about | support
home
 

Search Used

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
535 905440 Sep 3, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
88% of reviewers $1,192.02
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
          
nahminator
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 17, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 130
Review Date: Feb 2, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,399.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Great wide open, fast over a useful zoom range, awesome build quality
Cons:
None yet

I picked up this lizzy for my 20D a couple months ago. Great walk around lens. This lizzy is sharp wide...has great contrast, and great zoom range. Combined with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS USM (my favorite lens), you have a great range covered with two awesome lizzy's. Fo sho!

Feb 2, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add nahminator to your Buddy List  
anatole
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 4, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 6
Review Date: Jan 31, 2005 Recommend? no | Price paid: $1,150.00 | Rating: 4 

 
Pros: Fast AF, metal barrel.
Cons:
Optical performance mixed.

My use of the 35mm format revolves completely around this type of lens. After buying four copies of Canon's 24-70 lens, I gave up on it. First, like the other reviewers, I couldn't find a copy that was sharp at f/2.8, which is unforgiveable. Second, the close focusing, while never the strong point of such a lens, was just abominable.

After trying Nikon's 28-70 f/2.8, I dumped Canon and switched over to Nikon. I miss a lot of things about Canon, but having a fast normal zoom with acceptable performance at large apertures outweighs most of them for me (not necessarily you).

I have shot extensively with Canon's discontinued 28-70/2.8, which was a far superior lens to this one.


Jan 31, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add anatole to your Buddy List  
Abdo
Offline
Buy and Sell: On



Registered: Nov 19, 2004
Location: Brazil
Posts: 336
Review Date: Jan 28, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,270.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Great
Cons:
None

Great Lens.

Jan 28, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Abdo to your Buddy List  
madtomo
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 10, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jan 19, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,139.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharpness, contrast, saturation, solidly built. Beautiful pictures. Speedy aperture.
Cons:
heavy and bulky

Bought this lense and the 10-22mm to replace my 17-40mm. I had been missing the 40-70 range and dearly missed it. Was amazed at the pictures that came out of this lense. Though not as sharp as my 17-40, it was just slightly off and the difference was barely noticeable when I printed them. I loved the speed at 2.8 and have not been disappointed by the results. It is softer at f2.8, that is to be expected, and it works best at f8, which is to be expected. This has become the lense which sits on my camera 80% of the time. I feel that the 10-22, 24-70, and 70-200 is a near perfect line-up for the Rebel or 20D.

Jan 19, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add madtomo to your Buddy List  
Mark Keller
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: May 19, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 547
Review Date: Jan 19, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Color / Contrast, 2.8, Built like a tank
Cons:
A bit heavy, slightly soft @ 2.8

I bought this lens to replace my Canon 28-135 IS USM. After buying a 100-400L IS USM, I was never quite happy with the results from the 28-135. The 24-70L has fulfilled this roll+. The color / contrast really make my pictures POP. Highly Recommend!

Jan 19, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Mark Keller to your Buddy List  
Chrisuk69
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 30, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 3
Review Date: Jan 11, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Great build, great look, fantastic pictures.
Cons:
VERY slight lens flare but only rarely. I would like it to be a bit heavier like the 70-200L IS so you can push against something and feel like you have something in your hands.

Just got hold of my new 24-70L lens and boy is it a cracker. Now I have been taking pictures now for about 3 months so I have come to think of my self as a fantastic……….. Armature still……… but with the aid of a 20D, 70-200L IS and now this camera I can start to really concentrate on learning how to take good pictures.

I have found that the lens does tend to give a bit of lens flare indoors, especially when there is lights in different areas. I have took a picture of a light that was on but didn’t get the flare so it only happens in strange situations. At the end of the day, you did pay for a lens and lens hood. You paid for them so use them.

The background blur is fantastic. If the 70-200L IS blur is 100% quality this lens is 90% but still good.

The over all quality of this lens is great, build ease of use and size are all top notch. To be honest I like a heavier lens like the 7-200L IS as I think you have something to hold and push back on (if you know what I mean).

One last think, this site has helped me purchase two fantastic lenses and some great advice and its all thanks to you clever know it alls (I mean that in a nice way) so thanks.

Chris



Jan 11, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Chrisuk69 to your Buddy List  
normski
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Oct 24, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 414
Review Date: Jan 7, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: it really is the most stunning zoom i have used in every respect - colour, sharpness, bokeh, and focus speed. in the right lighting you get cover mag quality without having to use PS.
Cons:
it's big and heavy, (but it delivers - so why complain!)

i bought this lens new in august 2004. assuming one gets a good copy i can't understand why people complain about it. in my experience any bad results come from either operator error or camera malfunction. it is without doubt the best zoom in my bag. in the UK we pay in pounds sterling what our US cousins pay in dollars (more or less) and i still think for what we pay this lens is good value. go get it from an authorised dealer who doesn't recycle rejects and you won't have any regrets. it will more than likely become the zoom you reach for, for that "special" shot. why? - because it never fails! trust me - go and enjoy.

