelXT, this lens extends well into the focal range generally used for head-and-shoulder portraits, meaning it serves well for both full-body and close-up portrait work.
This lens performs just as well as my 70-200mm f/2.8L. Images are sharp, even wide open, and contrast and colour saturation are great. AF is quick and responsive. I love the additional option of Full-Time Manual, which is great in low-light and low-contrast situations.
What more can I say - I think this lens is fantastic!
|
|
|
Dec 19, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
531
|
879251
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
