 |
|
|
sendjo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 23, 2008
Location: Croatia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Feb 24, 2008
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $150.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
price, medicore IQ, small and light..
|
|
Cons:
|
image softness, zoom creep
|
|
|
Good lens for someone who don`t have or don`t want to spend a lot money on gear. IQ is not impressive but this lens is one step above from kit lenses..
|
|
 Feb 24, 2008
|
|
kjosker
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Mar 2, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 76
|
|
Review Date: May 18, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $151.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Smallish size and weight; great contrast and color, and above all else, sharp.
|
|
Cons:
|
None have emerged.
|
|
|
After reading many reviews and comments about this lens, I was somewhat reluctant to buy one, with most of the reviews commenting on lack of sharpness wide open.
But when a used one in great shape came available to me for $151. I had to try it. I am totally surprised and satisfied. This is a great lens. I find it sharp wide open at 24mm, and at all other settings.
The focusing is fast and accurate, and completely silent. I have no idea how old my lens is, but there is no zoom creep or looseness anywhere. It impresses as very well built.
I also have an 24-105mm L, and I tend to shoot more at the wide end, and for those times I need or prefer a smaller or lighter lens, I will have no hesitation in selecting the 24-85.
|
|
|
May 18, 2007
|
|
Rafi Abramov
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 25, 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Apr 29, 2007
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $100.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
USM, lightweight, sharp at f/6 and smaller, champagne color
|
|
Cons:
|
None for this price
|
|
|
I bought a Canon EOS IX APS film camera at the local pawn shop with this lens attached for $100, explaining the low price. What a deal!
Anyway, I've had the chance to compare this champagne colored 24-85 with my 28-135 on my XTi.
Images are a bit soft at f/3.5 at the 24mm end, but they get sharper at f/6 and smaller. The 24-85's USM focusing is always spot-on and quiet. Build quality is great- even for a 1996 copy. It's not L quality, but it's close. No zoom creep either.
Overall, this is a great all-around lens. It's perfect as a first standard zoom lens upgrade.
|
|
|
Apr 29, 2007
|
|
Jan Waumans
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 16, 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 21
|
|
Review Date: Nov 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Good resolution and contrast, borders too, light, real ring USM
|
|
Cons:
|
Some wobbling when zooming out (due to age ?)
|
|
|
I bought this lens (champagne version) second (n-th ?) hand for a 400D to avoid the kit lens, and plan to add the EF-S 10-22 (X-mas !)
Resolution comparable to 50mm 1.8 II.
Underestimated, good value at 30-50% of new price
|
|
|
Nov 6, 2006
|
|
darren deans
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 21, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 21, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Great quality images, very small and light with a good range for the EOS 400 camera, perfect for travel.... One of canons best kept secrets!
|
|
Cons:
|
If any... it would be nice to have better build quality..
|
|
|
This is a great lens! No extra bits to make it too long or too heavy, just perfect for travelling with. Very small, very light great quality!
Images are sharp and stand up compared to other zooms in this range, the starting mm of 24 is great and the zoom of 85 is good.
I have seen other reviews that are negative to this lens, but have not yet seen a small light travel lens for a 350D or 400D that compares.
|
|
|
Oct 21, 2006
|
|
Greg83
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 19, 2005
Location: Slovenia
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Aug 14, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $170.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Very little vigneting, sharpness, colors, contrast. Good construction, cheap.
|
|
Cons:
|
Little softer at long end.
|
|
|
Very fast and precise focusing. Good all around performer. Very competitive price. Very good sharpness from 5.6 on. Reccomended.
|
|
|
Aug 14, 2006
|
|
sarlo100
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 17, 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Jun 26, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Lightweight, useful zoom range, very sharp starting at f/6.3, decent build quality for price
|
|
Cons:
|
soft wide open, zoom creep
|
|
|
I ended up with this lens as part of a lot of digital equipment I purchased a few months back. After selling the items I didn't want, this lens turned out to be a freebie. A rather valuable freebie at that. It is a good copy, any picture I shoot at f/6.3 or smaller comes out razor sharp...unless I am the one making the mistake.
