 |
|
|
harryset
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 23, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 325
|
|
Review Date: Jan 22, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,149.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
SHARP, fast, good color rendition, nice hefty weight to it.
|
|
Cons:
|
None.
|
|
|
Replaced my Sigma 24-70 2.8 with the purchase of my 5D. With the full-frame of the 5D, the 24-70 2.8L acts like the lenses I was used to with my film cameras. This lens is tack sharp at every setting I have tried, so far. I can once again take reasonable shots in a small room without needing a super wide lens.
|
|
 Jan 22, 2006
|
|
glazier
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 27, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 769
|
|
Review Date: Jan 21, 2006
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,100.00
|
|
Pros:
|
None
|
|
Cons:
|
Image quality was quite poor.
Over rated lens
Heavy
Costly
|
|
|
Very over rated lens.
Many photgraphers go thru several copies to get a good one.
If you really want this lens, I suggest buying it locally so you can exchange it until you get a good one.
|
|
|
Jan 21, 2006
|
|
voodoo72
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 17, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 126
|
|
Review Date: Jan 19, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,299.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Wide angle, versitility, good build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive, not so sharp
|
|
|
Had the 85 1.8 and the 135 2L. Needed to cover the wider side and went looking for a zoom to handle it. The focal length fell into my setup perfectly. The 10-22mm was good and sharp, but i want to step up to full frame some day and don't want to toss half my lenses. This zoom has good picture quality, though on the soft side. Color rendition is not as good or as vivid as my 135 2L. Does the versitile focal length make up for inferior (to primes) picture quality? I already have a bag stuffed with good primes, so I really don't want to fit two more in there to cover 24-70mm. Besides, I don't do a whole lot of shooting in that range anyway. So for me the versitility wins out. Overall it is a good lense and worthy of the "L" lable. A definite step up from any other non "L" zoom in the range.
|
|
|
Jan 19, 2006
|
|
tanglefoot47
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Oct 12, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 14723
|
|
Review Date: Jan 14, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,025.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast usm, 2.8, color, contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far
|
|
|
I sold my 24-105 for this lens and I have no regrets what so ever. Some say it's big and heavy but I don't. I would recommend this lens
|
|
|
Jan 14, 2006
|
|
incdigital
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 2, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 226
|
|
Review Date: Jan 11, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $999.99
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, Quick USM, Weather Sealed, Sharp @ 2.8, tack sharp @ F4, Smooth MF
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, Price, CA wide open
|
|
|
I've owned at one point almost all the fast standard zooms(F2.8 24-75mm range)...this lens is by far my favorite of them. MF is a breeze. AF is very fast compared to sigmas. Build is better than my old 28-70L. I get consistant sharp results from the lens...hasn't let me down unless its user error. Highly recommended!
|
|
|
Jan 11, 2006
|
|
sino408
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 30, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 903
|
|
Review Date: Jan 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,124.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, robust, weather-sealing, very-fast focusing when used in good light, can be used as a blunt object for self-defense when you're in danger.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, pricy
|
|
|
My copy of 24-70 is "significantly" sharper than my copy of tamron 28-75 that everyone raves about. The center sharpness of the canon at it's widest aperture rivals the center sharpness of the tamron 28-75 at F4. The difference fades once stopped down to about F8, but they are never the same sharpness, and the tamron never surpasses the canon.
The color rendition on the canon is very accurate and well-saturated. The contrast is also preferred over the tamron. I can venture to say that the two lenses are more different than they are similar, and the overall quality is better on the canon.
The lens is heavy, but VERY robust. I often wonder how tamron is able to build a very "similar" lens using much lighter material. I understand that the canon is made of metal (mount and barrel) while the tamron is made of plastic (barrel) and metel (mount), but I never imagined the difference to be THAT great. The canon zoom and focus rings are very smooth but well-dampened, while the tamron zoom ring is loose (but not cheap-feeling), and its focus ring is average in "feel" quality.
I would highly recommend the canon to anyone who is capable of spending the money; anyone who is looking for a bargain should consider the tamron, sigma, or tokina offerings.
|
|
|
Jan 5, 2006
|
|
David Lozoya
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 27
|
|
Review Date: Dec 31, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,149.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality was superb, image quality (edge to edge) was very good.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not good at the corners on FF (5D)
|
|
|
The build of this beast is stellar, mechanics are second to none. I know there are some duds out there and I don't think mine is one of those. If a lens exhibits excellent contrast, bokeh, no front/back focusing issues, center/edge/corner sharpness...then keep it! Any lens that can achieve all of the above criteria is stellar in my book and hard to find. This lens met all but the corner criteria.
