 |
|
|
clx1200
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 12, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Aug 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,219.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Got the lens for 2 weeks now,great on f2.8 even when the night starts
to fall.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy,and the price
|
|
|
|
|
 Aug 20, 2005
|
|
quantim0
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 30, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 194
|
|
Review Date: Aug 17, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Super build quality, great images straight out of camera-little need for pp
|
|
Cons:
|
ever so soft wide open
|
|
|
I am a huge fan of this lens. Even though it is a touch soft wide open, it sharpens up nicely. The feel oozes quality. The only thing that bothers me a little is the fact that the lens starts at 70 and you zoom to 24. But I'm getting used to it. I wouldn't hesitate to buy one again.
|
|
|
Aug 17, 2005
|
|
dmstraton
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 16, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 16, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,199.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Ultra-sharp, ultra-contrast images, beautiful color. Built like a Humvee. Exceptionally fast, silent and accurate auto-focus.
|
|
Cons:
|
Kind of big and heavy for a 350D.
|
|
|
There is an old adage that is much easier to write a sad song than a happy song. Maybe why Pink Floyd was so good at what they did!
Much of the reviews of this lens seem to revolve around a bad experience or the price being high. I am sure that most people who are experiencing good things with this lens aren't writing reviews, they're probably taking photos.
My copy, right out of the box, gives me images that are sharp, contrasty, and in need of minimal post-processing. The only other lens that I have that is similar is a 50mm 1.4. All of my other lenses need a bit of help.
Additionally, this lens focuses very quickly and accurately, almost never a hitch.
The only other lens of the third parties that I thought was pretty good was a Tokina...but even though that lens was built well and half the price, the L took the prize due to the focusing and uber-quality. Sure maybe the image quality is only 5% better, but the other facets of this lens make it (so far) more reliable in its performance.
|
|
|
Aug 16, 2005
|
|
albertwang
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jul 9, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 96
|
|
Review Date: Aug 8, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,050.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
quality, 2.8 L
|
|
Cons:
|
maybe heavy to someone
|
|
|
This is a very nice lense. The image quality is great. And I found f/2.8 is very useful for me eventhough I had a 580EX. I am very happy to upgrade from 17-85 IS to 24-70L.
I am using 20D and it has 1.6X so the wide angle is not that big. But for daily use, it is enough.
I got it during a promotion from Dell and the final is around 1050. It is acceptable.
The lense is heavy but after using for 1 week, I got used to it.
|
|
|
Aug 8, 2005
|
|
francishmt
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 3, 2005
Location: China
Posts: 1922
|
|
Review Date: Aug 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,000.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp! 2.8 aperture, great walk around on my 20D, great colour, saturation.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price, heavy.
|
|
|
This lens is my 2nd L lens after my 17-40. The range it provides make it a great walk around lens. Usually, walk around lens do not necessary give good picture quality due to its zoom range; however, this lens is so so sharp. The picture quality is unmatched.
Tamron 28-75? No. Not the same quality, optically and build quality. The L lens give so much more colour and saturation. I have had (in my opinion) a very sharp copy of the Tamron, but the 24-70 is still sharper. Wow!
I love this lens. Great investment. It's something you won't regret of having.
|
|
|
Aug 6, 2005
|
|
3ABX03
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 26, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5
|
|
Review Date: Aug 6, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,208.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very well build.Sharp thru zoom range even wide open.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 6, 2005
|
|
TheAmateur
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 16, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 112
|
|
Review Date: Aug 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, fast, solid
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
It is my main walk around lens now. People comepare it with the Tamron 28-75 but most of my friends still want the Canon copy. The build is solid and I like the performance.
|
|
|
Aug 2, 2005
|
|
dliscio
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 18, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 89
|
|
Review Date: Aug 1, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,149.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Purchased two weeks ago, this lens has seen four magazine photo assignments and performed better than any other zoom I've used to date. It's an awesome piece of glass.
|
|
Cons:
|
It gets heavy after 10 hours of humping it around, but that's why I have a LowePro photo backpack with padded dividers.
|
|
|
The price put me off a bit but now that's a done deal and I'm already earning back what I spent. Since I don't have any business ties to Canon, I can freely say this is the best lens in my bag.
