 |
|
|
raychoi
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 13, 2008
Location: Singapore
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 13, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,200.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent lens, very sharp, a must have if you want to fill up the middle gap of your collections, like 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200. however, i do have one question, does it occur to you guys that it requires a bit more strenght to turn the zoom ring from 70 to 24? Mine is, hope thats normal.....
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Jun 13, 2008
|
|
rhorta
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 11, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 2286
|
|
Review Date: Jun 11, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,658.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
range, mfd, fast, sharp, built
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
I've been a happy user of the 24-105/4 IS as it appeared, but the 24-70 has been drawing my attention for at least as long as that. However the mixed QC reports had me worried.
Although I've concentrated on slow zooms and fast primes, the idea of having a fast zoom set appealed to me. So I finally decided to match my 70-200/2.8IS with the famed 24-70/2.8 and I am not sorry!
Weight isn't an issue. I'm used to the 70-200/2.8IS and 85/1.2, both heavier lenses. Built quality is very good t excellent. The resulting images on my 5D are very satisfying (and better than expected and all I hoped for).
Don't ask me to choose between the 24-70 or 24-105, as each has its place. The first is near to prime quality, the latter a great general purpose zoom. I can see why some people choose this zoom over primes, as a capable alternative.
This EF 24-70/2.8 with batch number UW0312 is a keeper.
So to those who are despairing, those sharp copies are certainly out there!
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2008
|
|
timbop
Offline
Buy and Sell: On
Registered: Dec 29, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 6028
|
|
Review Date: Jun 3, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $980.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, reliable, fast, gorgeous images
|
|
Cons:
|
none worth mentioning
|
|
|
Obviously it is larger and heavier than the "ideal" walkaround lens, but it delivers the goods in every respect. Mine is sharp wide open throughout the range, with great bokeh, fast reliable AF, and great image quality. I even really like the reverse zoom mechanism - the hood is effective throughout the range which is nice.
For point of reference mine is mounted on my 1dm2 usually with a flash for the better part of the day during a wedding, and you really do get used to the weight. When I travel I put it on my 20D, and it feels pretty light. The only drawback is that it isn't wide enough for architecture in tight spaces, but other than that it performs flawlessly.
|
|
|
Jun 3, 2008
|
|
Maliketh
Offline
[ X ]
Registered: Nov 7, 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 67
|
|
Review Date: May 29, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,500.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Usually sharp - read review. Feels excellent on camera.
|
|
Cons:
|
Weirdest lens I have ever used when it comes to focus performance.
|
|
|
Not all that impressed with this lens.
I'd like to back up the users who have noticed issues with the 24-70's focus on subjects about 3 metres away.
I have 3 5D bodies and one 1Ds MkIII and the 24-70 behaves EXACTLY the same on all of these cameras, I have tested it. The 24-70 focuses well/is sharp when the subject is close (say, less than 1 meter). When focusing on objects about 3 metres away, it's like a lucky dip as to what you get. The AF in this lens baffles me. Not sure whether this is an optical flaw or an AF issue.
Here is how I discovered this:
I was shooting with two lenses, the 24-70 2.8 and the 85mm f1.8.
Subject is 3 metres away. 24-70 sharpness @70mm f/4 wasn't good at all. I shot heaps of frames, tried various focus techniques - nothing could get me a sharp shot. Was initially shooting on a 1Ds MkIII and thought maybe I had a defective body. Changed the 24-70 over to one of my 5D's - same problem - soft, soft, soft.
I put the 85mm on both bodies. EVERY shot is a winner. sharp as hell - and I mean every shot. Same aperture, same shutter speed, same technique, same everything. If the prime is sharp doing the exact same thing then there is something wrong with the 24-70. My lens at least.
Some people may think they have "perfect copies" of this lens - I did for many months, or so I assumed. Next time you work with the 24-70 at different AF distances and at f/2.8 - f/4, take a good look at your photos.