I see that a lot of folks highly rate this lens...some of these reviews are with 1.3 or 1.6 cameras...essentially masking the corner issue. Please go back and look very carefully at your 24-70 using a full frame camera and look at the corners. There you might see (I hope not) what I saw - fuzziness. After all its a zoom lens, a very good one I might add but one that does appear to have a flaw.
I compared the 24-70 to a Contax Zeiss 28mm 2.8. The 24-70 did very well in other regions of the frame and was close to the Zeiss in overall resolution (the Zeiss is slightly better) but the Zeiss ate it for lunch at the corners. Yes, I know that the Zeiss is a fixed focal length and 3 to 4 times cheaper. Even even without the comparison, the 24-70 is below average at the corners....unacceptable in my book. In another comparison to my 17-40 (a very good copy) the 24-70 was better in all categories...but my 17-40 also exhibited the same below average corners.
Again, a marvelous lens for 1.3 and 1.6 crop cameras. If I had one of those bodies I would not hesitate using it.
|
|
|
Dec 31, 2005
|
|
Michael-M
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Apr 21, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 2698
|
|
Review Date: Dec 24, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
absolutely PERFECT! zoom ring is way smooth. flawless AF on the 20D.
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
i've rated this lens in the past, gave it a 10 then, but would gladly give a 20 now. my first copy was what i consider sharp, but not wide open.
this copy i have recently purchased tells me that Canon must have tightened up on their QC for this lens. i can shoot any zoom setting at f/2.8 and get almost as sharp of a landscape scene as i can at f/8-13.
really nice to see what all the rave is about from some of the fellow members.
the bokeh is just plain awesome for such a zoom.......buttery sweet!
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2005
|
|
W.Genger
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 61
|
|
Review Date: Dec 24, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, image quality, low CA, good balance with 5D and BG-E4
|
|
Cons:
|
None I could think of.
|
|
|
I got the lens a view days ago. The decision to go for this one was not easy. I have been thinking a lot of getting either the 24-105 IS or the 24-70 2.8. Finally I'm absolutely pleased with the decision to go for the 24-70. This lens is a bit more bulky of course but the 2.8 makes the IS unnecccesary and the image quality is superb.
I highly recommend this lens to everybody who expects a maximum of image quality.
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2005
|
|
drzs
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 24, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 24, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Pure Quality of build and pictures
|
|
Cons:
|
Weight is a factor. Make sure you are okay with this
|
|
|
You can read all the reviews you want but they seldom really convey what something is like. I now own this lens for half a year and it has been in three different continents and I have taken a few thousand shots.
I had been looking for a long time at this lens before I got it. The reviews said it was good but heavy. Decided to check it out myself and went to the local dealer and asked to see one. In the store I realized that it is one quality piece of equipment and that indeed it is heavy. Paid for it and took the lens home.
Only when you actually start using it you understand what you have been missing. It is fast, silent and the results are stunning. Ofcourse the picture are still only as good as the photographer, which in my case is limited to amateur skills. So I still get a fair helping of OOF shots, blown highlights etc etc. But I never feel that the lens is to blame. It is just that the number of keepers is much higher for this one than my other lenses.
You can forget about discrete pictures and lugging the thing arund all day is a pain but still as a tool it feels right. My personal opinion is that optical physics are important in designing a lens but as a user I could not care less about what the MTF chart says if the results please me.
Today the choice seems to be between the f4 24-105 IS and the 24-70 f2.8. I have never owned the f4 and given the choice between the two lenses I would again take the 24-70 for the bokeh, color, contrast, sharpness and speed.
Now go buy one!
|
|
|
Dec 24, 2005
|
|
stelin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 22, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Dec 22, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp and fast, both in terms of aperture and speed of focus
|
|
Cons:
|
a little on the heavy and bulky side for a "walkabout" lens
|
|
|
Sharp, fast.
I have had superb results from this lens even wide open (where I use it quite a lot when I haven't a tripod and flash isn't an option).
