 |
|
|
richardho11
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 9, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 10, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Tack Sharp, Beautiful contrasty colors without PS, Built Like a Tank, Super Fast and Quiet USM, Focuses extremely fast in low light, Weather Sealed and Large 2.8 aperture!
|
|
Cons:
|
None!
|
|
|
What can I say, for a zoom for this particular range, its one of the best!! My copy is TACK SHARP!! I also own the 50mm 1.4 and the 35 1.4L, but have no hessitation using this 24-70 when needed. Infact, its on my camera 80% of the time! It expensive, but I have no regrets purchasing this lens! I have no hessitation reccommending this lens to anyone that needs a zoom in this range, because when your in search of the absolute best this Canon 24-70L is your only choice.
|
|
 Oct 10, 2005
|
|
albertomonte
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 19, 2005
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
obiettivo eccezionale-dotato di una discreta escursione focale non tradisce mai. Ottimo il contrasto e la nitidezza. offre il meglio di sè da 24mm a 45mm con apertura tra f/6 e f/10-leggerissimo calo alla focale 70mm. Distorsione ben corretta e vignettatura trascurabile e, comunque , scompare a da f4 in poi
|
|
Cons:
|
un pò pesante ma te lo senti pieno in mano e ben bilanciato.
|
|
|
grazie alla sua discreta escursione rappresenta un obiettivo quasi tuttofare. Questo obiettivo è in grado di competere, a qualsiasi focale, con quasi tutti gli altri obiettivi canon con focale fissa; è capace di produrre colori saturi e brillanti grazie alla sua superba qualità costruttiva e, malgrado il suo costo, non credo possa mancare nella borsa del fotografo amatore o professionista.
|
|
|
Oct 9, 2005
|
|
sam0329
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 20, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 375
|
|
Review Date: Oct 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp for my copy
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
My first copy was very very bad, blur and out of focus, however, the second one is very good, very sharp!
|
|
|
Oct 6, 2005
|
|
ptnik
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 5, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
|
|
Review Date: Oct 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
image quality, f2.8,
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy
|
|
|
top image quality for a zoom...
|
|
|
Oct 6, 2005
|
|
burtonburton
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 8, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Oct 1, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, contrast, 3D quality of prints
|
|
Cons:
|
weight, size
|
|
|
I bought this lens pre-owned and I think I have a good one. On my 350D it is almost too sharp as portrait lens. I am still testing, but my first headshots in the 50-70mm range, wide open to 4.0, are very sharp. It is imperative to focus properly, in order to get this impressive sharpness, as DOF is very small, even at 4.0.
Yes, it is heavy, fat and big with its hood on, but after seeing the first pictures with this lens, I do not care anymore... This lens is going see some heavy use in the future.
|
|
|
Oct 1, 2005
|
|
bobphilly
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 25, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Oct 1, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
In (Image quality) the Canon 24-70L is NOT better than the Tamron 28-75 2.8 Di lens in my opinion. If you do your homework, look up both reviews on Popular Photography (popphoto.com) website under (Lens test archives) and look at the lens test charts and compare, and if that does not satisfy you, buy one and compare it yourself. The Canon might feel smoother or built better BUT if you are looking for (image quality) which I put as the number ONE thing before everything, you have to choose the Tamron over the Canon. If you are worried about the lens breaking for any reason, don't worry, you can buy 3 more for the price of the canon at 1200.00. Don't knock the tamron if you haven't done a side by side comparison, trust me you will be shocked! Buy the Canon if you absolutely need the lens to be silent and your looking for an above quality built lens. (I'm not saying the Tamron is not a quality lens either). Don't buy the canon for 1200.00 because of peer pressure, or (meaning everyone will not look up to you if you don't have a Canon). Don't worry, wait until they see your prints!!! That will keep them quiet. P.S. Please don't think I can't afford the Canon either. I Can. I just cant justify the price.
|
|
Cons:
|
The Tamron is light weight too. The canon's a brick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 1, 2005
|
|
Canonian
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 30, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 32
|
|
Review Date: Sep 30, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,498.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
This my walk around lens. Very sharp, fast focus. I cannot ask for more.
|
|
Cons:
|
extending zoom (not internal)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 30, 2005
|
|
Sportscaster
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 30, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Sep 18, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,089.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Wonderful sharp lens; nice macro too.
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
After reading all the reviews on this lens, I was at first leary of making a purchase. To my absolute delight, I have found that this is a great performing standard zoom lens that is ideal for my 20D. I think the combination is terrific.
I have taken many pictures with this lens and I have total confidence in it. I quickly learned to accept it's weight and spend my time doing all the creative things this combination permits my amateur imagination to do. By the way, I really like the basic macro on this lens and I have taken some great pictures with it.
If you are wondering about purchacing this lens . . . wonder no more and buy it. It is now my standard "L" lens. The moment I began to use it, I felt for the first time since the old film days that I was shooting with my old friends that I never use any more, my 35 mm film nikon and my 6X7 Pentax medium format system. That is saying a lot and it is the best compliment that I can give this lens.
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2005
|
|
teggan
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 31, 2005
Location: Norway
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 15, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,050.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast and reliable
|
|
Cons:
|
None so fare.
|
|
|
While shopping for a 70 -200 f2.8 I "stumbled" over this one.
In fact I was asked by the salesman to take a look at it, since I had brought my camera.