Jan 7, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add normski to your Buddy List  
Jaymanpics
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 26, 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 13
Review Date: Jan 1, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Everything
Cons:
None that I have come across

Bought this to replace a hugely unreliable 28-135 IS and have never looked back.It may be expensive but the quality of the shots and reliability more than do it justice.
Get one if you can


Jan 1, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Jaymanpics to your Buddy List  
Theresa Z.
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 19, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 2828
Review Date: Dec 31, 2004 Recommend? no | Price paid: $1,139.00

 
Pros: Build quality, optical performance at 40mm and above.
Cons:
Poor optical quality (for price) from 24 to approximately 35mm. Sharpness/Resolution was much worse than my 17-40mm at 24mm-35mm all the way through aperature range and never met the 17-40 optical quality until 40mm. Very large and heavy.

I realize that many people love this lens, but I seemed to have gotten a dud from B&H. I tested it's optical performance in a controlled environment as well as in normal use against both a 28-135 and 17-40L. Below around 35mm both of the other lenses were superior optically which was a big surprise to me. At 40mm and above it was at least equal and mostly superior to the others. And even though I didn't really need the focal length from 24-40mm (as I was only buying it to bridge a 17-40 and 70-200 set of lenses), I just couldn't see spending $1140 for a lens that only could be used from 40-70mm with superior results.
What everyone else says about build quality is right, very high but also very heavy and large. I have a whole bag full of Canon primes and zooms and this has been my worst experience yet. I had always wanted to buy this lens and finally decided now was the time and it's been a very dissapointing experience. On a whim I ordered a Tamron 28-75 and found it to have outstanding optical quality over the full range and only cost me $339.00..


Dec 31, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Theresa Z. to your Buddy List  
mrjosemartinez
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 23, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 1
Review Date: Dec 23, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,070.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Excellent image quality, construction, and speed.
Cons:
Size is ridiculous without hood, and just outrageous with it.

This lens has everything going for it and plenty of others have expressed so quite eloquently. But its size is just ridiculous, especially at 24mm (zoom creep) and/or with the hood. If you gave me a (smaller) 24-70 f/4 L at $600 I would buy it over this brick any day, same way I did with my 17-40 f/4 L and my 70-200 f/4 L over their respective f/2.8 bulkier counterparts.

Dec 23, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add mrjosemartinez to your Buddy List  
Whaler
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 20, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 467
Review Date: Dec 19, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,100.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Build quality, Color, Contrast, and Sharp at ALL f/ stops.
Cons:
$$$$$ and slightly heavy

I am neither a pro photographer nor optical expert. I only know what is pleasing to my eyes and that this lens has become my favorite. Yeah, it's a little heavy but, the results have been stunning. My $0.02.

Dec 19, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Whaler to your Buddy List  
doctordoom16
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 13, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5
Review Date: Dec 13, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,120.00 | Rating: 6 

 
Pros: It is an L lense, so quality is high, fast AF, f/2.8, great contrast and color.
Cons:
Marginal difference compared to the tamron 28-75 f/2.8

First off, I no longer own this lense. I bought it at a NYC retailer who has a great return policy. I bought the tamron 28-75 f/2.8 lense and loved it. It was small, light, and image quality was very good (not 135 f/2 good, but still very sharp and contrasty, but color a little flat). I used it for 3 weeks and all of a sudden got "L" envy. I saw others with the canon 24-70 and i had to have it. I returned the tamron and paid the huge step up in price for the canon. It is very substantial, and you know that you are holdinga a expensive piece of glass. The problem was, it was too substantial. With the lense hood it was bigger than my 135L f/2, and heavier than my 70-200 f/4. For this focal range it was too big for me. The size is not a negative, i'm sure the weight is proportional to the quality. However, the optical performance was not noticeable to me as compared to the tamron. In fact I will say the tamron shot wide open at comparable focal lengths was just as sharp or even sharper. How was this possible? After reading other reviews, I began to believe. The proof was in the pictures. I dragged the lense back to the store and they were not happy, but they took it back and exchanged it for a tamron. I am once again happy with the tamron for a lot of reasons. I think the canon 24-70 is a very good lense (not on par with my 135 f/2), but to justify the price differnece for little to no disernable difference over the $365 tamron was just not going to happen. I still love my "L" lenses, but have now opened my eyes to the tamron lense. I will not give up my 17-40 L, or my 70-200 L, but i will still be more open minded.

Dec 13, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add doctordoom16 to your Buddy List  
leuphrates
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 18, 2004
Location: Turkey
Posts: 9
Review Date: Dec 7, 2004 Recommend? no | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 4 

 
Pros: Good Quality Closed down.
Cons:
Wide side is soft, at f2.8 not usable. It has a problem with color rendering.

