 |
|
|
kathrynfaye
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 13, 2022
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 13, 2022
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
fast, sharp, beautiful colors, versatile lightweight
|
|
Cons:
|
|
|
This lens is a staple for every wedding photographer! Excellent for wide angle shots, tight spaces, dance floor shots ect. Images are extremely sharp, which at times may not mesh well if you primarily shoot with primes at a low aperture.
- Kathryn Faye Photography
https://kathrynfayephotography.com/
|
|
 Jan 13, 2022
|
|
RachelJordan92
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 23, 2020
Location: United States
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 23, 2020
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Flexible, versatile, great colors, fast focus
|
|
Cons:
|
Can sometimes be too crisp for fine art photography
|
|
|
This lens is my workhorse for situations where I need to work quickly, capture a lot and deliver standard images. Great for event photography, portraiture in a pinch, and for a fast paced environment. I love being able to cover all of the standard focal lengths and have the versatility.
The skintones aren't as creamy and even as some of the nicer fixed prime lenses, but they will still edit nicely. This lens is nice and sharp and will deliver solid images every time.
|
|
|
Nov 23, 2020
|
|
deanie08
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Nov 2, 2017
Location: Philippines
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 2, 2017
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
5 Star Quality and Features.
|
|
Cons:
|
Very expensive.
|
|
My dream lens. I don't own one yet, no budget to buy one. However, I'm saving for it. My friend has one of this lens, and I was able to try using it. Playing with its all features and I must say it's really amazing tool for anyone who loves to enhance and easy to use.
http://www.erinmartinphotography.com/newborn
|
|
|
Nov 2, 2017
|
|
Pontifex
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 29, 2017
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jan 29, 2017
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
optical quality, sharp, excellent colours, build quality is sturdy
|
|
Cons:
|
AF can be slow at wide angles depending on available light, used to be soft at f/2.8 but is sharper after being serviced by Canon, weight
|
|
|
I have owned this lens for approximately 10 years and it has served me well.
Colours are accurate and images are very sharp, with contrast. The macro range is especially useful for close-ups and greatly benefits from f-stops of f/5.6 and slower.
AF is very fast provided there is sufficient ambient light. At wide angles with less light I find that the AF tends to hunt a little bit. I often find myself equipping my Speedlight flash only to make use of the AF assist beam. This method ensures an extremely fast and accurate focus in any environment.
Unfortunately, it did have to be serviced by Canon due to a minor dropping incident. Before the incident, I found that it was soft at f/2.8 and f3.2. When it came back from the shop the softness issues were resolved.... No pun intended.
I have not yet tried the Mark II version as it has received an overwhelming amount of praise. If it is as good as it is said to be then I could see myself eventually making the upgrade, but for now I am content. If you can find this lens at a reasonable price you won't be disappointed!
|
|
|
Jan 29, 2017
|
|
Zorrophoto88
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 9, 2014
Location: United States
Posts: 52
|
|
Review Date: Dec 16, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $850.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, fast at 2.8, weight is acceptable, fast focus, affordable now that Version II is out.
|
|
Cons:
|
No lock on the zoom, the lens zoom movement (in and out) is opposite, large hood to cover-up all the movement, no IS.
|
|
|
I found a good price on a used V.I of the 24-70L 2.8. Sharp all the way up and down, fast, good for indoor use. Will hang on to this lens until I sell it and find the extra cash to purchase a used V.2. Seems to me $800-$850 is a reasonable price for a 9+ or better used copy. A new V.2 is just too expensive. Great lens when you can find a sharp copy at a good price. FM is about the best site to buy and sell.
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2014
|
|
aestiva
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 17, 2009
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 12, 2014
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8
|
|
Pros:
|
build quality, fast focus, beautiful lenshood
|
|
Cons:
|
soft at 2.8
|
|
This lens has an amazing quality! But beware, it seems like only 10% of all this lenses is sharp at 2.8. I owned 3 of this lensen and al three lenses were very soft at 2.8.
The new 24.70 is far better than this one.
I didn't use this lens a lot in the past. All wideangle pictures from 2013 - 2014 on my page http://facebook.com/totaalfotografie are made with this lens. After 2014 the wideange pictures were made with my new 24-70
|
|
|
Nov 12, 2014
|
|
Soulphoto2014
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Sep 3, 2014
Location: N/A
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Sep 3, 2014
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $1,120.00
| Rating: 2
|
|
Pros:
|
It's an L but should be a kitlens as it's unsharp wide open, if you pay for the premium L and f2.8, Canon should deliver a sharp lens.
|
|
Cons:
|
unsharp wide open, heavy
|
|
|
You buy an f2.8 portraitlens to use at f2.8 but if it's not sharp wide open, why would you spend much money on it ?
