 |
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
normski
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 25, 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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
Whaler
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 20, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 457
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
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
|
|
John Black
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jul 14, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 3658
|
|
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
|
|
Khanh M
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 9, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 62
|
|
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
|
|
bogatyr
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 10, 2003
Location: Norway
Posts: 619
|
|
Review Date: Nov 23, 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 23, 2004
|
|
tobogranyte
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 17, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 4
|
|
Review Date: Nov 21, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,260.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Built like a tank, fast focus, and 2.8, great color, minimal CA.
|
|
Cons:
|
Large, heavy, 24mm very disappointing sharpness.
|
|
|
I had the kit lens (EF-S 18-55) for my 20D. I decided that for a telephoto zoom, it was worth it to get something I'd want to hang onto, and so bought the 70-200 f/4L.
Brilliant lens.
But suddenly, everything I saw through the kit lens was crap by comparison. My L-addiction had begun and so, after reading the group love-fest going on between everybody else and the 24-70, bought it to complement the 70-200.
The first one I got was a piece of crap. Those QC issues are real, folks, sad to say. The second one I got is beautiful. I did some tests at 24, 35, and 50mm on both lenses with the same apertures. In almost every instance, the 24-70 wipes the floor with the 18-55. The clarity just can't be compared. And yet, at 24mm, there isn't nearly as much separating the two as there should be considering the L lens is 12x the price.
At 24mm the L still wins, but the main thing separating the two at that focal length is a result of the 18-55's worst problem: blue just creeping in everywhere, all the time. In terms of out and out clarity and sharpness, they're not leagues different. Which, again, they should be considering their price points.
Who knows, though. Maybe I just got the best 18-55 to ever roll off Canon's assembly line.
So many people love this lens so much. And unfortunately, I don't have enough to compare this lens to. In a nutshell, I'm very happy I made this purchase. But my feeling is that anyone who already owns Canon's venerable 28-70 f/2.8L and is thinking they would like that extra 4mm might be disappointed since at that range, the performance isn't what it should be.
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2004
|
|
choochoo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 11, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 483
|
|
Review Date: Nov 20, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $965.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp wide open, high contrast, versatile focal range, heavy duty/sturdy build quality, fast focus, silent USM, weather sealed, large hood, close focus distance.
|
|
Cons:
|
Pricey and a little heavy.
|
|
|
I had the Tamron di 28-75mm f2.8 and I found that 28mm was just too long on a 1.6X crop camera, at f2.8 it was soft, the focus speed was okay for inanimate objects, but too slow if you have to track your subject. I found this to be the case on both mine and my friend's.
So, being a little disatisfied, I rented the 24-70mm L to see what the difference was. Well, for one the lens is noticably sharper when shot at f2.8, the build quality is much, much better, focus speed is much faster and the extra 4mm does make a difference at the wide end. It's sharp at both ends of the focal range. The 24-70L is 3X more expensive than the Tamron, but worth it if you have the extra money. You won't be disappointed. You get what you pay for. I waited til Canon came out with their rebates. Now, the 24-70mm is on my camera 80% of the time.
I've read on a few forums that the QC has been inconsistant with this lens, but I have not experienced any of this. The rental lens I had was tack sharp, my copy is the same, my cousin's is perfect, and my photography partner's works fine. So, I haven't seen any problems. But, if you are worried about getting a bad lens, I would go down to your local camera shop and check it out in person before buying.
|
|
|
Nov 20, 2004
|
|
Greg Dillard
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 38
|
|
Review Date: Nov 13, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,235.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, warm color.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very soft at 24mm @ 2.8. Cost way too much for the performance!
|
|
|
Very poor sharpness at 24mm. Canon replaced the rear mount and improved somewhat. I like fast lenses to use wide open, but with this lens I have to stop down to achieve acceptable sharpness.
I tried the Tamron 28-75Di and it surpasses the Canon in every way except I would like at least 24 on the wide side of things.
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2004
|
|
dennislrz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 9, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 209
|
|
Review Date: Nov 10, 2004
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,170.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp, great build, quiet and fast zoom
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
This is a great lens! Thought about buying it for a long time, but I'm glad I did. Weight isn't an issue for me at all...yes it's heavier than others, but it really doesn't bother me. Even carrying it for hours in a toploader is no problem. It makes a great portrait (head-shoulder shots) lens for me on the 20D.
Also produces very nice close-up, "macro" pictures with the EF25 II Extension Tube.
Very well worth the money!
Dennis L.
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2004
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
531
|
881327
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
