 |
|
|
Christopher-J
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 9, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 320
|
|
Review Date: Dec 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $950.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
fast focus, SUPER sharp images, great color, great range, makes me feel like I can shoot anything!
|
|
Cons:
|
Price but only if you don't look at it as something you will use for years, once you look at it that way the price works out to be very little permonth over the life of the lens.
|
|
|
Coming from the Canon 28-80 f2.8-4 L and then the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 DG EX, two very excellent lenses I decided to treat myself to something I read was pure gold. What I read was absolutely correct the Canon 24-70 f2.8 L is pure gold, it is a masterpiece in a Professional grade lens that works flawlessly with digital SLR cameras.
Released in November 2002 it is fairly new. Replacing the now discontinued 28-70 f2.8 L that was released back in November 1993. This new lens was basically rebuilt from the previous model to allow close focusing of 0.38m/1.3ft which is the closest focus in this class range. It also had a circular diaphragm added to it so the background blur is smooth and beautiful for those that like what is artistically called bokeh. The build of this lens is L quality, built like a tank and the filter size is 77.
The weight of this lens weighs pretty much the same as the 28-70 L, 28-80 L and Sigma 24-70 EX DG lenses which although seem heavy at first you move past the weight once you see the images it produces. Ah yes, did you think I forgot to mention the Image Quality? I saved the best for last.
After playing around with this lens the first time I went to my computer opened Adobe Photoshop and began to do the long task of photo processing once the images were on my computer. Then my eyes fully opened and I was amazed at the quality of not only the images razor sharpness but also the color it produces. No other L lens I have has done this good. The images are simply amazing.
So if you can afford the (around) $1200 US retail this lens sells for brand new I would certainly add it to your gear. It is worth it in every way!
|
|
 Dec 11, 2006
|
|
Ahamed Iqbal
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 15, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 360
|
|
Review Date: Dec 10, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,125.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
1) Excellent image quality, 2)Excellent sharpness, 3)Solid Feel, 4) Shallow depth of field, 5) Resale value (not that i'd ever sell it!)
|
|
Cons:
|
1) Cost (but it is an L series)
|
|
|
Was on the fence between getting this or the Tamron 28-75. What made me decide on this lens was that on a full frame sensor the quality of the lens from corner to corner was worth it.
I am very happy that I chose this lens. While some may find it heavy, the solid feel and durable construction are very big positives for me. You can really feel the quality and precision.
The availability of the 2.8 is very useful when you want to get a shot in low light or more often to blur backgrounds to emphasize the subject. The availability of large aperture is something you really only notice when you don't have it. For instance I've used this lens MUCH more than my 70-200 4.0L mainly because of the larger maximum aperature.
Additionally the extra 4mms on the wide end do make a good amount of difference on a full frame camera (especially when shooting landscapes or large groups).
As mentioned the price was the only sticking point but given the quality and sharpness made it worthwhile. Additionally lenses unlike bodies do not go down in value that much over time so a quality lens is a very good investment.
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2006
|
|
bakerwi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 106
|
|
Review Date: Dec 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
I once owned this lens and sold it. I recently purchased the Tamron SP AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF). While the Tamron is a good lens; it is no substitute for this fabulous lens. I've just repurchased this lens and the only way I will replace this lens is if Canon makes this lens with Image Stabilization. I’ve also owned the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM lens, which is also a great lens, but I need the additional stop of light. Long live the king.
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight could be a negative, but the quality of the photos is worth every once.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 9, 2006
|
|
Teja Singh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 5, 2006
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Super sharp with excellent image reproduction. Solid build quality and excellent image quality throughout the range
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight - but for such a lens this is a minor point
|
|
|
I bought this lens a week ago, while on a recent visit to LA.
Initially, I had a choice of purchasing this lens, or the Canon 24-105 f4 IS L, however, requiring the f2.8 meant that this lens ended up in my camera bag!
This is my 3rd L lens (already own a 17-40mm L f4 and a 70-200mm L f4) and although I was used to L-lens image quality, this lens blew me away. Very impressive. The f2.8 yielded fantastic portraits.
Lugging this lens around (attached to a Canon 350D) through various theme parks and tourist attractions eventually resulted in neck and shoulder pain. The gigantic hood also means you attract a lot of attention from passers-by. However, this was a small price to pay for the amazing shots this lens produced.