This lens is just not as reliable as I'd like. I'd really like to like this lens, because most of the time it is awesome but then lets me down - even when I'm doing everthing right - even in controlled/good lighting situations.
|
|
|
May 29, 2008
|
|
devan40D
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 23, 2008
Location: India
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 23, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 4
|
|
Pros:
|
I recently bought a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens for my Canon 40 D and found that in bright sun light IQ was fantastic. Build quality was excellent, presence of the lens is unrivalled, you could walk in to a room full of photographers and get attention immediately. Pin point sharp pictures that could be blown uo to any size without loosing sharpness.
|
|
Cons:
|
But in low light and in Flash light photography the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM used in conjunction with either 40 D or 400 D gave images that were soft. Very disappointing and painfull after reading some rave reviews. I sold the lens at a loss to someone who did most of his photography outdoors.
|
|
|
I recently bought a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM lens for my Canon 40 D and found that in bright sun light IQ was fantastic. Build quality was excellent, presence of the lens is unrivalled, you could walk in to a room full of photographers and get attention immediately. Pin point sharp pictures that could be blown uo to any size without loosing sharpness.
But in low light and in Flash light photography the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM used in conjunction with either 40 D or 400 D gave images that were soft. Very disappointing and painfull after reading some rave reviews. I sold the lens at a loss to someone who did most of his photography outdoors.
I talked with several Canon owners and learnt that 20% of this lens was like this. It's a shame. The beuty of the lens make you expect a lot. In other internet forums there are similiar sufferers.
|
|
|
May 23, 2008
|
|
Bert 1969
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 13, 2008
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 16, 2008
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
Build quality, colour, contrast, very attrative range of 24-70mm
|
|
Cons:
|
far too many bad (too soft) copies out there, still have not found a good sharp one.
|
|
|
I did own this lens for 6 months and it was very soft at f/2.8 and (too) soft at f/4.0. Sold it 5 months ago to a guy which wanted it to use from f/5.6 and up, so this was not a problem for him.
But I really miss the 24-70mm for my concert photography.
So today I went to the store and told the salesman my history with my previous 24-70mm and that I first wanted to take sample pictures to see if they had a good copy.
Got a new one out of the box and we took pictures outside and the same story again very very soft at f/2.8 and still soft at f/4.0. Then we took the demo lens which was behind the counter and this one even performed worse.
After he told me that he was not planning to go through his whole stock of 24-70mm lenses to find me a good copy I left the store.
So till now I've seen 3 copies of this lens performing bad.
Tomorrow I'm going to another store to try a (some if they let me) copie(s) there, if they still don't perform good, I'm going to give up on this lens. It feels a little bit like a having a winning ticket in a lotery when you can find a good copy but for what I can read here they must absolutly be out there..........somewhere.
|
|
|
May 16, 2008
|
|
super_darker
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 5, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 5, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,400.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Everything... it's sharp, solid as a rock, amazing color and contrast, beautiful bokeh, fast autofocus, accurate, all around amazing, heavy (this is a positive for me, i hate plastic lenses)
|
|
Cons:
|
make sure you have a good copy, my first one was crap.
|
|
|
All around a great lens (my current one), but just like it's been said before, make sure you have a good copy. My first one was actually really bad... soft at all apertures and focal lengths, jagged edges on everything, and worst of all, horrendous chromatic abberations (red, cyan, and bad magenta/green lateral abberations) everywhere. Honestly, it was actually worse than my old 18-55 kit lens!
And to top it off, the first one had aperture issues and connection issues (err01 faulty lens connection etc etc). In Av mode I would set the aperture to f8, and it would still use f2.8, even though it would calculate the exposure for f8. Result? Massively overexposed images.
So, all in all, my current one is AMAZING... sharp, fast, beautiful, solid, FANTASIC. Can't say enough good about it.
But the previous one (that I exchanged) was absolute garbage... soft, abberations, and connection issues etc. I make a lot of decisions based on experience... and I wouldn't recommend buying this lens second hand, and i'd only buy from somewhere that they would let you exchange or return within a few weeks just in case. But then again, that's my opinion on all lenses.
|
|
|
May 5, 2008
|
|
kevinj909
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 29, 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: May 4, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, 2.8, great color & contrast
|
|
Cons:
|
heavy
|
|
|
I just have to say... after owning the 24-105 L this lens takes the cake. As much as it's heavier... the IQ is much better. The quality is what an L lens should be.
|
|
|
May 4, 2008
|
|
stopper
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 1, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: May 1, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,270.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Build, IQ.
|
|
Cons:
|
None
|
|
|
1) A F2.8 L lens is going to be heavy, until they make a plastic that gives as good or better IQ as glass, don't complain about the weight. You know it is heavier than a cheap lens before buying, don't complain about the weight.
