 |
|
|
Bert 1969
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 13, 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 30, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, build, contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
So many different qualities of this lens out there.
|
|
|
I posted a review in may this year about this lens, is was pretty negative. At that time I had owned 1 lens, sold it and tried 2 lenses later on. They all were (too) soft.
2 months ago I tried another one and the same story again.
But today I was in the store and saw the lens again and tought, lets give it another try. Made some photo's and this was a different story. Put mine 50mm on the cam took a shot and took the same shot with the 24-70 both on f/2.8.
Looked at the computer in the store and there as hardly any difference (and my 50mm is a good one).
So I took the change and bought the 24-70.
At home I took serveral testshots with the 50mm and the 24-70mm and everytime the same result.
Mounted my best lens (the 70-200 f/4.0 L IS) put it on 70mm and took some shots again and took the 24-70mm put it on f/4.0 and 70mm. Boink.....now is was falling of my chair, the results were the same.
Finally after 1.5 year and the 5th lens it tried I have found a good one. I'm really happy now while I'm writting this review but be honest, it is a sad story that only 1 of 5 lenses I had/tried is preforming the way it should.
|
|
 Dec 30, 2008
|
|
KKFung
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 20, 2008
Location: China
Posts: 769
|
|
Review Date: Dec 21, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
very sweet image, awesome outlook
|
|
Cons:
|
no IS but no problem at all
|
|
|
Used this lens over 1 year and it makes me don't consider the 70-200 2.8L IS to build up the system. I believe at least prime lens like 135/2L or 300/4L can match with it.
|
|
|
Dec 21, 2008
|
|
filipmakowski
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 13, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 14, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent image quality, fast AF, very little CA
|
|
Cons:
|
Edge sharpness when wide open
|
|
I upgraded to this lens from a Sigma EX 24-70mm f/2.8. Compared to the Sigma, autofocus is very fast, even on a 20D, and shows very little in the way of cromatic aberrations. While the Sigma had around 3% of images out of focus, this Canon is very accurate with only 0.3% of images (if that) out of focus. Image quality on both lenses is excellent, although the colour and contrast are slightly better on the Canon.
The only downside is slightly soft edges when the lens is open wider that f/4.0, but I expect you'll get that from anything but a prime; saying that the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II has better edge sharpness.
For sample images, see my Morocco photos where the majority were taken by the 24-70mm (the rest by the 16-35mm f/2.8L II or a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX):
www.filipmakowski.com
All in all a great zoom lens, although I have to give it only a 9/10 for the soft edges (compared to even better edge sharpness and a 10/10 for the 16-35mm II).
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2008
|
|
filipmakowski
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 13, 2008
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 14, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast AF, very little CA, great image quality
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft edges when wide open
|
|
I upgraded to this lens from a Sigma EX 24-70mm f/2.8. Compared to the Sigma, autofocus is very fast, even on a 20D, and shows very little in the way of cromatic aberrations. While the Sigma had around 3% of images out of focus, this Canon is very accurate with only 0.3% of images (if that) out of focus. Image quality on both lenses is excellent, although the colour and contrast are slightly better on the Canon.
The only downside is slightly soft edges when the lens is open wider that f/4.0, but I expect you'll get that from anything but a prime.
For sample images, see my Morocco photos where the majority were taken by the 24-70mm (the rest by a Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II or a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX):
www.filipmakowski.com
All in all a great zoom lens, although I have to give it only a 9/10 for the soft edges (compared to even better edge sharpness and a 10/10 for the 16-35mm II)
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2008
|
|
The_Don
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 5, 2007
Location: Jamaica
Posts: 23
|
|
Review Date: Dec 2, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp at f/2.8 (mind-boggling sharp)
|
|
Cons:
|
reverse zooming, similar to some sigma and nikon lenses
|
|
|
maybe the guy below me got a decent copy, but i got an exceptional copy. @ f2.8 is crazy sharp esp. with the macro.
As far as the weight, its not terribly heavy, but slightly heavier than my 70-200. The lens hood is big enuff to walk into most events and not get questioned, so thats a plus.
Overall a great lens, IS would've been nice but ppl are constantly bitching about the weight, i think canon thought twice
|
|
|
Dec 2, 2008
|
|
Esquire08
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 5, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 625
|
|
Review Date: Nov 25, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,089.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp at f/2.8 (not mind-boggling sharp), fast focus, effective zoom range, built like a tank.
|
|
Cons:
|
Reputation for copy-to-copy QC issues
|
|
|
I love this lens! Got mine brand new for $1089 and free shipping from an extremely reputable dealer.