Comes highly recommended if your budget can allow it!
|
|
|
Dec 5, 2006
|
|
bbrat
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 28, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Nov 29, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,150.00
|
|
Pros:
|
build, sharpness, af speed, colors,contrast, size and weight. 2.8 through out.
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
this lens is a tank! for some the weight may be an issue, but for me i like it. its fast and accurate lens. sharp, colors are great, contrast. image quality is nothing short of great! i use it on a 30D and love it. on a FF i would think its the ideal walk around lens.
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2006
|
|
workingonit
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 29, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
you tell me
|
|
Cons:
|
dont know
|
|
|
Not sure if this is the right way to ask questions, but Im also lookin at getting lens, I live in USA . I was wondering if all the issues I have read about with certain copies of this lens have been worked out, and if not is there a particular store , or site i can purchase and have more likely of a chance to get a "good copy" ?
|
|
|
Nov 29, 2006
|
|
bbrat
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 28, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Nov 28, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,150.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
colors, contrast, sharpness, boken, hood, size, weight and 2.8 throughout on my 30D. i bet its even better on a FF.
|
|
Cons:
|
none at all!!
|
|
|
fantastic lens on my 30D. i would like to think on a FF camera it would be perfect. i like the weight and size while others may not? personal preference i guess? its on my 30D 85% of the time. worth every penny. 2 things that could make this lens better, add IS to it and maybe make it a 17/20-75/80 range zoom with 2.8 throught? but it would most likely be heavier and bigger, and make some other lenses obsolete? no complaints on this lens. love it!
|
|
|
Nov 28, 2006
|
|
Audiomix
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 20, 2004
Location: Sweden
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Nov 22, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
everything
|
|
Cons:
|
nothing, except the bulky and uggly hood
|
|
|
I shoot with 5D. This zoom seems to be THE Lens to use with the camera. Much "better" than 24-105/4 I bought with the camera - virtually no contest, within the same range of course. Lack of IS doesn´t bother me - the colour, contrast and sharpness are just out of this world! Even at f/2.8. My dealer (in Sweden) tells me that only some very early manufactured copies had some problems with sharpness. Quote: "All recent lenses ARE perfect as Canon have raised their quality control standards", unquote!
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2006
|
|
DARKSTI
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 9, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 314
|
|
Review Date: Nov 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Pretty much everything!
|
|
Cons:
|
No IS for the price....
|
|
|
My favorite lens! Very fast focus, sharp as a tack and great build. My only wish is that it had IS, other wise 9.8/10!
|
|
|
Nov 5, 2006
|
|
EyeBrock
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 3, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 958
|
|
Review Date: Nov 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Clarity,sharpness,speed, 2.8L, quality build,the evocotive way it feels, the boost it gives to the AF.
|
|
Cons:
|
I have nothing negative to say. We all know 2.8 is heavier. Stop whining about it or get a crappy plastic lens and crappy picture to boot. This lens with IS would be THE lens but then it would cost $2000...ooh er!
|
|
|
Two weeks ago I got the 24-105 4L IS.
I waxed lyrically about this lens after having it for five days. My local camera store has a 14 day return policy and I found myself tossing and turning at night, second guessing myself about this and the 24-70 2.8L.
Well, I bit the bullet , returned the 24-105 and got a 24-70.
I’ve had it 2 days longer than the 24-105 and I believe this is the lens for me.
True it’s a bit heavier but you soon get used to it.
True that you lose some flexibility on the focal length.
True you lose the IS.
But on the plus side, the 2.8 really makes a difference.
The shots I tried with the 24-105 with moving water really failed to satisfy me for sharpness once I got into Photoshop. To get the shots I like I had to put the 24-105 on a tripod, defeating it’s real point.
I also noted that inside the house with my 7 month old, it was less than stellar without a flash.
The 24-70 was a different ball game. The sharpness of the images I have taken are just a quantum leap for me.
It also feels like a ‘real’ lens.
I’m ex-military and it just feels like a good bit of kit that will take some punishment but still deliver, a bit like the old 7.62 SLR rifle I used to shoot. (Brits will know what I mean).
The 24-105 is more like the SA-80 rifle. Does the job but fails to deliver the real punch of the SLR/24-70.