Compared to the kit lens, the Sigma 18-125, and an old style Canon 22-55 lens I had, this lens, when properly shot, blows all of them away. Color, highlights, and sharpness are all excellent. 24mm (on a 1.6 crop) is wide enough for the type of shooting I do, and 85mm (really about 136mm) is generally enough reach for me as well. It is a fine walkaround lens, and can easily be carried around all day, especially on a Rebel XT body. I have read in various professional reviews that this lens on a film body was never particularly popular because of soft and dark corners, but it really shines on a crop body because of first rate center performance. The pictures I get with my XT seem to bear that out.
Pictures can be soft when shooting wide open, and the zoom definitely moves if it is tilted much past 45 degrees or so. Also, 24mm (38mm equiv) may not be wide enough for everybody. However, those are weaknesses I can live with. Even at the normal price of $300, this lens is a fine deal. For what I "paid" for it....it really works out well.
This review is based on a crop body, if you have a 5D, you might want to read some professional reviews on the corner performance for this lens.
|
|
|
Jun 26, 2006
|
|
Kamyk
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 25, 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 5, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
light, USM always works, good range for travel especially if combined with Canon 10-22 or Tokina 12-24 for extra wide perspective, good sharpness across all lenghts except for 24mm
|
|
Cons:
|
extends itself when walking around, soft at 24mm (problem gone if stopped down), build-quality not forever
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 5, 2006
|
|
Crazy Fool
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 5, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
|
|
Review Date: Apr 1, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Extremely sharp from f4.5-f11, great focusing, good price used, size weight.
|
|
Cons:
|
Satutration and contrast needs a boost usually
|
|
|
This is an excellent standard zoom.
I have the black version which in my opinion looks much better than the silver. It is small, focuses fast, and is capable of fantastic sharpness when stopped down very slightly.
Wide open performance is decent / usable but personally I'd rather use (bounce) flash and get super sharp with f8.
I find the focal range excellent on a crop body. Apart from the wide end, its equivalent to the (most) popular 28-135mm zoom range. Personally I don't miss the -not so wide anyway-28mm equivalent!
I like my 24-85 a lot. I wouldn't swap it for a 17-85 IS because I don't think my pictures would improve... but I'd swap it for a 24-105L!
Highly recommended...don't waste your money!
|
|
|
Apr 1, 2006
|
|
Jay Taft
Offline
Image Upload: On
Registered: Dec 28, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 712
|
|
Review Date: Feb 25, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $200.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Good focal length range, light weight, fast focus, nice image quality, price
|
|
Cons:
|
Zoom creep, CA can be a problem against an overcast sky
|
|
|
This is a very nice walk-around lens on bright days, and also great for casual photos of family and friends. I bought both the champaign version and the black version here on FM and I have them mounted on two film cameras, mostly for shooting black and white. Both perform equally well. I have also used them both on a 10D with very good results, printing images taken with the champaign version up to 8x12.
Using a Canon 10D I recently compared the black 24-85 to the Tamron 28-75 and found the 24-85 to be a bit less contrasty and to have more CA under the same overcast light. (The Tamron had no detectable CA.) Adjusting the contrast in PS is easy enough. The characteristic zoom creep is annoying but I get used to it.
For $200 or less, the EF 24-85 is an excellent value. It has nice zoom range and produces good quality 8x12 prints with help from one aspherical lens element, earning it a 7 for build quality in spite of the creep.
|
|
|
Feb 25, 2006
|
|
anthonygh
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 8, 2006
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1663
|
|
Review Date: Jan 8, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
A good balance of weight and construction allied to ease of use. Instantaneous auto focus. Sharp from f4. looks good ( I have the 'Champaign" version.
|
|
Cons:
|
For what I paid for it on eBay...none...a real bargain.
|
|
|
Thanks to my D10 comparing lenses has become something of a doddle!