I read about weight being a factor, but having the 70-200 f/2.8L IS and a gripped 40D as my walk-around setup, the 24-70 f/2.8L is not nearly as bad as I expected. True, it isn't a light piece of glass, but I definitely like the balance the lens has with the gripped 40D. I don't find it uncomfortably heavy, either.
The lens performs very well even on a higher-demanding 40D. The pictures are crisp and the DOF at f/2.8 produces very nice bokeh.
If the major factor preventing you from purchasing this lens is copy-to-copy quality, just take a deep breath and order the lens. The QC issues are dramatized and people expect way too much from crop-sensor cameras.
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2008
|
|
LZ7J
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 22, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 163
|
|
Review Date: Nov 21, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent colors, contrast and sharpness. Good build. Very useful focal length on FF and 1.3x
|
|
Cons:
|
This is my 4th copy of this lens.
|
|
|
If you can get a good copy of this lens, go for it! My first copy (bought used - date code UR) was sent to Canon TWICE to get calibrated and checked. Each time it got better but still not to my standard. The second copy, I bought used as well (date code UU) and that lens back-focused by a 2-3mm at mfd, so I got rid of it. The third copy (UW04), I bought brand new after trying 2 other copies at the store and settled for this one. I tested it against my 35L (my bench mark) and ended up returning it 2 days later.
My fourth one (UV) is excellent in all regards. I bought it new. And now I see why this lens gets rave reviews! It's everything that I've expected and more. Finally!
|
|
|
Nov 21, 2008
|
|
avuroski
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Nov 3, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 250
|
|
Review Date: Nov 13, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $840.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Unrivaled sharpness, color and contrast, and speed for a zoom. This is why you buy a Canon FF.
|
|
Cons:
|
some people find it weighty. I find it wonderfully solid ;)
|
|
|
People asking for a redesign of this lens are missing something about the fundamental nature of optics. There are trade-offs involved. This lens is INCREDIBLE. I wish I hadn't screwed around trying every other regular zoom lens canon makes and just gone straightaway to this. Well, actually, no I don't, because now I'll never be tempted by a lesser lens. The 17-55 2.8 IS on the 40D was good. But I liked the 24-105 4 IS on the 40D better for some reason - for a crop body, it was nice to be able to get all the way into the portait lengths. Color was better on the 24-105. Yes the 17-55 was very sharp, but sharpness is only one of many attributes to a good lens. When I moved up from the 40D to the 5D, I liked the 24-105 at first, but longed for a take-everywhere low-light lens. This is it. I'm so happy. At first I thought I wouldn't be able to shoot in low light at 2.8 anyway, and so would do better to just go with primes. No. I can even get shots at 1600, but the 5D does so well at 3200, it's fine. And being able to move fast from 24mm to 70mm is gold. I'm not knocking a 35 1.4 for low light - with enough money, I'd love both. But if the sharpness and contrast and color are this amazing with a zoom, I'll just stay here and leave carrying a bag of primes (and switching out lenses constantly) to other people.
The 2.8 makes the camera find focus so much faster, even in low light. The already bright viewfinder is that much brighter. It's a revelation. I was worried with all these horror stories of how heavy it is and how it's never sharp. Well, my new copy was razor sharp, and I don't find it heavy at all. And I LOVE the backwards zoom - the action is super smooth and quick, and the lens hood is the accurate coverage for all focal lengths, rather than most which are only giving you 1/2 the coverage on the long in order to keep from vingnetting on the wide end.
I would give this lens an 11 if I could. Colors, sharpness, build quality, lens hood, everything. If you're serious about your images, get this and stop whining about the weight. It's balanced and fine on a real camera. (though on an XSi, it would probably be ridiculous.)
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2008
|
|
knodl
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 21, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 85
|
|
Review Date: Oct 30, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Image quality. Lens speed. Versatility. Ergonomics.
|
|
Cons:
|
Price! Fragile plastic lens hood!
|
|
|
My copy of the 24-70mm 2.8 L turned out to be everything it has been praised for. This lens used on a 1Ds MK II at full 2.8 aperture is sharp and sharp at all focal lengths and at 70mm my copy is crazy sharp. I love this lens! If this lens had IS it would be damn near the ultimate lens. Interestingly it's size and weight makes it great for steady hand holding at low shutter speeds. I have had no problem getting sharp images with this lens using f/2.8 at 1/15 sec. The only negative is the lens hood is fragile rinky-dink plastic but this is a drawback on all Canon L lenses.
|
|
|
Oct 30, 2008
|
|
Breitling65
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: May 31, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 4995
|
|
Review Date: Oct 15, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Usefull range, F2.8, weathersealed. Great L colors and contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
Extrimely heavy and large, moving front element. Need Canon calibration to become sharp.
|
|
I got this lens almost new on FM traded on another one. Sent it same day to Canon for calibrations since some out of focus tests. After calibration it comeback better. Extremely bulky with no reason!!! This lens need re-design, Canon please make it as light and sharp as new 70-200mm F4 IS.