Well, much cheaper and smaller lenses have similar or better image quality at f8 or f5.6. At f2.8 this lens is a looser. Wide side is so soft, simply not usable. Not a practical zoom range IMO considering the alternatives. "Big and heavy" is never a problem for me as long as a lens does its job. (I use 70-200IS+1.4Ext+1DM2 and never complain, for example!) But this lens is so limited and its hugeness and weight start bothering me. So why?

Get a 35f1.4L and zoom manually by walking.


Dec 7, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add leuphrates to your Buddy List  
John Black
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

Registered: Jul 14, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3687
Review Date: Dec 3, 2004 Recommend? no | Price paid: $1,089.00

 
Pros: Okay from F4 and above
Cons:
Heavy, worst lens I've ever used at F2.8.

For almost $1100 my expectations are high and the 24-70L didn't measure-up. The lens does have beautiful color and contrast - probably the best I've seen and I've own/owned:

Canon 50mm F1.4
Canon 16-35L
Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX APO HSM
Canon 28-135 IS
Sigma 24-70 F2.8 EX DF DG Macro
and many lesser lenses...

The 24-70L was purchased to replace the Canon 28-135 IS. In this comparison - there is none. The 24-70L is better in every regard. But F2.8 is too soft. I'm a dollar/cents type of guy, and after paying $1100 my expectations were pretty high. The 24-70L fell short in several ways:

1) Too heavy for walk around - nose heavy on 10D/20D even w/ the battery grip.
2) Big - not compact, so travel not the best choice.
3) Lens hood is huge! I mean stupid big!!!
4) Zoom ring would get harder & harder to turn the closer you got to 70mm. This really nit picking, but 16-35L's resistance is uniform and has a very nice feel. The 24-70L's had a progressive resistance, made zooming alittle awkward.

I might try this lens again someday, but only after extensive testing in the store. On a 1DmkII or 1DSmkII you'll probably see the benefits. On a 20D the Sigma 24-70 F2.8 EX DF DG Macro was the clear winner for me and about $700 less. I'm not missing the 24-70L at all.


Dec 3, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add John Black to your Buddy List  
Khanh M
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 9, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 65
Review Date: Dec 1, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,045.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Definitely the build...like a tank... Sharpness at f2.8 on both the wide end and tele end. Very contrasty and has neutral colors. Focusing speed is quick...near instantaneous...even in low-light. Extra 4mm on the wide end makes a load of difference..more-so indoors.
Cons:
Size/weight...it is a mother of a lens for the focal range. Other than the size/weight there is absolutely nothing to complain about =)

I've owned other lenses from the same focal length (Canon EF 28-135mm IS and Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 EX), but none compare to this lens

I wanted something that was SHARP even at f2.8, so I purchased the Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L. This lens is one of the sharpest lenses that I've ever owned (if it weren't for the Sigma 20mm EX f1.8...it would be the sharpest in my line-up). The bokeh, sharpness, and focusing speed are pretty incredible. The build is stellar and solid, like most of the L lenses from Canon. And lastly, the extra 4mm you get from this lens makes a world of difference, especially when I am shooting indoors.

If you have the money the Canon 24-70 f2.8L is what I would recommend.

The only other thing I would recomend is that you purchase either locally or from an on-line retailer that has a good return policy. It seems Canon's QC is lacking and some folks are getting bad copies of this lens.

Test yours if you can, before you buy. Once you get a good copy...you will be gleaming...just like me =)


Dec 1, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add Khanh M to your Buddy List  
bogatyr
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 10, 2003
Location: Norway
Posts: 638
Review Date: Nov 22, 2004 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,200.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: High build quality and a similarly high picture quality. Outstanding autofocus speed.
Cons:
None in particular

I bought the 24-70 2.8 L in November 2004, for use on my EOS 10D and 1D II cameras. The lens performs flawlessly, and I am particularly impressed with the fast and reliable autofocus.

I can see that the 50mm 1.4 which I also have is slightly sharper, but nothing dramatic, and it is at least equal to my EF 20mm 2.8 USM and 28mm 2.8 in optical quality. Further use will reveal precisely how good it is, but I write this because it is already beyond doubt that the 24-70 2.8 L is good enough to be an alternative to the prime lenses within its range. Its quality is considerably above an overrated lens like the 28-135 3.5-5.6 IS, which I cannot recommend if you want the sharpest possible pictures, since it lags far behind the 24-70 L as well as Canon's very good and affordable primes. The 24-70 is very capable, so I can recommend it without hesitation.

Why would one choose this zoom instead of affordable primes? Well, it is good enough to meet high requirements, it is mechanically superior, and if one can save patiently to afford this one lens the purchase will not be more expensive than three to four good primes. The choice is yours, but I have been impressed with this one. I am happy with the purchase.


Nov 22, 2004
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add bogatyr to your Buddy List  

   



Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
535 905440 Sep 3, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
88% of reviewers $1,192.02
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