 |
|
|
dottò
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 4, 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 9, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely versatile, 2.8, sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
AF could possibly be faster, price
|
|
|
I bought this beast mainly for weddings, and man, it is like bread and butter. It's so versatile that it's just amazing how many shots you can take.
However, I recommend you carefully think about your equiment and shooting situations before buying it. My review here is based on weddings. If you shoot on a 1.3 or 1.6 crop DSLR this lens is very appropriate, even though in some situations you may find yourself missing wide angle coverage. If you shoot FF, film or digital, the 24-105 may be a better choice, assuming image quality is the same. I shoot FF and at times I found myself lacking the extra 35 mm when trying portraits.
Other than this there's not much to say, I just want to leave a couple of lines about:
- weight and size. I didn't have much trouble carrying it around, the only thing about weight is that you probably won't be able to handhold the camera with long shutter times. As to size, use a battery for a better grip.
- AF. It is fast, not super fast, and I haven't checked it out in low light situations.
Now you may wonder why I haven't said anything about sharpness blah blah blah.... Before and after buying this lens I was a little worried because of the many complaints I read, here on FM and elsewhere... Well, apparently I got a good copy.
Overall this lens kicks ass, it does everything it is supposed to. Is it worth the extra cash when compared to other similar range zooms (eg Sigma 24-70)? I don't know, probably not, but it's nice to see a red ring on your camera...
Happy shooting
|
|
 Sep 9, 2006
|
|
Pell
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 26, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 1592
|
|
Review Date: Sep 2, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, L build, Weather Seal, Range, Speed
|
|
Cons:
|
None. I hear Quality Control on this lens is poor. I lucked out. Like ANY lens out there, could benifet from IS.
|
|
|
My copy of this lens is fantastic. It is sharp as a tack at F8 (sharp as the 135 in this case). It is quite sharp at 2.8 as well.
It is unfortunate this lens varies from copy to copy, because If everyone was lucky enough to get a copy like mine, this lens would surely get a 9.5 rating.
|
|
|
Sep 2, 2006
|
|
jerrybsmith
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 31, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 27
|
|
Review Date: Aug 26, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
24-70 covers most shots I take. Built like a tank
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy. Not as sharp at 2.8 as I would expect.
|
|
|
I've always felt it more important to build a collection of quality glass that will last while updating cameras as technonogy changes. I had my copy for almost a year and was happy with the results but suspected it was a little too soft so I sent it to Canon to calibrate. What came back was amazing. It is now so sharp it is like having a completely new lens. This is a great lens.
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2006
|
|
AFFD
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 3, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Aug 16, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Useful range, good walk around lens, pictures need little post processing
|
|
Cons:
|
A little long and heavy
|
|
|
I have been using this lens as my primary walk around lens for about six months. I just did two political fund raisers with lens and found it exceptionally useful. At the last one, I shot around 500 pictures in about two hours and this lens produced a very high number of keepers that have required not post-processing. It's probably my most useful lens and produced some exceptionally good portraits with and without flash.
Highly recommended.
By way of comparison, I have the 17-40 F4L, the 23-85 F3.5, the 70-200 F2.8L in addition to a selection of fast primes.
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2006
|
|
tutumon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 3, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1086
|
|
Review Date: Aug 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,150.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent build, Fast, Beautifull image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight, but we all know that
|
|
|
I have had two copies of this lens. I bought the first one from B&H, but decided to sell it because I was taken aback with its weight. I've never owned a bin lens before and it was too much. I sold that lens on the forum, but started having withdrawls since the day I shipped it out. It was an exceptional copy to boot. So I bought another copy from a forum member, which also turned out to be a very good copy. I'd never sell this lens. Even if I do not use it everyday, it is so versatile.
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2006
|
|
pupsikus
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 3, 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 3, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
build, hood
|
|
Cons:
|
too big for my bag focus problems
|
|
|
wanted to have something better than my EF-S 17-85 and had focus problems with Sigmas 18-50. Hence wanted to try something different and ordered 24-70 2,8 and 24-105 4,0 (not so much on target). When I looked at picturs taken with the 24-70 I was very disappointed. Maybe I did something wrong but I saw some brownish blurr around some people I took pictures of when shooting with light from the side wide open and focus was not really stable (maybe a problem of the body? But my other lenses work fine, even the EF 100 2,8). However if correctly focussed and light from behind, pictures are razor sharp.