2) Don't post negative comment(s) when you don't own a lens or camera. If you have a gripe with a company take it up with that company.
3) You hear a lot about bad copies, what is the true percentage of bad copies. You can't use reviews to make that estimate, all people don't write a review.
What is a bad copy? A bad copy for one person may be acceptable for the next. Bad copy can be subjective.
I love this lens. I bought it new last month. I love the IQ I get from it and I expected no less. It performs exactly as an L lens should.
I didn't know about L lenses until I went into digital cameras. Now I know why my film images can't match my digital ones.
My wife has used it for my business and she has not complained in anyway. Therefore I also know it is performing as an L lens should. She is so picky about any pictures she takes or someone else takes. She says 'A soft lens is blurry'.
I highly recommend this lens if you need(want) the F2.8L.
|
|
|
May 1, 2008
|
|
vgopalk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 2, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Apr 9, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,300.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Excellent Build. FAST Lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy (read long comment in Post)
|
|
Just returned from a 4-month trip to South America. I carried a 5D body, the 24-70/2.8 and an old 75-300/4-5.6 lens. The 75-300 was used when I needed the long range to shoot wildlife. 95% of the time the 24-70 was on the 5D. Much as I would have loved to get the 24-105/4.0, I wanted the speed this lens provided and it did not disappoint.
I would love to see canon come out with a 24-105/2.8. Assume it is of a good quality and costs less than $2000, that would be the SINGLE lens I would own.
After 4-months of having the lens in your backpack or on your neck, you develop a stoop! I dread to think what state I will be reduced to once I get the 70-200/2.8 lens 
|
|
|
Apr 9, 2008
|
|
fauxtoman
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 5, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 5, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 5
|
|
Pros:
|
|
|
Cons:
|
I realize this is the review page, however, I am very disturbed whenever I read any review of an L lens where someone bought a bad copy or in the case of one recent reviewer, two bads before finally getting a good one. I wrote to Canon about this since any L lens is relatively expensive and considered professional and that I expect it to come out of the box, perfect and ready to shoot. Here is the response I received from Canon.
Please note, various things can happen to a lens from the time it is
manufactured, and the time it reaches a dealer or customer that may
require the lens to have some minor adjustments made to obtain full
performance.
In our newer camera models, there is a new feature called AF
Microadjustment. This allows you to make fine adjustments of the AF's
point of focus. It can be adjusted in ±20 steps (-: Forward / +:
Backward).
You may set the same adjustment amount to be applied to all of your
lenses, or an adjustment can be set individually for any particular
lens. Adjustments for up to 20 lenses can be registered in the camera.
Unfortunately, this new feature is only available in our newer camera
models (currently the EOS 1D Mark III and EOS 1Ds Mark III).
SAY WHAT? "various things can happen to a lens from the time it is
manufactured, and the time it reaches a dealer or customer" What the hell is going on here? Do they employ monkeys to package and ship their products to store? Even if they did, I would expect any lens of this caliber to hold up to some abuse. Canon needs to clean up their act and do something about their apparent lack of quality control. I have a 70-200 2.8 L IS that I assume is a "good" copy since I haven't seen anything to the contrary but I'm having second thoughts about getting a Canon 24-70 or any other L lens
|
|
|
See above
|
|
|
Apr 5, 2008
|
|
garz63
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 15, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Apr 4, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Wow, what a great lens! The price you pay for a Quality lens!
