 |
|
|
naturist
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 4, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 5, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Super sharp, fast auto focus, solid build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
The lens has to be matched to the camera, see comments
|
|
|
I first used this lens on a 10D and 25% of my frames where unusable, ie out of focus, and maybe another 25% were borderline but, since using it on a 1D mark II the results have been stunning, I cannot fault it in anyway, I now use it 90% of the time.
|
|
 Jul 5, 2005
|
|
wbluhm
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 8, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jul 3, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,139.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
built, sharpness, color, contrast, fast autofocus
|
|
Cons:
|
took two tries to get a "good copy", some focus problems at 24mm
|
|
|
I am very pleased with this lens, and it lives on my 20D 80-90% of the time. The build quality is amazing. Color and contrast are great, the images need very little adjustment in Photoshop. This lens doesn't seem quite as sharp as my 70-200mm f/2.8 (non IS), but when I compare it with my 50mm f/1.4, it's not a lot worse.
Autofocus is silent and very fast. I do experience some focus accuracy problems at 24 mm. Given the large DOF at this end, they hardly manifest themselves in OOF pictures, but for critical shots, I either focus manually, or at least check the focus indicator window on the lens to make sure it's in the right ballpark. At the normal and tele focal length, focus accuracy seems good.
Unfortunately, there indeed are bad copies of this lens in circulation. The first one I got was worse than my 18-55mm kit lens, the second one was fine.
I find this lens incredibly versatile. On a 20D, even ISO 3200 is perfectly usable, and at 2.8 this lens gives great low light performance. Also love the macro. I do not mind the weight. To the contrary, I cradle the lens in my left hand, and I think the weight gives me more stability. I have gotten very usable images at 1/10 to 1/20s even at the long end (50-70mm).
I would highly recommend this as a general purpose walkaround lens, but either buy locally, or at a store with a good return policy in case you get a bad copy.
Compared with the competition (Sigma, Tamron) this lens does seem rather expensive.
|
|
|
Jul 3, 2005
|
|
rotlex
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 21, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 7
|
|
Review Date: Jul 1, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,149.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Everything. Built like a tank, fast focusing, beautiful colorcontrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Nothing except the price.....But then again, you get what you pay for - an extraordinary lens.
|
|
|
While I only own this lens a few days, it has already become my favorite. Well, my 70-200IS is still on top, but eh, I just like the size of it. 8)
Back to the 24-70. I was VERY skeptical about buying this lens due to the number of bad reports I have read. Well, I really needed the 2.8 in this zoom range, and decided to bite the bullet after contemplating it along side the Sigma 24-70 for months. All of my fears are now gone. This is simply an amazing lens. Maybe I got a "good" copy, but this lens is fast to focus, spot on even wide open, and produces some of the best out of camera pictures I have ever seen. Size and weight? Well, let's just say I don't mind walking around an event all day with the 70-200IS, so this isn't an issue at all for me. Frankly, it feels perfect on my 10D. Balances nicely, and makes the camera feel really good in my hands.
My personal final words? If your in the market for a zoom in this focal length, and don't mind putting out a bit of a hefty sum, you WON'T be sorry. This is simply one fantastic lens!
|
|
|
Jul 1, 2005
|
|
piddy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 27, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 27, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,146.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Capable of very sharp, great color, great contrast shots that need very little, if any post processing to look great.
|
|
Cons:
|
No IS. Adherence to the reciprocal shutter speed rule is must and steady hands is a plus.
|
|
|
This lens is very unforgiving if you try to shoot at speeds slower than the reciprocal of the focal length. Though not impossible if you have rock steady hands, if you break this rule you will most likely end up with a blurry pic (YMMV). Given enough light, fast enough shutter speed, and steady enough hands you will be handsomely rewarded with some awesome looking shots that can go the printer and be magazine quality without little if any post processing. I myself have trouble handholding the camera rock steady so to increase my chances of getting a keeper shot is to shoot like 3 shots or so and throw away the ones that are obviously blurry.
This lens isn't meant for low light photography without flash or a tripod/monopod. If you want that then you'll definitely need to cough up for IS. I can get a usable shot at 1/6 of a second @ 70mm with the 17-85mm IS, the 24-70mm requires at least a 1/60th of a sec exposure. Similary I can get a usable shot at 1/20th sec with the 70-200mm IS at 200mm.
Once you go from IS to non-IS you might realize just how much work the IS system does to get you that stable, usable shot.
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2005
|
|
willardp
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 6, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 27, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Newly calibrated lens looks sharp wide open at 24mm @ f/2.8. Love the color satuation and contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Before calibration...everything soft.
|
|
I like probably many of you spent a lot of time in this forum reading the various reviews...both the good and the bad. It was with a LOT of apprehension that I purchased this lens...wondering if I was going to get a "good" copy. Unfortunately I got on the "bad" copies.