How good is this lens? I have the well respected f1.8 85mm so I did some simple tests comparing both at different apertures on the 85mm setting. The results were pleasantly surprising. The prime f85 was the better lens in terms of contrast and sheer image sharpness...but, once I applies some USM in Photoshop the difference became marginal at all apertures. Obviously, for many, the prime lens is the better portrait lens in that it had the larger aperture settings but that was its main advantage for portraiture. I feel that, taking into account the convenience and flexibility of the zoom range of the 24-85 lens, particularly with a 1.6 crop factor, this is the better lens for general portraiture. How sharp is it? Specks of mascara on eyelash sharp! Maybe if I was after A2 plus prints the prime lens would be my choice but until then....!!
Where this lens does score is the image quality/convenience factor. I have used it for 'event' type photography and it meets 90% of my needs Wide open, any aperture, for prints up to A4 it's hard to fault. Stop down to f8 and the same is true to A3 size. It is hard to see where investing in a 'L' quality lens is cost effective particularly for anyone who is post processing in Photoshop.
The real eye opener is that, when using film, the quality 'gap' is even less obvious...and my T90/FD lenses combo can easily match this lens and the f85mm. Basically, I know that most canon lenses (apart from the basic kit lenses) deliver the goods...and the quality of my images is down to me, not the equipment. However....if you see one of these for a decent price, buy it...It's a good deal!
|
|
|
Jan 8, 2006
|
|
Herbie
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 29, 2005
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 6, 2006
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $277.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Fast USM, better then a tamron or a sigma (eq) at the same range
|
|
Cons:
|
plastic feeling
|
|
|
I think this is a good and in-expensive all-round lens.
The pictures it take are sharp and good of colour and contrast.
Don't try to put the most out of this lens......
(price in euro)
for its price, higly recommend
|
|
|
Jan 6, 2006
|
|
scooterzz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 19, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 20, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $265.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Light, inexpensive, good range, USM/FTM, produces decent images if not pushed to its limits.
|
|
Cons:
|
Build quality a little weak, images soft wide open.
|
|
|
Not a bad walking around lens in bright conditions or for general grab shots. Much better than kit 18-55, particularly stopped down.
Want pin-sharp results throughout the zoom range and a usable f2.8? Time to shell out that extra $1,000 and get the 24-70L.
|
|
|
Dec 20, 2005
|
|
smac
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 28, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 11
|
|
Review Date: Dec 10, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $325.00
| Rating: 6
|
|
Pros:
|
Compact, great focal range
|
|
Cons:
|
Soft and slow
|
|
|
I really wanted to like this lens, as it covered my favorite focal lengths, but it just wasn't quite sharp enough to satisfy.
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2005
|
|
domdom
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 6, 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Dec 6, 2005
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
small; cheap; good build quality; good zoom range; fast USA AF
|
|
Cons:
|
no lens hood included; heavy vignetting wide open; performance (Sharpness) @24mm in the corner is insufficient;
|
|
|
I bought this lens about 18 months ago just for taking vacation-pics. I use it most of the time @24mm. Unfortunately the sharpness - especially in the corner - is even worse than a cheap 18-50 or a 28-90 (kit). I tested it @ 50mm against my 50/1.8 MK II. The latter is even @ f=1.8 sharper than the 24-85 stopped down!
Probably I got a monday model!
|
|
|
Dec 6, 2005
|
|
patrickwils
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Oct 8, 2005
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $275.00
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
Small, light, decent build quality, useful range on 1.6x DSLR
Good contrast
Sharpness ok when stopped down a bit
|
|
Cons:
|
28-135 IS USM is not much more expensive nowadays and may be a better option for the money
|
|
|
Excellent small allrounder on my 10D. It seems to be a forgotten lens since the EF-S lenses exist. It offers much better optical quality than the 18-55, and the 24-85 range is still very useful on a 1.6x crop camera.
|
|
|
Oct 8, 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
59
|
171375
|
Sep 26, 2012
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
95% of reviewers
|
$246.28
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
7.45
|
8.46
|
7.8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
