 |
|
|
Hudsons
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 8, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 16
|
|
Review Date: Jun 9, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
A great lens 100 times better than my previous mid range 28-105 Canon zoom. Razor sharp, great colour and contrast lends a 3D effect to slides.
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far
|
|
|
I read many reviws of this lens, most good but some bad. I was rather unhappy with my previous travel lens, the Canon 28-105. Bought the 24-70L before a weeks holiday in Switzerland. A good move, 6 rolls of slide film all good. This lens is far better than the 28-105. Slides are very sharp with a 3D aspect. Colour is very rich with a good contrast. Rivals my Contax with the f1.7 50mm prime and is equal,if not much better, than my 70-200 f4L. Yes the lens is heavy but goes well on my EOS3. The hood is large but is easy to fit. I would recomend tnis lens highly.
|
|
 Jun 9, 2005
|
|
Chris39
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Jun 9, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Good color, contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
CA issue, focus issue especially current batch from BH (BH is good)
|
|
|
I had vey bad experience with this lens. I called canon to confirm if it worked with XT. The answer is yes. But three copies I tried failed me.
1. Focus issue. I can barely catch the right point or plate (of focus) if I trust AF from my XT. Manul is fine. Mainly it is back focus.
2. CA issue. CA appears when contrast is high. It is consistent.
I belive some comments like picking a good one among 6 copies. But I just feel tired and disappointed to do so. Do not forget you should get what you pay. Not dealing with Canon about calibration.
I suggest guys spend some time to understand MTF. The MTF of this lens is really good. But the QC is horrible. Without focus the color means nothing. What you paied is not only for several good glasses but as well how to place them in the right place, which can fit all the camera bodies.
Be aware.
|
|
|
Jun 9, 2005
|
|
Hudsons
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 8, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 16
|
|
Review Date: Jun 9, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Great colurs and an almost 3D look using slide film. Sharp as a tack. A vast improvement on my previous 28-105 Canon zoom. It is heavy but does go well on an EOS3. Hood is large but both effective and easy to fit. I am really pleased with this lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
None so far.
|
|
|
Having read many reviews, most good but some bad. I bought this lens before going on holiday to Switzerland. This was the only lens I took. The results from the 6 rolls of slide film I took are great, even better than I hoped for. My previous travel lens was the mid quality Canon 28-105. The 24-70 L lens is a vast improvement. Much better sharpness, colour and contrast. This has brought my slides alive and rivals results on my Contax using the 50mm f1.7 prime. I would recomend this lens to all. As good as, or even better than, my copy of the 70-200 f4 L.
|
|
|
Jun 9, 2005
|
|
ComoxValley
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 7, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 7, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,250.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Amazing image quality throughout. Solid build and easily used.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price
|
|
|
Love the feeling the 24-70 exudes while using it. Contrary to many users I find the weight just about right. The 2 lbs plus gives me the stability I need.
Quick and silent focus.
It's a perfect fit with my 70-200 F4.
I highly recommend the 24-70. Unfortunately, I'm starting to get the L disease bad!
|
|
|
Jun 7, 2005
|
|
digitalspike
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 5, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 89
|
|
Review Date: Jun 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Versatility, Qaulity, Build, Color, Contrast etc.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price.
|
|
|
I have to say for a zoom lense, the 24-70 is pretty satisfying. It is even good wide open and gets even better from there. A lot of things have been said about this lense, good and bad, but my lense must be a good version! Whew!
Instaed of getting into a full review, I have included a snapshot shot with <strong>default settings on a 10D</strong>, feel free to download and see what sharpening and saturating will do to this image. 100% crop shot with the following parameters:
10D
24-70 Lense
2.8 Aperture
Zoomed to 52mm
Shutter speed 1/1500
Metering Mode - Evaluative
Parameters
Contrast Normal
Sharpness Normal
Color saturation Normal
Color tone Normal
View or Download Here (Original File, just cropped no alterations):
<a href="http://www.digitalspike.com/photos/grandpa.jpg">http://www.digitalspike.com/photos/grandpa.jpg</a>
|
|
|
Jun 2, 2005
|
|
jdt00
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 2, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 2, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
It's a Canon 2.8L lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Can anyone tell me what to do with this silly lens hood. I'm sure that at £950 Canon can come up with internal zoom and improved exterior design.
|
|
|
We all look for excellent quality and know that Canon provides it (at the right price). What puts me off from this lens though is the 8cm lens hood which covers the controls when not facing the front. I hope this lens will produce minimal flare as this piece of plastic is staying at home when I go on tour.
|
|
|
Jun 2, 2005
|
|
Hrow
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 18, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5329
|
|
Review Date: May 31, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Stunning image quality, build, it just feels good in your hands
|
|
Cons:
|
Expensive and heavy but you know that going in
|
|
|
The images that are coming off my copy are a far cry from those who are complaining about the lack of sharpness. The detail in hair that this lens picks up is unbelievable and it makes the entire image come alive. On non-haired subjected, the lens produces equally brillant images that have a "lushness" to them that was lacking on the Tamron 28-75 that I returned prior to buying this. This lens requires very little post processing which may be an important factor for working pros as the time savings starts to add up quickly.