Hence I seem to confirm quality control problems with this lens (I tried 2 different ones and returned them both).
I decided to go for the 24-105 even if it is slower than desired and after a calibration and cleaning journey to Canon I am very happy with it.
Overall, stopped down to 3,5 with proper focus, the 24-70 is hard to beat.
|
|
|
Aug 3, 2006
|
|
rslee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 19, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 57
|
|
Review Date: Jul 27, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, Sharp, and Fast
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight - I actually like it as long as I am not hiking with it.
|
|
|
It took me while to post a review for this lens. I guess I was having too much fun with it. One of my favorite lens. I can’t say enough good things about it. I also own 24-105L. They are equally nice but I notice that I am using 24-70 more.
It appears that many people have different experiences with this lens. I guess I am lucky to have a good copy on the first shot. For those who are reading these reviews, please take in to a consideration that more dissatisfied customers will be likely to post a review than the satisfied customers. I have read all the available reviews on this forum before I purchased all my equipment. 10-15% bad reviews never bothered me.
If you use this focal length, get it!!
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2006
|
|
TeeCee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 24, 2006
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor calibration. SOFT, SOFT, SOFT
New rating 3
|
|
|
My second replacement copy was as bad as the first. I'm off to buy a 135 f2 L. Shame, I did want the convienience of the 24-70.
|
|
|
Jul 24, 2006
|
|
TeeCee
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 13, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 18, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Feel, Weight! 2.8 brightness
|
|
Cons:
|
Lousy calibration
|
|
|
This is my first review. Having used film for 30 years and digital compact for 5, I have been waiting for some time to go DSLR. Due to my budget I could go 5D but lenses need to be good or 30D and some L glass lenses. I decided for the latter and start with a 24-70 2.8L. Having read all the reviews on this lens I felt there was a chance I wouldn't get a sharp copy. I figured it was worth the risk and bought the 30D and the 24-70 together.
The 30D impressed instantly with feel and weight. The lens did too and I found it pleasantly weighted. Together they are very well balanced. I took about 100 test shots of varying conditions and when I looked at the very clear screen, they nearly all looked soft. The colours and contrast were good as was light capturing but did not look any different to a kit lens. No 'Wow' factor.
After loading the software and downloading I realised I had a poorly calibrated lens. The colour and contrast were brilliant but every shot was soft. So I am sending it back for another gamble of a replacement. If I don't get a sharp copy by the third I will go with primes.
I hope Canon read these reviews and do something about their internal quality control and calibration, it is really irritating.
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2006
|
|
Mister W
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 8, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 64
|
|
Review Date: Jul 8, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Good build quality, Amazing detail in images captured,
|
|
Cons:
|
Price (£1200.00 in Jessops at time of my purchase)
|
|
After doing my duty on the smaller basic lens's, I decide to upgrade to the 24-70mm f2.8 lens.
I was amazed at how great this len is for taking landscape shots. I own a 100-400 IS L lens, as well as a 35-135 lens, and find that the 24-70 is the main lens on my camera.
I have been able to get some great shots with this lens, coupled with my 300D body (please see http://www.mrw.smugmug.com) and would not change this for the world.
I can't wait to attach this to my new Canon 1DS MKII coming shortly, as I feel that the increase in mega pixels will make for an even better photo.
Price is a bit of a put off. Was priced at £1200.00 at Jessops at the time of my purchase, but I was lucky enough to find a deal on Ebay for £870.00.
At the end of the day, if you can afford the lens, buy it. You'll get good shots, and great clarity in the photos.
|
|
|
Jul 8, 2006
|
|
richandy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 30, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 28
|
|
Review Date: Jun 26, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp!!!, tack sharp, one of my best lens. Worth every penny.
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I have had some great photos from this lens, one of the best in my bag, might be a bit expensive, but you get what you pay for. If you can afford it buy it.