My "standard" lens which I wouldn't swap.
|
|
|
Dec 22, 2005
|
|
Offline
|
|
Review Date: Dec 21, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp (for a zoom), well-build, best standart zoom for Canon mount.
|
|
Cons:
|
You have to choose carefully among 3-4 lenses to find a sharp one.
|
|
|
As I already told, I've tested 4 lenses when bying. 2 of them were not sharp at 2,8. Other one seemed to sound a little while focusing. Last one was completly fine.
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2005
|
|
Sea Dragon Rex
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 28, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 31
|
|
Review Date: Dec 8, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,004.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Beautifully sharp picture after calibration and very fast focus. Well built.
|
|
Cons:
|
Had to ship the lens back to Canon right after purchased for "calibration" because the pictures were very soft. After paying so much for this lens, it should have been shooting out the box like it did after "calibration." Would have rated "10" if not for having to ship it back.
|
|
|
I purchased this lens along with the 70-200 2.8L and the 17-85 IS USM to go with my Rebel XT. Right out of the box, I noticed that this lens had considerably softer pictures than either of the other two lenses. After playing with the lens for a week, I decided to send the lens back to Canon to have it checked out.
When I received the lens back, WOW! This is what I paid for. My friend purchased the equivalent Tamron for 1/3 the price but after handling both lenses, I think it's worth the cost difference. Others may comment about the lens feeling heavy but it feel very good to me (I'm used to shooting an old Canon 35mm SLR with FD mounts).
I took about 100 shots this weekend (most indoor w/out flash) and am very happy with the results.
I would have rated this lens a 10 in overall rating if it were not for the fact that I had to send it back for calibration.
|
|
|
Dec 8, 2005
|
|
bdtate
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 20, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 8, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,150.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, beautiful sharp high contrast images with gorgeous color, f2.8, very fast & quite & accurate focus, ftm focus, great versatility
|
|
Cons:
|
This lens is certainly large and heavy if you are used to using a 50mm prime, however, its size and weight are not particularly bothersome to me.
|
|
|
When I moved to digital photography this was the first lens I bought and it is really a wonderful lense. I have used this lens for nearly two years and I have taken thousands of pleasing photos with it. On my Canon 20D (1.6 FOVCF) the lens is ~38mm to 112mm which I find to be an extremely useful range. In fact, many point-and-shoot consumer cameras have a zoom lens that operates in this range (presumably because of its usefulness).
I have found this lens to be very sharp at f2.8 with only a very slight improvement when stopped down. I have never detected any CA, vignetting or other lens distortion in any photo I have taken with this lens. This lens has very good bokah and it produces very nice portraits. At 24mm (38mm 1.6 FOVCF), it produces very sharp landscape pictures.
I have read many reviews online comparing the 50mm f1.4 to the 24 to 70mm f2.8L. The comparisons usually show the 50mm prime to be a bit sharper (which should not be a great surprise). In practice I have found many times over that the zoom ability of the 24 to 70mm f2.8L offsets the initial sharpness of the 50mm prime. What I mean by this is that I find my pictures (especially pictures of children on the move) to be better framed (which means less cropping). The zoom lens also means that I get a great shot of life in motion many times when I would have missed it with the 50mm prime (sneaker zoom is slow!). If I mainly shot still life or studio portraits, I would probably still go with the prime lenses.
The 24 to 70mm f2.8 blows away the 18-55mm kit lens that came with my 300D and the 28 to 135mm IS Canon consumer lens (this should not be a surprising outcome from an L lens but it is nice to know that it is true) in terms of color, contrast and sharpness.
I highly recommend this lens as an excellent all-pupose choice.
|
|
|
Dec 8, 2005
|
|
JLim
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 1, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 198
|
|
Review Date: Dec 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,199.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Almost Everything. I even love the weight and size on this lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Pretty much nothing except for the price.
|
|
|
This is such a great lens. I currently have the 20D and to be honest I'm not too satisfied with the 20D. So, I'll most likely upgrade to the 5D or the 1DIIN very soon and keep
I originally started with the Tamron 28-75 and I was not satisfied with that lens. I also tried the Sigma 24-70 DG Macro, but when I rented the Canon L for couple days, I knew I had to get this lens. I'm glad I spent the extra money (3 times more than the Tamron) to get the L.
|
|
|
Dec 6, 2005
|
|
jimyd
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 23, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Nov 24, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
"L" zoom, cant get better
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy
|
|
|
much better than the Tamrom 28-75, better build, sharper, full time manual focus etc. Top Lens.
|
|
|
Nov 24, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
531
|
879497
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