Yes, it is heavy but it feels good in your hands and balances well. You get used to it pretty quckly. Besides, if you don't know that it is heavy and expensive before getting it home that is your fault, not the lens'. An earlier reviewer liken it to high-end audio equipment and he is right. The good stuff does cost and weigh more for a reason(s). On paper, my 85 lb subwoofer is only 10% "better" than a 20 lb sub costing a quarter as much.
Do I wish mine were cheaper (and lighter - the thing is nasty to move)? Of course, but I was willing to pay the piper and to me, that 10% is what makes the whole system sing. It is the same thing with this lens. It may only be 10% better than the Tamron but to me I can see the difference and it is worth paying for.
|
|
|
May 31, 2005
|
|
fotki
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 8, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: May 31, 2005
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid build
|
|
Cons:
|
Cost, bulk and very very very soft... I mean NOT SHARP
|
|
|
I bought this lens new and I am extremely unhappy with this product, it is simply useless for any pro. work. I also use a 10-22mm and a 70-200mm f4 L and I am very satisfied with those lens. The lens was brought to Canon service center in Montreal where it was "calibrated". I cant see any change. I intend to have this lens replace.
|
|
|
May 31, 2005
|
|
joezasada
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 24, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 3040
|
|
Review Date: May 30, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,700.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
outstanding image quality, great build quality, easy-to-use, and well-balanced.
|
|
Cons:
|
it costs a lot and has a bit of weight to it, but I find those characteristics common with quality electronics.
|
|
|
This lens is absolutely superb. It is the best medium-range zoom you can get for a Canon mount. Also, it will probably be your most-used lens... so this is a good place to invest in quality.
Really, it's not that heavy... get off the couch if you think it is!
The images you take with this lens will have a real lifelike, 3-D quality to them.
The accurate IR focusing guide is a nice touch as well.
Everyone should have one of these... and you can take mine from my cold, dead hands!
|
|
|
May 30, 2005
|
|
Ben Horne
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Jan 9, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 11207
|
|
Review Date: May 30, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent range on a 1.3x body, excellent build quality, smooth operation, good closeup ability.
|
|
Cons:
|
Front element Extends, a little soft at 2.8 (to be expected)
|
|
|
This is an excellent mid-length zoom lens, especially on the 1.3x bodies. The build quality is excellent, and this has become one of my most used lenses. I didn't think that would be the case. The closeup ability is excellent (not macro, but better than any of my other lenses). There is a lot of bad mouthing about this lens lately, but I think some of that can be chalked up to user error. There may be some valid issues, but if you have a good copy of this lens, it knocks the socks off the competition. Highly recommended.
|
|
|
May 30, 2005
|
|
lziering
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 20, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 746
|
|
Review Date: May 30, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast, sharp and very well constructed. Focuses very quickly and very close. It has a very useful zoom range and is the "L" lens of choice for walking around. It spends more time on my 1Ds than any other lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Big and heavy. The lens hood as so many have noted is very awkward.
|
|
|
A great all-around lens. Very sharp. Focuses quickly and silenty. I love this lens. As a stock photogrpaher I am able to get most shots I want with either this lens or my 70-200mm f/2.8L. Since getting this lens I rarely use my 17-40mm f/4L. I do wish that the 24-70mm wasn't so heavy but physics are physics and gravity is gravity. The only thing I'd really change is the lens hood.
|
|
|
May 30, 2005
|
|
SheepDog
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 7, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 17, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp around f/8; color balance and tone are the sweetest things. Tank-like construction. Fast USM focusing. The best optical performance (resolution and color saturation) zoom lens; of course, with that kind of price.
|
|
Cons:
|
VERY SOFT when wide open, pictures look slightly washed-out. f/2.8 is nearly useless. Sharpness incompariable to virtually any prime lens, even the cheapest 50/1.8.
|
|
|
Since I picked up this lens, I have been shooting 90% of my pictures with it. Except for my 70-200 4L, I have nearly forgotten about my other lenses (50 and 85/1.8). It's just so good across its entire zoom range that I get lazy swapping lenses.
It's definitely the best zoom lens you can ever find, of course with its price. The "red rim" guarantees excellent color saturation and tone. I am very pleased with the vibrant color on all my photos.