After two weeks I sent the lens back to Canon. I just got it back today. I really haven't had time to go out and shoot to see if the adjustments have made a difference. I did some quick test shots here in my office of my contact rewetting solution at 24mm and 70mm at f/2.8, f/4.0, and f/5.6. So far, the results look good on the LCD (which for me usually means they'll look better on full 19" monitor). I'm trying to figure out what adjusted the "best focal point" means. If anyone knows please let me know.
One of the nice things about the local Canon repair shop here is that they are quite open and forth coming with info to help their customers. So I asked if there was anything at all in the Canon world about this lens and the 20D...since a lot of the issues with this lens seem to be associated with the 20D. She revealed that there were no internal memos about the lens, however there is a memo about the back focusing issue with the 20D. Initially they wanted to send both camera and lens to ensure they "were" properly fitted for each other. My argument against that was I'm having zero problems with my 28-135mm w/IS, my 70-200mm f/2.8L, or my 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5...so why should I send the camera?? But now it appears the actual reason was to check to see if there was a back focusing issue with the camera also. Also, the fact that there had to be an adjustment at all on the lens is a disappointment to me. No such issues with the 70-200mm f/2.8L. Matter of fact, if I had bought the 24-70mm f/2.8L first, I would never have bought the 70-200mm f/2.8L.
I would think that if 20Ds are being returned for back focusing issues, Canon should be able to correlate the serial numbers with batches or lots and issue a notification or firmware fix or something. Anyway, tomorrow I'll be out shooting and will post the results to my site.
Thanks to all of you who have posted reviews on various products here...you've made it very easy for me to decide on a lot of major purchases. Hmmmm, maybe I should have listened more closely before buying this lens 
|
|
|
Jun 27, 2005
|
|
JustKaz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 30, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 114
|
|
Review Date: Jun 25, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,400.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Well... I think in the right setting, with just the right lighting, this lens produces some great pictures. However...
|
|
Cons:
|
Very High Blurry Picture Ratio
|
|
|
I have never seen so many blurry pictures. I have taken thousands of pictures with my 70-200 IS USM, 98 percent crisp and clear.
Many, Many I take with this lens are ruined because of being blurry. Talk about being deflated. It took me a while to raise the money for this lens, and now I feel like I have been raped by canon.
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2005
|
|
chocy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 11, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 397
|
|
Review Date: Jun 21, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,120.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, vivid color contrast. Very sharp even wide open. Great super smooth bokeh.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy.
|
|
|
When I first got the lens I was intimidated by its size and weight. mounted on 20D, it makes the camera feel like it is so much more. Despite its weight the picture quality off of this lens is unreal. Sharp vivid color rendition increaes the keeper rate significantly. It has become my official walkaround lens along with 10-22. The combination is hard to beat in terms of range and picture quality. The weight is possible to get used to after a while so it isn't too big a factor for me.
However it is expensive, but it holds its value well so I am not too concerned.
|
|
|
Jun 21, 2005
|
|
20Dshooter
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 24, 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 1035
|
|
Review Date: Jun 19, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,200.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Built like a tank. Very fast AF.
|
|
Cons:
|
Big. Heavy. Expensive. Wide open, this lens is softish. It does get better at f/4, and is sharp at 5.6, but at it's price range, I shouldn't be getting rubbish from Canon.
|
|
|
I do all my work at 2.8, and this lens is a big disapointment. It is merely "okay," but certainly not what I've been led to believe. Some will probably say that I got a bad copy, but at $1200 that is totally unacceptable. More like scandalous!
Why this lens has to be the size and weight it is, is beyond me, considering that Sigma and Tamron produce equivalent versions of this lens practically optically equal to the Canon L, but much smaller and lighter.
Thumbs down for Canon,
A disillusioned L user.
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2005
|
|
20Dshooter
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 24, 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 1035
|
|
Review Date: Jun 19, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,200.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Built like a tank, very fast AF.
|
|
Cons:
|
Wide open is acceptable, getting better at f/4 and smaller. Very large and very heavy and way too expensive.
|
|
|
I do all my work at 2.8, and this lens was a big disapointment. It is merely "okay," but certainly not what I've been led to believe. Some will probably say that I got a bad copy, but at $1200 that is totally unaccaeptable. More like scandalous!
Why this lens has to be the size and weight it is, is beyond me, considering that Sigma and Tamron produce equivalent versions of this lens practically optically equal to the Canon L, but much smaller and lighter.
Thumbs down for Canon,
A disillusioned L user.
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2005
|
|
20Dshooter
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 24, 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 1035
|
|
Review Date: Jun 19, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $1,200.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Built like a tank, very fast AF.
|
|
Cons:
|
Wide open is acceptable, getting better at f/4 and smaller. Very large and very heavy and way too expensive.
|
|
|
I do all my work at 2.8, and this lens was a big disapointment. It is merely "okay," but certainly not what I've been led to believe. Some will probably say that I got a bad copy, but at $1200 that is totally unaccaeptable. More like scandalous!
