backup
Photoshop actions
 
 

Search Used

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
533 966887 Nov 9, 2022
Recommended By Average Price
88% of reviewers $1,189.84
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.67
8.34
9.3
ef_24-70_28u_1_

Specifications:
This new lens does what many pros thought couldn't be done - replace the previous L-series 28-70 f/2.8 lens with something even better. Extended coverage to an ultra-wide angle 24mm makes it ideal for digital as well as film shooters, and the optics are even better than before with two Aspherical elements and a totally new UD glass element. It's now sealed and gasketed against dust and moisture, and a new processing unit makes the AF faster than ever.


 


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11>  next
          
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add devan40D to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Bert 1969 to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add super_darker to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add kevinj909 to your Buddy List  
stopper
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: May 1, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add stopper to your Buddy List  
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 Smile


Apr 9, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add vgopalk to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add fauxtoman to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add garz63 to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add gryphonslair99 to your Buddy List  
R10
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 4, 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 79
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add R10 to your Buddy List  
Crazy Fool
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 5, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
Review Date: Mar 19, 2008 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros:
Cons:

to terminator:
If its VERY sharp at close range, the lens quality is fine, but your camera or lens' focusing is off.


Mar 19, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Crazy Fool to your Buddy List  
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
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Santai to your Buddy List  
terminator
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 28, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 293
Review Date: Mar 18, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $800.00 | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: Sharpness in close range, build quality, f/2.8, USM, color
Cons:
Heavy, heavy, heavy! Softness in long range. bokeh, loose zoom ring, 70mm is a bit short even on APS-C DSLR, no IS

I already own a 24-105L, but f/2.8 is sooooooo attractive that I finally decided to buy it when I found a pretty good deal to get it second hand.

First impression, it is as heavy as a brick - compared to 24-105L. As the seller said, I can feel a lot of glasses in it. I noticed that the zoom ring is pretty loose - perhaps because it is 3 years old? When I hold the lens, I always have a bad feeling that my hand may accidentally move the ring. When the subject is just a little bit far away, I could not get a single sharp image even stop down to f/4 as I expected from my 70-200/4 IS. This is quite disappointing and makes me wonder whether I get a bad copy. And I feel 70mm is a bit short even on my 20D. No IS like 24-105. Bokeh not as good as primes.

Now the good things. Build quality is superb. f/2.8 allows me to take photos indoor without flash. Focus is silent and fast. Color is great. As I get used to this lens, I found that I can produce very very sharp images when I get close enough to the subject - even at f/2.8.

Now I am struggling to keep it, or keep both 24-70L and 24-105L since I really love my 24-105L. Or hope Canon has 24-105/2.8L IS some time. :-)


Mar 18, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add terminator to your Buddy List  
conlun
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 14, 2008
Location: Sweden
Posts: 0
Review Date: Mar 14, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp, good range (on FF), excellent IQ
Cons:
A bit heavy



Mar 14, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add conlun to your Buddy List  
Crazy Fool
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 5, 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 1
Review Date: Mar 11, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp, well built, great colours and contrast, fast silent focusing
Cons:
Fairly heavy and large, but what do you expect?!

What can I say that hasn't already been said?

This lens is as sharp as you need. No, it's not quite as sharp as my unusually good Tamron 28-75 or some top-grade primes, but it has much nicer background blur, a wider end, better distortion control, and most importantly of all, faster quieter focus.

I think the reasons why people have trouble with this lens is sometimes because their non-1 series camera's focus is not perfect. For example, when you focus on someone's eyes at f2.8, check that the nose or ears aren't sharper than the eyes. I had this problem with my 10D a couple of years ago.

I sent my Canon 10D to Canon two or three times and it wasn't fixed, just calibrated. Lehmanns in Stoke (UK) managed to fix it using some kind of software calibration eventually.

My point is, perhaps many people complaining of sharpness on wide aperture lenses haven't checked their camera's focus perfectly. Maybe that goes for some professional reviews as well?! Who knows.

Anyway, now the Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 is out, this lens has some real competition. I would imagine that as the Nikon is newer, it has the edge in sharpness, and this is corroborated by some comparisons. But an extra jot of sharpness does not a better picture make.

The Canon has an ingenious lens hood design, good handling, and supreme focusing abilities. It also has good distortion control. And as for Image Stabilisation, I couldn't care less. Don't want it any heavier that's for sure, and the new full frame cameras are noise free at ISO 3200 for goodness sake!

This one is a keeper for me. In fact I've sold all my other lenses, and I'll be getting a compact (the raw-shooting Canon G9) for when a large lens is unsuitable.





Mar 11, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Crazy Fool to your Buddy List  
shadeth
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Mar 11, 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 0
Review Date: Mar 11, 2008 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $1,150.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Very solid build quality, great colors, good sharpness, useful lens in a wide variety of situations.
Cons:
A bit heavy, and the lens hood is huge. I don't usually use the lens hood because it's so big, but it works fine without it in most situations I never see lens flare.

For overall walk around use, this lens is perfect on my Canon 20D. Not sure how this is on a full frame camera but on my camera the results are outstanding. This is the lens that I use most often, pretty much for everything unless I need extreme macro, more telephoto range, or a wider angle. I've owned this lens for over two years now and never once regretted buying it, and never considered selling it (although it does hold it's value well which is also nice). If you can afford it, get it you will be pleased!

Here are some images I shot with this lens... These are just some casual images I shot with no flash, no tripod, and available light at medieval style events.

http://gap4design.com/photos/20050319/IMG_2184_s.htm
http://gap4design.com/photos/20051112/IMG_3969_f.htm
http://gap4design.com/photos/20061028/IMG_6568_s.jpg


Mar 11, 2008
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add shadeth to your Buddy List  

   



Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
533 966887 Nov 9, 2022
Recommended By Average Price
88% of reviewers $1,189.84
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
9.67
8.34
9.3
ef_24-70_28u_1_


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 · 11>  next