I took some shots, and he printed them out for me. The quality was great, even on a "crappy" printer. But I fell totally in love with it when we studied the photos on the computer.
So what happend was that I dropped the 70-200 and went for this one.
So now it's back time to save money for the original lense I wanted to buy.
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2005
|
|
sandisk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 16, 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 52
|
|
Review Date: Sep 15, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
solid lens, fast focusing, sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
lens barrel zooms, weight
|
|
|
A solid lens with macro function that serves quite well.
|
|
|
Sep 15, 2005
|
|
rklepper
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 22, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 256
|
|
Review Date: Sep 14, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,139.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build like a tank. Razor sharp photos. Easy to hand hold. Extremely well balanced.
|
|
Cons:
|
Cost, but I knew that
|
|
|
I love this lens. It takes great photos, even in low light. It is well balanced with the camera, which makes it easy to use hand held. Highly recomended. Just make sure you give it time to get used to the lens
|
|
|
Sep 14, 2005
|
|
Arvin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 11, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 11, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Exceptional build quality, this lense demonstrates the difference between happy-snaps and pro photos.
|
|
Cons:
|
Ah, none for me.
|
|
|
I bought in China (yes, risky!!) for around $700 cheaper than Australia retail. Top lense!!
Everyone says the weight is a problem, but pro lenses generally weigh this much. You get used to it very, very quickly. Besides, in gives some stability, cos it makes you hold camera firmly.
I realised how beautiful this lense was when I shot some photos for a friends display home. They are now used in a professional brochure.
This lense makes the amateur (me!) quite pro!!!
If you are serious about any hobby, and are competitive with what you do, then dont waste your dough on anything else in this range, and be the best from day 1.
PS: I use 20D, and recently bought another beuty 70-200 f/2.8L.
|
|
|
Sep 11, 2005
|
|
ghamden
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 10, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 81
|
|
Review Date: Aug 25, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,139.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent Lens Build quality photos are crisp
|
|
Cons:
|
Little pricey
|
|
|
This lens is fast sharp and has a good feel to it except the backward Zoom. The canon quality is definetly there learning curve is at a minimum.
|
|
|
Aug 25, 2005
|
|
terrys999
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 7, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 23, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
UPDATE! the store i purchased this lens from, has now told me the lens probably needs ajusting by canon.
|
|
Cons:
|
the store manager comfirmed this, by saying that they have alot of these lens back due to the fact, there are alot of these lens that are being returned. " what happened to quality control".
|
|
|
taking it back today!
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2005
|
|
Section 8
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 5, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 230
|
|
Review Date: Aug 23, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,050.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Focuses very fast. Good macro ability, for a non macro lense. Image quality.
|
|
Cons:
|
For a standard zoom, its big and heavy.
|
|
|
I'm not a pro photographer, I am a hobbiest. I have other hobbies that I have found that spending less just gets you to want more, and ending up with buyer remorse. You end up with a consumer lense that doesn't hold its value very well that you need to get rid of to purchase this, spending more. So I just bought this knowing that I can easily get my purchase price back if I find I am in need of liquidity, or more lense than I bargined for. I rated the price a 10 because the price of ownership is very low for very high quality lenses, if you feel like an ass after spending $1100.00 for a glass filled tube, sell it to someone else for $1000.00 and you are hardly worse off. It is the complete opposite buying an old (or not so old) Brittish car.
I've been using this on a 10D with excellent results. The lense doesn't weight that much, I find it the same as having a 70-200 F4L around my neck. If you don't mind large zooms then you won't mind this, as it will be no different.
Just because you can handle the extra weight, doens't make the lense weigh any less, or become smaller. The lens will not fit in a standard D/SLR "triangle" bag space. I have a Mountainsmith Alpenglo backpack with a camera storage pocket accessable from the top, but this lens is to big to fit in it (the 10D is really tight anyway, while the 300D is perfect, but not with this lense). You will need space in your bag to fit a body with a zoom on it if you intend to leave it on when carrying it. I now have the Mountainsmith Lumin and it works great. Point is, the size affect more than just handling it on the camera, you have to fit it someplace when you pack it.
Also be wary of what tripod you have to work with. Just because you can handle the weight, doesnt mean your tripod/head can. Don't try and use rinky dink equipment with this on the top of it, being a dumbass isn't coverd under warrenty.
As far as the build quality, I am an engineering student and I see good and bad parts frequently come off of machines. People describe things as being "billet" all the time these days, and most people don't even know what it means and therefore use it wrong anyway. If it was sold on ebay it would surely be described as a Billet Canon lense. This lense is a brick. With it fully extended, its still solid. The dust seal on the end of the lens is a new one for me, but it is positioned well inside of the outer diameter so it will be highly unlikly to tear from normal use, and is is obvious that it is capable of doing what it was designed for.
I would recoment this lense to anyone. Its their decision to spend the money or not, and its not a black hole, you can get the money back.
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2005
|
|
terrys999
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 7, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 23, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
huh!
|
|
Cons:
|
i have had this lens around 5 days, "not an happy bunny" blurred blurred!
performed humteen tests! on a tripod! same results!
f/2.8 unusuable! f/8.0 just about exceptable, but still not worth what you pay. save your cash guys, buy a 35/1.4 L you wont be dissapointed!
|
|
|
!Rubbish! for an L SERIES LENS
|
|
|
Aug 23, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
531
|
879290
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