It's rock solid, albeit somewhat heavy, especially when mounted on my 1d Mk II, but together they are a formidable duo. If you only have enough money for one lens, choose this one.
|
|
|
Aug 1, 2005
|
|
zeroorone
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 1, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 259
|
|
Review Date: Jul 25, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid build; good balance w/20D & grip, excellent contrast; very sharp at all apertures
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive; tight zoom from 24 - 40; some say its a bit heavy but that's a mute point after you see the results
|
|
|
I bought this lens about 3 months ago from B&H and feel like I have finally given it a good test, throwing all sorts of image situations at it.
I have shot home studio portraits of family, landscapes, zoo, indoors, outdoors, bright, overcast, dusk, etc... and I am very impressed by it. Being as this was my first 'L' I was very apprehensive, especially with the QC problems of late with this lens. But rest assured this lens is truly fantastic.
I can't say anything bad about it except that my copy, like many others, has had some 'stickiness' to the zoom from low end to about 40mm. I figure that this will loosen up with more use and am not concerned.
If your looking for the best general purpose lens there is, then this is it, hands down. Image quality and build are superb. All that I have to do now is learn how to put it to good use.
|
|
|
Jul 25, 2005
|
|
willardp
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 6, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 21, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
This is a follow up from a previous post prior to sending the lens back to Canon. The post calibrated lens is everything I expected from an "L" series lens. Sharp as a tack--really!
|
|
Cons:
|
Was little disappointed that Canon didn't come back and say there was nothing wrong with the lens.
|
|
If I had purchased this lens prior to purchasing the 70-200mm f/2.8L--it would have been the only "L" lens I owned--ever. But because of the 70-200mm f/2.8L, I couldn't wait to get the 24-70mm. Not to reccount the previous post--but if I had to rate the calibrated lens--it would probably be 9.5--only becuase it had to be returned. I've posted a couple of shots below...virtually from the same spot around the same time of the day. Only different between the post-calibrated shot is the Hoya SHMC CIR-PL (a $172.50 (B&H) purchase but well worth it).
According to the paper work from Canon, they adjusted my for my "best focal point". Called Canon and asked what that meant--essentially they calibrated for center AF point. They also did a check on sensor alignment. That concerned me--did they check it for a 20D or is the sensor distance/alignment for all Canon DSLRs the same?? What if I put the lens on a 35mm?
Bottom line folks...you've spent a lot of money for this lens. If you're not happy with it...send it back!
Before calibration:
http://www.cool-worlds.com/coolworlds/alamoana/slides/20050531ALMN-0005.html
After calibrations:
http://www.cool-worlds.com/coolworlds/alamoana5/slides/20050714ALAMO-0010.html
|
|
|
Jul 21, 2005
|
|
golfher
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 20, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Jul 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Looks good, feels good, seems sturdy, and lets me take fantastic pictures
|
|
Cons:
|
It doesn't take out the garbage or clean the house
|
|
|
I have had this lense on my Canon 10d since almost day 1. I had other lenses in the bag and finally decided I was just lugging things around I didn't need anymore. I just supplemented the lense with the 70-200 2.8L IS USM and now I think I have it all covered for me.
I have shot this lense in extremely bright Caribbean sunlight, lowlight, Christmas lights, and flash (you need a real flash to get past the shadow--the onboard won't help you). I do alot of portrait work on the fly, landscapes, and restaurant plates..and I am not disappointed in the range this lense gives me.
It is tough too. This is my walkaround, hike, bike, ski and snowshoe lense and though I treat it well and it isn't scratched, it's only because it's lucky and tough.
If you have to pick one lense to put on a 10d or 20d, this is the one. No question.