Despite a brighter viewfinder, f2.8 is nearly useless. Photos turn out somewhat washed out, not to mention the word sharpness, when the aperture is wide open. Sharpness is just not up to my expectation with the money that I paid for. It is better than all other zoom lenses, but still way below other prime lenses in terms of sharpness. To get decently sharp images, I always find myself using f/8 to f/11. Many reviewers suggest replacing multiple prime lenses with one of these... I would say "No No".
Hours before I write this review, I tried my prime lenses on my 7 year old nephew. As I have gradually convinced myself to live with softer (less sharp) images, these primes reminded me the definition of "SHARP". So much detail pop up instantly I swap to either one. By losing a little bit of color saturation, which can be restored with some photoshop, my images look razor sharp.
I love this lens, but I hate to say that it's still not up to my expectation. As a developing photographer, i will live happily with my present setup. When my pocket get deep enough, I will pick up two or three more primes.
|
|
|
May 17, 2005
|
|
LDRider
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 14, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 1654
|
|
Review Date: May 17, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp....versitile....excellent for walking around....fast focus. Nice contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Obtrusive hood. Lens must be prone to flare to have a hood so massive, but I have not noticed any.
|
|
|
This is a big heavy lens but certainly worth the inconvenience. The BG-ED grip on my 10D balances out this lens nicely. This lens is on my camera all the time when I am not doing any specialty shooting. It's sharp throughout the range and is a fast focusing lens. I do not use the hood as it gets in the way for everyday shooting. But if used for portraits outdoors then keep the hood on. You will not be disappointed with this glass and it will out-last the camera body for sure. I have used this lens for just over a year and a half and there is no way I would change.
|
|
|
May 17, 2005
|
|
SBBluewater
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 20, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 193
|
|
Review Date: May 13, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast and sharp! Colors pop out at you! Built like a tank! Very solid. Heavy but not as heavy as I thought.
|
|
Cons:
|
Somewhat heavy and very expensive!
|
|
|
I tried 4 copies of the Tamron and finally gave up and got the Canon. My first copy is very, very sharp! It focuses very fast and just feels good in my hands. It is a little heavy but after walking around with it for 3 or 4 hours it really did not bother me. The build quality is typical Canon "L", which means it is built like a tank. The zoom ring was a little tight at first but by the end of the day if was fine. I'm a big guy and have big hands so the fact that this lens is big and heavy is a good thing. It feels very well balanced on my 20D and the focus is fast. I had a few of my first shots that were out of focus but that is because I rushed them. I took the good ones and blew them up 100 to 200% on my computer and they look sharp and very well focused. This is true even at F/2.8. The lens gets a little shaper at F/4, but not much. Color saturation is something that the Canon "L" lenses are known for and the 24-70 F/2.8L is no exception. The colors look great! Very happy I spent the money on this lens and would highly recommend it!
|
|
|
May 13, 2005
|
|
stevenD
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 29, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 2267
|
|
Review Date: May 2, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,250.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast focusing, Clear, crisp, clean and great color captures
|
|
Cons:
|
none come to mind
|
|
|
I love this Lens, it is on my Camera 95% of the time, I use it for almost all of my Model Shoots and used it on my D60, then 10D and now 1D mkII. I have used it indoors and out, with and without a flash. I even used it 130 feet underwater in a Submarine (in Maui) and can't reccomend it enough...
|
|
|
May 2, 2005
|
|
lensjunky
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 25, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 83
|
|
Review Date: Apr 26, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Contrast, COLOR!!!, zoom almost as good as primes, nice portrate at 70mm, god bless the macro; you can get to within inches of your subject, saturation, did I mention color? weather seals, build quality,
|
|
Cons:
|
weighs a ton, 2.1 Lbs (doesnt sound like a lot by it's self but couple that with the rest of your gear and your starting to think about the 28-70 L, but then you look at your pics with the 24-70 and feel good again. oh yeah the price sucks too, but you get what you pay for.
|
|
|
I read a lot of reviews before buying this lens, there where a lot of people that said that it was soft and heavy and pricy and blah blah blah. and yeah it is heavy and pricy, but I have taken some of the most beautiful photos in my portfolio with this lens. it gives an excelent, surrealistic background blur at 70mm f4. To the people who complain about this lens.... Garbage in Garbage out, dont blame your lens. I recomend "Rent BEFORE you Buy".
heavy? yes but I get the feeling that this lens will LAST LAST and LAST. Canon crammed soooo many cool features into this lens, of course it weighs a ton, there is a lot of glass in there. Ill never need to buy a 24-70 again. for walk around snapshots though, I prefer my 50mm 1.4.
I think the other complaint was price, yes and ouch, but this lens is designed for photojournalists who need to change focal length fast, or pros shooting weddings where the same speedy constraints apply, so unless you are planning on making money with your shots, buy the sigma.
I have to say I love this lens.
|
|
|
Apr 26, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
531
|
879689
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