I find myself just looking at the lens, admiring it, holding it, and just giving it lustful glances, sad or what?
The 24-105 did not evoke these somewhat strange emotions, so I have a bond with the 24-70 that defies logic.
I feel that this lens and I will become close chums and that my best pictures are yet to come.
This lens is the real thing. My pictures are better than ever and I’m trying artistic and technical shots with my 20D that I never really thought of before.
This lens has inspired me, and it’s just worth the money, even though it is a tad steep. I think it’s the best $1300 (Canadian) I’ve ever spent.
Canon, I could sell these all day for you. Call me.
|
|
|
Nov 5, 2006
|
|
Aaron Dove
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 5, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Nov 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
probably the best walk around lens money can buy
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy, expensive, live in constant fear of it being stolen, hood scares little kids
|
|
|
there isn't much more i can say that hasn't already been said. 2.8 comes in very hand when i need it. awesome walk around lens. if you put the work into your images this lens will floor you with the results.
it will also motivate you to start working out so your neck and shoulders can support the load.
|
|
|
Nov 5, 2006
|
|
Jae Park
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 23, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 91
|
|
Review Date: Oct 26, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,600.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Clear, silent, fast
|
|
Cons:
|
HEAVY, HEAVY, HEAVY
|
|
|
Of course, the price I have put in was the price 3 years ago, so I would have been satisfied with the price today ($500 cheaper!! When did this happen??)
All I can say is that this lens is definately worth your investment. It is fast, accurate, and well-built.
I loved the photos it produced. Crisp and clean (but as always, a bit soft on the open apeture end.)
I have sold the one I got 3 years ago, but plan to buy another one soon.
The only thing about this lens: HEAVY.
And the only thing that kept me using this lens as long as I did was because of the Canon handstrap I bought with it.
Overall, highly recommended lens.
|
|
|
Oct 26, 2006
|
|
ramuman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 16, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 34
|
|
Review Date: Oct 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, build quality, AF
|
|
Cons:
|
Consdering its a zoom, none
|
|
|
This is a superb zoom. The AF speed is among the fastest of any lens I've used (including other Ls) on a 5D. The lens is sharp within reason at 2.8 and great by 4.0. As it should at this price, it has very little geometric distortion, almost no CA and good edge to edge sharpness. Flaring is just about a non-factor.
It will get bested by primes wide open, but unless you're shooting an ISO chart, you probably won't really be bothered by it. It's one of my two favorite lenses (along with the 70-200 2.8 IS) and I am very happy with my purchase.
I'm not sure why there are complaints about AF speed and weight here. The AF on this lens is very fast on a 5D. I don't think there is any lens in this focal range, zoom or prime that has a much if it all faster AF. Second the weight is the end result of all these positives - a reverse zooming, parafocal, constant aperture lens with this IQ that reaches into the wide angle region.
My only real complaint is that I think all L lenses should have a 5 year warranty, not 1.
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006
|
|
Stuart Roll
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 14, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 14, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, Size,
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
Very sharp with 5D body, nice size on 5D, looks silly on 400d as its bigger than 400d body.
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2006
|
|
Ross T.
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 14, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 191
|
|
Review Date: Oct 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast...Super SHARP!!!
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Just a Fantastic Lens....Excellent Build....Weather Proof....Super SHARP....FAST!!!! :^)
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2006
|
|
mholdef
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 25, 2005
Location: France
Posts: 1014
|
|
Review Date: Oct 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very good contrast, color and sharpness at center and edges throughout (on Canon 5D).
|
|
Cons:
|
Not as good on wide end but good to have 24mm for "emergency use"
|
|
|
Up until recently I was an "all primes" man, having shot Leica for a number of years. I converted to digital last year and since my love for photography has only grown.
Looking for lenses that I could use for travel, I invested in the 24-70L.
I was very pleased with the result, even wide open, and made comparisons with the 35/1.4L. The 24-70L held its own very well against the 35L, being a bit behind in f/2.8 to f/5.6 range but beyond there is little noticeable difference.
This said, in the f/2.8 to f/5.6 range, the lens is very good.
Very difficult to ask more from a zoom lens in my opinion and I'd highly recommend it to any own, particularly those shooting full frame.
Mark
|
|
|
Oct 1, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
531
|
879397
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