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2005
|
|
Roisin
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 15, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 51
|
|
Review Date: Jul 18, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $2,200.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, colour balance, contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft across the range, severe chromatic aberration prevalent.
|
|
I received a very bad copy of this lens. The CA is really quite appalling, and the sharpness is so minimal over my 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 II USM lens that I could hardly believe it. I am using the lens with a EOS 20D.
For 2,200 Australian dollars this was a huge disappointment. I know from the many reviews that this lens is usually a beauty - but gosh knows what I received. The retailer did not appear surprised when we started conversing about the quality issues - perhaps he has seen a few bad copies of this lens pass through his hands.
I live in a regional area, and to freight lenses in and out is a bit of a pain. I'm going to send this one back and just wait to see if the need for it rises again. If it does, I will need to try it in the store to be convinced that a bad copy has not come my way again.
I just have to mention the CA again, it was really bad!  The lens sweetspot is at f/4.0 - before and after that, softness and wild purple / green CA just took over with my copy.
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2005
|
|
Peter Kirk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 25, 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 303
|
|
Review Date: Jul 15, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
probably the best mid range zoom out there
|
|
Cons:
|
bit heavy, but then again theres a lot of glass in there..
|
|
|
Have had the Tamron 28-70f2.8XrDi for a while now, and I decided to go for Canons version just to compare results.
Tamron comes very close from f4 upwards, Canon wins hands down at ALL aperatures and zoom settings. Focussing speed on Canon is outstanding, the Tamrons weakness was mainly its focussing, hunting.
|
|
|
Jul 15, 2005
|
|
Dave Randall
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 4, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
|
|
Review Date: Jul 13, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast AF, sharp, extending front element works well with hood.
|
|
Cons:
|
Cost but I'm over that now.
|
|
|
The quality will be appreciated long after the price is forgotten! I work weddings with two 20D cameras. One has this lens and the other an 85 1.8. I can usually use my feet instead of changing to something wider or longer. The 24-70 does most of the work and I cannot fault the results (provided I keep up my end of the work!). In the sometimes low light at receptions, 2.8 or faster is needed for the AF to work well even with focus assist from the 550EX. I have noticed very slight distortion at extreme apertures but rarely do I take on the sort of work where this would be a problem. I find the lens well balanced on the 20D and my only criticism is that to have the focussing ring closer to the camera body would suit me better; I am sure this is a personal thing. If Canon ever brings out this lens with IS I will be at the head of the queue whatever the price!
For pro use this lens is awesome. If you need a walk around lens and can afford this quality, go for it. I may not be quite wide enough for street work (at a 1.6 crop factor). Wider and cheaper is the EFS 17-85 IS which came with one camera and surprised me with its good quality.
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2005
|
|
a9413
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 10, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 10, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Quality Built, great Optics
|
|
Cons:
|
Pricey, heavey, size
|
|
|
Bought it on July 8th and was shooting with it on my Xt an hour later. Great lens and feel. Like everyone else say, its built like a tank. Its little pricey, you get what you paid for. I've been a vivid photographer for over 15years. Started with a P&S minolta and the rest is history. This lens is my first lens ever costing 1000+ and i have no regrets because i love photography.
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2005
|
|
jhom
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 31, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3423
|
|
Review Date: Jul 10, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,135.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, contrast, color, build
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
I had been waiting for several months to buy the Tamron 28-75. However, the online retailers I typically use had been out of stock for some time. I decided to buy the Canon 24-70 instead. I am glad I did. This lens is great on my 1D2. It gives shots that are worthy of the L class. It is clearly a keeper and will probably become my all around lens. I like the build and weight.
Before buying the Canon 24-70, I monitored several forums for sample shots with the Tamron 28-75. I noticed more problems than not. In particular, it was soft wide open. On the other hand, my copy of the Canon is sharp wide open right out of the box. No one wants to go through several copies of a lens or return a new lens to the manufacturer for recalibration. I my case Canon has lived up to its reputation of excellent L lenses.
|
|
|
Jul 10, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
531
|
879618
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
