 |
|
|
nycandre
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 23, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 22
|
|
Review Date: Jun 23, 2010
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Very very sharp and versatile - very fine bokeh - and built like a tank
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy and expensive, no IS and I'd so much like larger aperture - even at the expense of reduced focal range.
|
|
Built like a tank: I did drop it once, with the cam attached .. the UV filter broke (probably took the brunt of the impact/ energy) but everything else was fine.
Bokeh and resistance to flare is exceptional: here is a shot taken practically against the sun, at the long end (70mm) f/2.8 ISO 400, practically no post processing/ corrections
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/4720515983/
Regarding resolution, I think it probably outresolves the 5D's sensor. Here is a shot of a large mural map, maybe 20 feet wide, with an enlargement of a small area, maybe 1/50th of it -and the words are *still* legible
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/4636230028/
To be fair, I did apply the best post processing I could on that part.
It does focus fast, so would be great for street photog were it not for its being so huge. There, the bodyguard had spotted me a mile away, before I came into range of his master. But this was 5th avenue in NYC, in broad daylight - I don't look like a suicidal type, so nothing untoward happened and I got my shot
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/4636231880/
|
|
 Jun 23, 2010
|
|
aero_ub
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Aug 18, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 663
|
|
Review Date: May 6, 2010
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Just get it, you wont be disappointed.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
Forgot to mention that I also use this lens for and it works very well for long daytime exposures with B&W ND filters. I guess it is all relative but I do not feel that this lens is too large. But, I also have the 100-400mm L and this is small compared to that. It also does not seem large when paired with a camera the size of the 5D II, maybe on smaller crop frames it would seem large or make the camera front heavy. I don't mind carrying it around at all though. I also was thinking I would get a wider angle lens for my lineup but I feel, so far, that this at 24mm is wide enough for my landscape shots on a full frame. Wouldn't be wide enough on a crop frame though.
Long exposure examples with this lens (click 'all sizes' above pics for larger views):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kenclass/4476395136/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kenclass/4539987402/
|
|
|
May 6, 2010
|
|
aero_ub
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Aug 18, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 663
|
|
|
May 5, 2010
|
|
nycandre
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 23, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 22
|
|
Review Date: Apr 17, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,250.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp at all apertures - focuses fast
|
|
Cons:
|
large, heavy and very expensive
|
|
I bought this lens after reading all the relevant reviews mentioning this as the goto lens for all occasions.
It does deliver as promised, but definitely does NOT look unobtrusive - and it is heavy. All this was mentioned in the reviews, so no surprises.
I had meant to test compare the Tamron, Tokina and Sigma alternatives which are a LOT less expensive, about a third of the cost of that 24-70L but never got around to it so just went for that L glass. Figuring it would keep its value and I could always resell it.
I did try the 28-135 IS and the 24-85 - both were defnitely a notch below the 24-70 - either i was able to focus better and/or the glass is sharper /more contrasty.
Recent shot of a friendly woman (stranger to me) in the subway - definitely the 2.8 aperture helped, as well as letting me quickly change to wider focusing length, which made the shot - well, her patterned short skirt and tattoos made it ;-)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/4521832430/
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2010
|
|
JAlexander
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Jul 17, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 563
|
|
Review Date: Apr 5, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Versatile focal range, Fast, Sharp
|
|
Cons:
|
Would be even more amazing if it had IS
|
|
|
This lens is my favorite as the focal range is most versatile and the f/2.8 makes it fast enough for most situations. I have found it to produce beautiful photos on both my Canon 5d Mark II and my 7d. I use it for portraits, landscapes, just about everything . . . it is a great walk around lens. This will be the one lens I will keep as long as I have Canon DSLR cameras.
|
|
|
Apr 5, 2010
|
|
azolbs
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 23, 2009
Location: China
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Mar 25, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Versatility, colors, sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, but well worth it when you look at the IQ it produces
|
|
I upgraded to a fullframe (5DII) and this lens at the same time.
I loved the versatility for street photography/portraits. It was all I really used for 2 weeks travelling in India.
www.alexzolbert.com (First shot taken on the long end of a 70-200 - essentially all the rest with the 24-70)
The colors, the sharpness, the overall image quality really pleased. (We've all heard the reports of bad copies, but I certainly haven't had any issues)
I can see this lens staying on my camera for quite a long time.
Yes, a bit heavy. But I can deal. Yes, expensive. But I found it to be worth every penny.
|
|
|
Mar 25, 2010
|
|
gazzajagman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 26, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 172
|
|
Review Date: Mar 24, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
It's just SO versatile on a FF camera
|
|
Cons:
|
It's heavy for what it is....even Sigma's version is lighter (and they make heavy lenses).
|
|
|
This is quite simply the most versatile f2.8 lens there is...period. It's short MFD allows you to get really nice portraits with great thin DOF. At the wide end, who really needs more than 24mm for every day work?
It's built like a tank and it's a bit over-heavy as a result.
The hood is great, because this lens is short at 70mm and long / extended at 24mm, the hood really works very well at both the focal ends.
Colours and contrast rival primes and other L lenses, this is my most used lens. Worth every penny!
