about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
528 909083 Dec 16, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
88% of reviewers $1,189.84
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.68
8.36
9.3
ef_24-70_28u_1_

Specifications:
This new lens does what many pros thought couldn't be done - replace the previous L-series 28-70 f/2.8 lens with something even better. Extended coverage to an ultra-wide angle 24mm makes it ideal for digital as well as film shooters, and the optics are even better than before with two Aspherical elements and a totally new UD glass element. It's now sealed and gasketed against dust and moisture, and a new processing unit makes the AF faster than ever.


 


Page:  20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30>  next
      
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add 20Dshooter to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add milesd to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add milesd to your Buddy List  
mjsutherland
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 13, 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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add mjsutherland to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add benpaul67 to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add mbailey to your Buddy List  
Hudsons
Online
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 8, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 18
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Hudsons to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Chris39 to your Buddy List  
Hudsons
Online
Image Upload: Off

Registered: May 8, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 18
Review Date: Jun 8, 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 8, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Hudsons to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add ComoxValley to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add digitalspike to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add jdt00 to your Buddy List  
Hrow
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 18, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5332
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Hrow to your Buddy List  
fotki
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 7, 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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add fotki to your Buddy List  
joezasada
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Feb 24, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 3062
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add joezasada to your Buddy List  
Ben Horne
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Jan 9, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 11824
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews View gallery Visit Homepage Add Ben Horne to your Buddy List  




Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
528 909083 Dec 16, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
88% of reviewers $1,189.84
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.68
8.36
9.3
ef_24-70_28u_1_


Page:  20 · 21 · 22 · 23 · 24 · 25 · 26 · 27 · 28 · 29 · 30>  next