|
|
erikburd
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 3, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
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: 189
|
|
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: 20
|
|
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: 4
|
|
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
|
|
badmongo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 27, 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 23, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Love the quality of the photos
|
|
Cons:
|
None negative.
|
|
Bought this lens when i was on vacation in US spring 2008. I am very happy about it. On my 350D I change about this lens and the 10-22.
It's very sharp. Just want to get a newer/better camera now, so i can see the real potential of this lens.
|
|
|
Jan 23, 2010
|
|
recordproducti
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jul 11, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 145
|
|
Review Date: Jan 8, 2010
|
Recommend? |
Price paid: $899.00
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp, great contrast, f/2.8, excellent AF
|
|
Cons:
|
A bit heavy but not *that* heavy
|
|
I sold my last copy a year ago and missed it so have recently got a new one. I have to say that it's a wonderful lens, it's AF is fast and spot on, it's sharp and produces almost prime like quality images.
I reckon it's one of Canon's best value lenses.
|
|
|
Jan 8, 2010
|
|
pho7ographer
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 17, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 3
|
|
Review Date: Jan 8, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,250.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Great Bokeh, Quick & Quiet Focus
|
|
Cons:
|
Heavy, Mis-Calibrated Autofocus (Battery Test/Back Focus Test), Low Light performance not as good as prime lens, UV Filter overpriced
|
|
This was my first Canon L Lens purchase and had very high expectations for its performance.
Current inventory: Canon 50 1.8 & Canon 18-200EFS 3.5-5.6
The 18-200 is half the price of the 24-70L and at similar focal lengths the 18-200 came out on top on what I thought was a 'sharpness' factor (details of back focusing below). As for depth the 24-70L and wide aperture was very noticeable. Also nice bokeh.
Shooting within the 1m range of the subject, the 24-70mm was solid, but realistically I am not going to be that close to my subjects for all my shots especially at 70mm.
Results of my battery test:
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/philiphoang/4257634136/sizes/o/">Battery Test</a>
Shooting 1m+ of the subject and at 70mm. The batteries are stacked at roughly 2 inches and 45 degrees to the next. This shot was taken roughly 1.5m away from the center subject (#4). The focus is subtle, but you can read the fine print on #5 as compared to the center. In fact, #6 (though not shown in 100% zoom) is slightly sharper than #4 as well.
For $1250, I was hoping for quality performance and quality control. Take my review with a grain of salt, I've talked to much more experienced photographers who have all told me their 24-70mm is a gift from heaven. I hope my next copy will yield better results.
|
|
|
Jan 8, 2010
|
|
Olivier6
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 1, 2010
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 1, 2010
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharpness, contrast, light sensitivity, build quality
|
|
Cons:
|
weight, size, price
|
|
It lives on my 5D MK2. It is heavy, and big, and pricey... But it is also stunningly sharp and versatile. What can I say: it it the choice of many, many professionals all over the world. And the results speak for themselves.
If you want to use a state-of-the-art, best-in-class lens. This is your choice. If you are looking for a light, less pricey option, search further. This will definitely not be your choice.
|
|
|
Jan 1, 2010
|
|
victris
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 9, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 9, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,384.00
|
|
Pros:
|
It feels well and solidly built. Not sure about the IQ yet - see my comments.
|
|
Cons:
|
So far, perhaps only the price and the bulk.
|
|
I just got the lens and so far so good, I think. I say I am not sure yet because I have read alot of reviews where people say that some copies are good and some are not. I have a question for whomever can answer it. How do I know if I got a good copy? What should I be looking for in the lens? what test should I do? Please help, before my 30-day refund or exchange period expires. Thanks
|
|
|
Dec 9, 2009
|
|
aw-photo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 12, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Dec 8, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,180.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very sharp throughout the focal range. Colors and contrast is amazing! Built like a tank, very solid.
|
|
Cons:
|
Not tack sharp wide open.
|
|
My most used lens, no question. This lens has impressed myself and many of my customers on a regular basis. Sharp, colorful and constrasty, the 24-70 2.8L is almost anyone's must have L lens.
|
|
|
Dec 8, 2009
|
|
ar15
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 7, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 7, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,298.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
Great Build Quality (except zoom ring)
|
|
Cons:
|
Poor Quality Control, Blurry images
|
|
First let me say that this review is written for my copy of the 24-70 f/2.8 - not my opinion of the lens in general. I have seen what a good copy of this lens can do, and it is amazing! A good copy of this lens is a solid "10"! Unfortunately, I fell victim to Canon's poor quality control that this lens is known for, and received a VERY POOR copy.
The first problem I noticed was with the zoom ring. It was very tight between 24-50mm with a grinding sound as it turned. Between 50-70mm there was almost no tension at all. The grinding eventually disappeared after working the zoom in and out a bunch of times, but the tension issue never improved. I wish I could say this was the only problem... but the real problem was image quality.
The images my 24-70 produced were just awful! My first thought was, "how did this lens leave the factory?”. I know things happen and no manufacturer is perfect, but there seems to be a "soft copy" theme for this lens... which is a real shame since this lens has so much potential. It is very disappointing to pay $1300 for an "L" lens only to have it blown away by my $150 plastic EF-S 18-55.
My second copy is on the way and I hope it is a good one… Am I buying a lens or playing the lottery??? Good luck to anyone trying to find a good copy of this lens. It will be worth it once you find one - just be ready to return a lens or two.
P.S. – Don’t rely on Canon’s website for accurate reviews. I wrote a review on the Canon website two weeks ago describing the problems with the lens I received (following all the rules – no prices, etc.). I was not bashing the lens or the company; in fact I was praising what a great lens it is if you get a good copy. I also described the tests / comparisons I ran while trying to get an acceptable image. Since my review, two other “5 star” reviews have been posted, but mine has not. It looks like Canon is trying to hide their poor quality control on the EF 24-70 f/2.8!
|
|
|
Dec 7, 2009
|
|
stev315
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 22, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Dec 4, 2009
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,135.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
IQ, build, focus
|
|
Cons:
|
lens hood doesn't give flare protection proportional to its size
|
|
My copy is 5 years old now. From the purchase date, this has been my most used lens. First on a 20d, now it lives on a 5D2. I don't think image quality gets much better than this. I'm a serious amateur, but I have professional friends that are equally impressed with the EF 24-70. This is a great lens.
chaengnosce,
Last month, the Canon elves at Utsunomiya produced an optical masterpiece, and now you have it. coz that's life
|
|
|
Dec 4, 2009
|
|
|