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2010
|
|
Zack11
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 24, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 26
|
|
Review Date: Mar 19, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent image quality, sharp, solid, all around lens!
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
Determinately recommended lens. Don't even think about the price, you will appreciate your decision after the first shot.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2010
|
|
Valerie S
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 11, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 474
|
|
Review Date: Mar 8, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Beautiful colors, sharpness wide open, wonderful bokeh
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
When I went from a crop body to a 1D3, I sold my 17-55/2.8 IS and bought the 24-70/2.8. I had rented the lens and always loved it's bokeh and wonderful color reproduction. I've never regretted it, just need a 16-35/2.8 now too 
It can be a little tiresome as a walkaround sometimes, but I'll han g around with my 70-200/2.8 IS for amday or two, and then the n24-70 seems light.
I got to choose between a few copies. Mine is sharp wide open, which is how I use it 99% of the time.
|
|
|
Mar 8, 2010
|
|
stephix72
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 27, 2010
Location: Belgium
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 6, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,029.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image Quality, build quality, overall sharpness
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
This lens is considered my favorite all-round workhorse on my Canon 7D. I would recommend it for several occassion (except for wide angle - photography like landscape ).
Done some shooting in indoor/low light as well as outdoor sunny, I got very sharp photos and nice image quality.
Seems I got a 'good' copy regarding the last reviews.
|
|
|
Mar 6, 2010
|
|
fairtex
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 29, 2009
Location: Germany
Posts: 60
|
|
Review Date: Mar 1, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharp!, IQ, built-quality, range, constant f2.8...
|
|
Cons:
|
price
|
|
|
Yes, the 24-70 is bulky and expensive. But if you're using it on a bigger camera like a xxD with BG or a xD, I think the size and weight actually becomes handy.
It is still more expensive than lenses like the EF-S 17-55 and way more expensive than the Tamron 17-50 but the EF 24-70 is also sharper (!), has a way better build quality, is wheather-sealed and (of course) can be used on fullframe bodies.
I think the zoom range is very versatile (maybe a bit too long on the 24mm end on a 1.6 x body) and the IQ is as good as it gets for a zoom.
I especially like the hood design: the lens is longest at 24mm, where the front end protrudes into the hood and shortest at 70mm, where the hood offers maximum protection from flare.
Besides the hood, the 24-70mm 2.8 also comes with a nice lense-pouch.
Strongly recommended.
|
|
|
Mar 1, 2010
|
|
Chimp
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 17, 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Feb 17, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Price
|
|
|
After two weeks of regular use, I can say that I'm very happy with it. It's good. I haven't strapped anything on since receiving it (yet) - it has a very useful range.
I was a bit apprehensive prior to buying the lens - and that is only because I read up on the lens. I even rented and borrowed prior to buying and can't fault any of them. I should have started with this lens instead of going the circuitous route of 28-75, Sigma 24-70 and finally the Canon 24-70 - and saved myself the time and tears.
Weight? I ain't complaining - image quality is everything. You don't buy a Ferarri for the comfortable seats...
|
|
|
Feb 17, 2010
|
|
erikburd
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Feb 3, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 458
|
|
Review Date: Feb 3, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,275.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Built like a tank. Very sharp pictures. Excellent and very quiet auto-focus, even in low light. The color is simply incredible.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price could be a bit lower, but you're paying for that f2.8 aperture. The lens is heavy, but not *that* bad.
|
|
|
This is my first L lens. I've been very happy with it. The zoom range is very versatile for my needs, and pretty much covers about 90% of the shots that I take.
I take a lot of low light and indoor pictures, so that f2.8 makes all the difference.
The pictures are simply incredible - I'm seeing details that really come out. They're all tack sharp with vivid color. It's easy to see why so many professionals use this lens. This is definitely a "must have" lens, even though it's a little expensive.
Get a neoprene camera strap, as this will take some of the weight off and make it feel considerably lighter. Your neck will thank you.
|
|
|
Feb 3, 2010
|
|
Jay Adeff
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Feb 27, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 328
|
|
Review Date: Feb 2, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Solid build quality. Sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
Big, heavy, & expensive.
|
|
|
I bought this lens to replace my broken Tamron 28-75. This lens has had a reputation for spotty quality control so I was a bit hesitant. I bought a new copy and found it to be very sharp, even at f/2.8. The AF is fast and accurate on my 1D-MkII. If price, weight, and size are an issue, go for the Tamron. If you want the best lens overall, get the Canon.
|
|
|
Feb 2, 2010
|
|
mmari
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 20, 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 21
|
|
Review Date: Jan 29, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,087.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
built quality, AF speed
|
|
Cons:
|
AF inaccuracy (+5 backwards on microadjust of 5D Mark II), not sharp wide open
|
|
|
read above...
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2010
|
|
danob
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 15, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 286
|
|
Review Date: Jan 27, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
This is one of the best lens I own razor sharp and compares well in it's zoom range with a few primes I have
|
|
Cons:
|
Tad on the heavy side and the reverse zoom takes a little time to get used to
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
531
|
879491
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