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2006
|
|
comradeTJH
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 20, 2006
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jun 20, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast Focus, build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Major Quality-Controll issues, lots of copies backfocuses, too much fringing for an L lens in this price class
|
|
|
This is now my second copy of the lens and I'm experiencing the same issues I did with my first one. Backfocuses most of the time (sometimes even visible in the viewfinder), so you just can't rely on the AF. Approx. 1 out of 10 pictures were focused correctly though. Overall image-quality does not match any of my primes (EF 50 F1.4 and EF 100 F2.8 Macro) nor the very far superior EF 70-200 F4 L which is only the half price!
There's even even lot of fringing throughout the images and very soft wide open! Experienced less vignetting than I expected though.
So, overall I'm (again) quite disappointed by this lens. Most probably I 'just' got a bad copy again but I start wordering how difficult it is to get a good one. If you can get your hands on fortunate one it's definately a superb lens regarding all the very positive reviews.
|
|
|
Jun 20, 2006
|
|
swormley
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 15, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,149.95
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent general purpose lens on my full frame dSLR
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
Wide-angle lenses are the hardest to use effectively and one can't
expect lenses like EF 16-35mm F2.8 L USM and EF 24-70mm F2.8 L USM
to perform with the same edge to edge sharpness as quality telephoto
lenses at maximum aperture. Wide-angle lenses have greater chromatic
aberration and distortion. Having acknowledged that, Canon has done
a remarkable job in the design of their fast wide angle zoom lenses.
Darwin Wiggett's article, "How to Use Wide Angle Lenses Effectively"
at http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0403/dw0403-1.html is
instructive in technique and perceptions.
Hard to imagine now, but I was really disappointed when bought my
first wide-angle lens, Canon's FD 24mm F2.8 many years ago. I grew
to love and use that 24mm lens effectively. Having switched to full
frame dSLR, I chose to go with the EF 16-35mm F2.8 L USM and
EF 24-70mm F2.8 L USM. These are excellent lenses and were good
choices for me.
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2006
|
|
scseh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 30, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,179.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Tack Sharp...Very Fast....Amazing Clarity....Gorgeous Details....
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive and Heavy
|
|
|
For the past year, I had been sitting on the fence about picking up the Tamron 24-75 XR DI F/2.8 Lens.
Initially, I wanted to get the Tamron because it was touted as offering the quality of this lens at 1/3 the price. Back then, the Tamron XR DI lens was in short supply and was mainly available as a used eBay or Craigslist lens.
Mixed in with the numerous stories of trying to find the Tamron lens were the numerous reports of many Tamron lens' having QA issues. Purchasing a good copy was like a roll of the dice. It was this dicey risk that ultimately caused me to put the Tamron efforts in the shoebox.
I had a conversation with a co-worker regarding the Tamron vs Canon L Series lens. He gave some good arguments in favor of the Canon 24-70 L series lens. His arguments were unargueable and they were the seeds that caused me to look more closely at this lens.
I read some negative postings, and I read many positive postings. The positive postings dwarfed the negative postings.
The only thing that held me back from buying this lens before was money.
What pushed me to finally pull the trigger and purchase this lens was money.
In addition to money, I had photography related events that were coming up like my cousin's Baby Baptism, a family wedding next month, and my daughter's pre-school graduation at the end of June.
I got a bonus check at work and the time was right.
I drove to Keeble and Shuchat in Palo Alto on Friday. They were running a no sale tax promotion. I would have ordered from B&H if the promotion had not happened.
I picked up the 24-70 F/2.8 lens, a $110 UV filter to protect the lens, a Battery Grip, and an OMNI-BOUNCE for my 580EX flash.
I took the new lens and Battery Grip to a children's birthday party on Saturday, and to my niece's baby baptism on Sunday.
I took the pictures in RAW format and used Raw Shooter's Premium 2006 to adjust and to output to JPEG format last night.
The pictures were awesome. Many of the pictures were very detailed and tack sharp.
On portrait shots, you could see the minor details on a person's face. This includes imperfections, pores, and baby facial hairs.
Just seeing the quality of this lens so far is extremely impressive. I have not looked back since purchasing this lens.
I have a Canon 20D that I purchased one year ago so I had to pay that off before buying this lens. I wish that I had this lens a year ago when I got married.
After purchasing the 20D, I was using a cheap Canon lens that I bought on eBay for $80. My pictures were ok.