Why this lens has to be the size and weight it is, is beyond me, considering that Sigma and Tamron produce equivalent versions of this lens practically optically equal to the Canon L, but much smaller and lighter.
Thumbs down for Canon,
A disillusioned L user.
|
|
|
Jun 19, 2005
|
|
20Dshooter
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 24, 2005
Location: Israel
Posts: 1035
|
|
Review Date: Jun 18, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Stopped down to f/4 and smaller, it can produce some nice shots. Built like a tank and very fast AF.
|
|
Cons:
|
A huge amount of money to spend on a huge, heavy piece of glass, which is, at best, only mediocre.
|
|
|
A dissapointment. My Sigma 15-30 performs way better than this lens. Okay, I might have gotten a bad copy, but at this price point, one would think you should'nt have to worry about such things. Thumbs down for Canon.
|
|
|
Jun 18, 2005
|
|
milesd
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 9, 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 16, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
excellent lens if you keep in mind some things....
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
Just an addendum: There are some not very positive comments about this lens. I performed some tests with my EOS 20D and this lens. To be honest, at first I was very dissapointed by the blurred pictures I got, especially at f=2.8.
Then I repeated the test with a borrowed 1Ds Mk II, shooting exactly under the same conditions. The interresting thing was that the pictures were much better (regarding sharpness).
I do not think that this is only due to the higher resolution of the 1 Ds Mk II but is also related to it's full frame sensor (compared to 35mm). With the APS C sized sensor of the 20D the depth of field (DOF) is about 30% smaller then with a full framed sensor or a 35 mm film.
Take a look at: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
Try to compare the DOF values vor various distances, focal lenghts and apertures between a 35mm film and your DSLR.
Then I repeated the test again with my 20D but now photographing a relatively flat object. The pictures were sharp also at f=2.8
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2005
|
|
milesd
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 9, 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 16, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
razor shrap, excellent colors, solid build
|
|
Cons:
|
none, except maybe the weight
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 16, 2005
|
|
mjsutherland
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 14, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Jun 14, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent build quality, feels solid and balanced on a 20D.
|
|
Cons:
|
Softness
|
|
|
I was impressed with the build and handling. The colour saturation is also good and the Bokah nice and smooth. However I am disappointed in slight softness overall, especially wide open (not greatly improved stopped down). and at wide angles. I know it is a zoom lense with inherent compromises but was not as good as I expected and I will probably sell it for a 35 mm 1.4 L prime and a prime wide angle yet to be decided. I also have a 70-200 2.8 IS and that is a great lense and compares well to primes in its range but that is not the case with the 24-70. Perhaps I do not have a good example but sending the lense to Canon for recalibration seems to have little or no effect from other peoples experience.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2005
|
|
benpaul67
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Jun 12, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,199.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Really sharp at 70mm
|
|
Cons:
|
Its a 50 dollar lens at 24mm and it increases in value up to 300 dollars at 70mm.
|
|
|
My Nikon 60mm 2.8 Macro blows away the 24-70 at 70mm, it's sharpest, for resolution, but the 24-70 looks more saturated and contrasty. It's FOCAL LENGTH that determines the sharpness of this lens, not aperature. At least on a 1.6 dslr. At 24mm its marginally better than the kit lens at 35mm. At 35mm its almost acceptable. At 50mm a major jump in resolution. At 70mm it is exactly the SAME as the 70-200 2.8, quite nice. I was surprised the MicroNikkor had double the resolution of either lens at 70mm.
They're both 'prettier' than the nissen-bokeh 60mm 2.8 M-N, but, at that focal length, the 24-70's sharpest, it's not necessarily worth more or even as much as the 400 dollar cost of the Nikon.
Its a 50-70mm zoom lens for 1200 bucks? I'm losing my faith in zooms.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2005
|
|
mbailey
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 12, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 333
|
|
Review Date: Jun 11, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent focus speed and sharpness. Rock solid construction and asthetically pleasing appearance. Awesome color and contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Fear - from reading some of the reviews below, otherwise no problems.
|
|
|
I ordered this in spite of several scathing reviews posted on this site. These reviews made me consider the 17-40 f4 L or the 16-35 f 2.8 L but neither of these offered the great usability of this 24-70 focal length. I really wanted a lens which I could leave on my XT almost all the time (except when I need a stronger telephoto for sports in which case I switch to a 70-200 f4 L +/- the 1.4 X tele). I ordered this lens with great trepidation from a dealer that I had dealt with before. This dealer had accepted a return from me several years ago. Immediately when the lens arrived, I went out and shot about 50 pictures and examined them carefully. With one exception they were outstanding for sharpness and contrast. Many reviews extol the virtues of this lens and Iam now a believer. Is it possible that I just happened to get a good example? Of course it is. However, this level of performance is worth some risk as long as you know the dealer has a fair return policy. After seeing first hand how much better this lens is than the kit 18-55 I would audition and return as many of these babies as it took to get one that functions like the one I received!
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
531
|
881322
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