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
|
with 'alot' of research & discussion on the internet, I've been saving for over a year to take the plunge and invest in a L lens. been shooting with my 17-85 f/4.0 IS lens for almost 3 years. My buddy let me borrow the rep's demo lens and within 2-hours I made my decision. Awsome lens! like i said above 'the price you pay for a Quality lens' My new 24-70 F/2.8L lens will be in next week. better order yours soon, there's a rumor of a Canon price increase.
|
|
|
Apr 4, 2008
|
|
gryphonslair99
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 20, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 6
|
|
Review Date: Mar 30, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,080.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Overall a very sharp lens with amazing image quality. Built like a tank. A real workhorse of a lens
|
|
Cons:
|
Price
|
|
|
This lens has become a real workhorse for me. I find that it is acceptably soft at f2.8, but a bit more than I expected out of this pricey of L glass. The image quality that this lens produces is one of it's best selling points. Bright, vibrant images that when slightly stopped down are a sharp as any I have ever seen from a zoom lens. This lens lives on one of my camera bodies and my 70-200 f2.8 lives on the other. This is one lens I would hate to have to do with out.
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2008
|
|
R10
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 4, 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 48
|
|
Review Date: Mar 26, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ - IF YOU MANAGE TO FIND A GOOD SAMPLE..., built quality
|
|
Cons:
|
sample variation (hardly acceptable in this price league); weight is not a con that Canon could change but just physics - don't go for fast rigid zoom lenses if you don't want heavy lenses
|
|
|
I went through three samples before I had a good one. The first two were severely decentered (ie, uneven sharpness at/in different edges/corners; one was more or less blurry throughout the frame at 24mm)! This is inacceptable, (not only) in this price league. If you manage to get a good one, however, the results are veeery pleasing. There is probably no better EF-mount-AF-zoom-lens of this focal range and speed.
Resolution declines noticeably towards the edge/corner, especially when wide open, but this seems to be the case with virtually all (faster) non-Leica zooms. So nothing special to complain. Stopped down to f8, IQ is impressive.
It's heavy. Of course. It's fast and built like a tank. Thus, weight is not a con that Canon could change. It's just physics – just don't go for fast rigid zoom lenses if you don't want heavy lenses.
I finally sold it, not only because severe sample variation is more than annoying at +1000,- Euro. I got for less(!) than the EF24-70's sales revenue a Leica-R 4/35-70, AND an OM 3.5/21, AND (in case I need AF) a Sigma EX 2.8/24-60. Btw, if weight is an issue, the first two are together lighter than the Canon. The first outperforms the Canon by far at any focal length and aperture, as well as the some 20-years old OM does compared to the Canon is at its short end, esp at/in the edge/corner, and the Sigma is not far behind the Canon at a fraction of the price.
Anybody who wants a fast rigid EF-mount-AF-standard-zoom, and who gets a good sample, will probably be very happy with this lens!
My rating is for the good sample.
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2008
|
|
Crazy Fool
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 5, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Mar 20, 2008
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated
|
|
|
to terminator:
If its VERY sharp at close range, the lens quality is fine, but your camera or lens' focusing is off.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2008
|
|
Santai
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 19, 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Mar 19, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,180.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Fantastic image quality, sharpness and contrast - once you got a good lens copy.
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
|
I was looking for a shorter zoom with IQ comparable to my 70-200 L f/4, which set the benchmark for image quality, sharpness and contrast for me. The 24-70 became my choice, taking the f/2.8 into consideration over the 24-105.
Being suspicious about the individual lens quality based on so many user reports in this and other forums, I did the “newspaper on the wall sharpness test” in the shop. Out of seven copies, five were useless, no center sharpness at all, the edges naturally being worse. So I picked one of the two remaining copies.
When looking at the real life pictures taken with the one I bought, I was less than impressed with the results. Missing the IQ and contrast I was looking for, I went straight to the Canon service center in Jakarta. They let me pick and try a new one and swapped it without any problem.
This one is fantastic, sharp and crisp pictures, nice contrast, true “L” quality. I love it!
My recommendation to fellow photographers is to buy the lens in a shop you trust and where you can be sure that they would replace your lens in case you got a bad copy (and such judgement can only be made by yourself). My recommendation to Canon: Do something about this issue, this is a “L” lens and an unnecessary quality assurance problem.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2008
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
531
|
879390
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