The combination of this lens and my 20D give me picture quality that I couldn't imagine.
Also, the battery grip gives you more room to grip especially with the weight of this lens.
The combination of the battery grip and the 24-70 L Lens has pretty much tripled the weight of the camera from its previous configuration of camera and cheap eBay Canon lens.
The only downside to this lens is that the pictures look so good that it raises your standards so that your next lens purchase will most likely be another L Series lens.
Qualitatively, this is a good thing. Quantitatively, this may not be a good thing for your wallet.
If you want a lens that will perform out of the box, then this is the lens to get if it fits the range that you need and fits your budget.
If it doesn't fit your budget, then maybe the Tamron lens is a good starter lens with the eventual graduation to this lens.
|
|
|
Jun 5, 2006
|
|
mcd0234
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 30, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 30, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
build is fantastic, sharp, bokeh is about as good as it can get, colour, inspires confidence
|
|
Cons:
|
hood attachment (goes for Canon in general though)
|
|
|
I had the old version of this lens which was very, very good. After getting rid of that to one of my occasional wedding assistants, I was deciding if I should buy this or the new 17-55 IS. After playing with them both (and I am surprised by just how good the new 17-55 IS is, with the exception of build for the price asked) I decided to stick with this lens as it still hasn't been bested by anything, it simply inspires confidence and I know what I am going to get - which is great shots. The colour, sharpness, bokeh, its just all fantastic. It is also in my sweet spot as far as range goes (I do use bodies with a 1.6 crop), in fact I'd say 60-70% of shots from a wedding or even a portrait shoot are from this lens, albeit perhaps a little less percentage for portraits. I rarely need to go wider except when I'm doing landscape shots, and that is a fun pursuit to me not something I get paid for - I have another lens for that. Simply stunning, I don't know if everybody needs it as there are cheaper alternatives that give very good results, but they are not in the same class - or price - as this guy. This on one body and a 70-200 on the other and I'm ready to go, I couldn't ask for more. I do think it is slightly better as far as sharpness compared to the 28-70L, but in fairness it has been some years since I bought that. My one complaint, and it goes for Canon lenses in general, is the fiddly hood, you have to look to see what you are doing which should not be necessary. It is a useful hood though and I appreciate how they try to keep their filter size at 77mm
|
|
|
May 30, 2006
|
|
Remford
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Aug 7, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1391
|
|
Review Date: May 29, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
L-Series Construction, Tremendously Useful Zoom Range, Fast f/2.8 Aperture, Very Nice Contrast and Vivid Color
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight/Balance, Average Sharpness
|
|
|
For a non-stabilized standard zoom, the 24-70 f/2.8 L is a very useful handheld portrait and interior and available light lens.
The 24-70 L produces color-rich output with only minimal corner softness and light fall-off at its widest apertures. Its sharpness and image quality are consistent throughout its range.
Without a substantial body, it can seem large and a bit awkward in achieving a comfortable balance. However, it is every bit of an L lens, built for front-line combat duty, yet with surgical instrument precision.
The 24-70 is the functional alternative to the 24-105 L f/4 IS for those who need wider aperture to stop action or narrow DOF more than the ability to mitigate camera shake. Some see these two lenses as an either/or decision, however I own both and find myself reaching for either depending upon the circumstance as they bring very different strengths to the table.
It controls CA and flaring very well for a lens whose range is as wide as 24, and light fall-off is nothing remarkable for a standard zoom capable of f/2.8 maximum aperture.
Although it is very versatile and useful as a convenient and capable portrait zoom in addition to being a popular "wedding lens" for its ability to shoot indoors without flash (in many circumstances) without unduly compromising output quality by excessive ISO-induced noise, and providing a DOF/focal length range that affords very good creative potential, I found it to be somewhat less-than-razor-sharp at f/2.8. I'm certain that this is as much a result of the nature of things than the lens itself, but when shooting for detail, despite everything else there is to like about this lens, I was somewhat unimpressed.
Given its tremendously useful focal length range, it is very useful on all EF mount types and crop factors and represents very good value for mone. Should Canon produce a stabilized version of the same lens, it would be the ultimate handheld lens, bar none.
|
|
|
May 29, 2006
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
531
|
879245
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