In general OK all purpose zoom lens, but I will sell it anyway for something better ...  )
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2008
|
|
Shane F
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 8, 2007
Location: Canada
Posts: 281
|
|
Review Date: Oct 9, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,240.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, hood, color, contrast.
|
|
Cons:
|
No IS.
|
|
|
I recently changed from a XTi / 40D combo using the 17-55 f/2.8 IS to a Mark IIN. Sold the 17-55 and picked up a new 24-70 f/2.8. I can say that my the 24-70 has slightly better colors and contrast compared to my 17-55. It is sharp as tack in all focal lengths and produced some of my favorite f/2.8 pics within a few days of owning it.
The only downfall is that it does not have IS. I miss the IS and being able to hand hold at 1/6th of second, now I usually will not go below 1/60th. So, bump up the ISO and away you go.
Sure its heavy, but when I mount it on the Mark IIN, it balances out the camera. I can honestly say that I would not have a problem carring this around for hours on end - just make sure you have a comfortable neck strap.
|
|
|
Oct 9, 2008
|
|
TechnoPhil
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 3, 2006
Location: San Marino
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Sep 26, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, build quality, zoom range on Full Frame camera
|
|
Cons:
|
weight, price
|
|
|
Very useful on my EOS 5D you can try it everywere with otpimum results!
Very recommended as walk-around/all-purpose lens
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2008
|
|
albertino
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 23, 2007
Location: Italy
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 7, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Contrasto-nitidezza-luminosità-escursione focale
|
|
Cons:
|
un p̣ pesante, ma interessa poco
|
|
|
Senza dubbio un obiettivo da consigliare. Non mi ha mai deluso
|
|
|
Sep 7, 2008
|
|
stevesanacore
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 28, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 59
|
|
Review Date: Sep 7, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
Great focal length range.
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor performance. To soft on edges compared with prime lenses to be useful for landscape work.
|
|
|
I have too many ruined shots to recommend this lens. Typical Canon mediocre quality of their wide angle lenses. I only shoot full frame 5D and 1Ds Mk3, so for APS sized users it may be a better performer.
|
|
|
Sep 7, 2008
|
|
youcai
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 17, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 324
|
|
Review Date: Sep 6, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp wide open, nice boken, fast focus, good build
|
|
Cons:
|
a little bit heavy, not performing as well from 24mm-28mm
|
|
|
I've had 3 copies of 24-70L, 2 copies of 24-105L and 1 copy of 17-55 IS. I've done some comparison. 24-70L won easily over 24-105L on both 40D and 5D. 24-70L/5D is also better than 17-55 IS/40D. This is a nice zoom lens, sharp at 2.8, nice color and contrast. I definitely recommend it.
The downside is that it's not a good landscape lens, and it's a little heavy.
|
|
|
Sep 6, 2008
|
|
rhorta
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 11, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2286
|
|
Review Date: Sep 6, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
Pros:
|
Performance to rival prime lenses
|
|
Cons:
|
not really, but large hood and size and weight must be mentioned
|
|
|
It surprised me to read Torque22's damning review, without any comments about calibration nor taking it back for another copy.
Any lens can suffer from manufacturing defects or the need to be calibrated, the 24-70 is no different.
To simply state that the 24-70/2.8 "suffers from back-focusing issues" is misleading and not a sound basis for a review.
I'd like to repeat my earlier view, reinforced by the experiences I've had with this lens over the last months: the 24-70/2.8 is almost as good as a prime, and much more versatile.
I still think that the 24-105/4 IS is the superior travel lens - based on size, reach, IS and hood - and this is the reason it will stay in my kit, but apart from that the 24-70 suits most of my needs perfectly and has quickly become my favorite zoom and natural first choice.
Paired with the 70-200/2.8IS the 24-70/2.8 is a perfect set, at least on full frame.
This lens will probably be one of the last to go if I had to make that kind of choice.
Ruy
|
|
|
Sep 6, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
531
|
879742
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