The 24-70 2.8LII is the better option, but ridiculous priced again and even no IS. It's not the invention of the century of Canon to ask so much money for a standard f2.8 zoomlens.
It's not that I can't pay it (I have the expensive 70-200 2.8L II etc but this one is sharp wide open and worth the money).
If you really want a f2.8 standardzoom, just buy the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC, I had it in past, it's really the best option, way better than the 24-70 2.8L mark I and very close to the 24-70 II at only half the price, now that's faire marketing by Tamron!
I'm more of a prime-guy so I sold the Tamron for the Sigma 35 1.4 Art. One step back and you have 24mm, 2 forward and 70mm. Think that the 24-70 isn't such a big zoomrange.
I like the advantage to be able to go to f1.4, great bokeh, the 35 1.4 is ideal for models with background, it's my walkaround lens and great in lowlight. F2.8 isn't so fast after all if you are used to primes.
|
|
|
Sep 3, 2014
|
|
dkyeah
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Dec 10, 2013
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Mar 26, 2014
|
Recommend? no |
Price paid: $900.00
| Rating: 7
|
|
Pros:
|
Good AF, built like a tank, weather sealed, 2.8
|
|
Cons:
|
Not sharp enough, can't use all cross points of the 5DIII, somewhat loose AF and zoom rings
|
|
I love this zoom range but this lens just isn't sharp enough for my taste. It is often soft, especially wide open. When used in studio at f/8 of f/11 it's fine but when shooting wedding where I shoot mostly at f/2.8, f/3.2 or f/4.0 it just doesn't cut it.
I prefer my 16-35mm 2.8 II for the wider focal range and either use the 85mm 1.2 or the 70-200 IS 2.8 for the longer zoom range.
I look forward to trying the 24-70 2.8 II. I've heard only good things about it unlike this version. The 24-70 2.8 almost makes me want to switch to primes only.
You can find sample images of a wedding I mostly shot with the 24-70mm 2.8 and a little bit with the 70-200 2.8 IS : http://quentindecaillet.com/blog/3311-photo-mariage-noelie-cyrille-sion-valais.html
|
|
|
Mar 26, 2014
|
|
fozzybear69
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Aug 21, 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Nov 30, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,150.00
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
f/2.8. L glass, sharp, contrast, colour, great build, weather sealed, USM, fast focusing.
|
|
Cons:
|
expensive.
|
|
|
This lens holds it's value I made the mistake by selling it but I bought it back. I miss this lens. Still around $1100-$1200 used with the new 24-70 L mark 2 on the market.
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2013
|
|
grizzlywon
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Apr 14, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 248
|
|
Review Date: Oct 4, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,100.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Very useful zoom range and fast glass.
|
|
Cons:
|
Weighs a ton. Seems to be more fragile than my other L lens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 4, 2013
|
|
oldshutterhand
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Jan 24, 2012
Location: Hungary
Posts: 0
|
|
Review Date: Jun 28, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Nice colours, consistent output, useful focal length, versatility, strong build quality, good picture quality in close distances as well, constant f2.8, Full frame
|
|
Cons:
|
zoom ring opposite from long end to wide end, not constant physical length, price too high, little big and heavy
|
|
This lens has a very nice, consistent picture quality with a very useful focal length. On Aps-C the focal length is good for portraits as well (not so good for landscapes). The lens optical qualities are not up to the price I think.
See my review with samples at below link:
http://oldshutterhand.com/equipment-reviews/canon-24-70-f2-8-l-review/
|
|
|
Jun 28, 2013
|
|
scott_scheetz
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 31, 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 130
|
|
Review Date: Mar 22, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $800.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Sharp, Fast and quiet AF, Great Build Quality, Very good Bokeh, Weather-Sealed
|
|
Cons:
|
AF sometimes hunts on my 5D, even in daylight.
|
|
This lens is sharp, and has some beautiful bokeh. I shoot with a 5D, and it is wonderful on a full frame camera. It has now replaced the 28mm f/1.8 as my walk-around lens.
The build quality is incredible. It really is built like a tank, and the reverse zoom design is genius. My only complaint is that it occasionally hunts a little bit before actually locking on to the subject. I'm using the center point on the 5D, and it can happen under any lighting condition. Maybe I got a bad copy. Most of the time though, the AF is quick, accurate, and very quiet, with no hesitation. It doesn't seem to track as well as the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS either, but it isn't terrible. Just not as good.
Here are some sample images:
(5D, wide open):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottscheetz/8578206482/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottscheetz/8577104435/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottscheetz/8577806174/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottscheetz/8529632163/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottscheetz/8529555325/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/scottscheetz/8525251531/
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2013
|
|
Pierre_B
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: May 21, 2010
Location: Canada
Posts: 2
|
|
Review Date: Mar 19, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,700.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
build, sharpness, perfect zoom focal length
|
|
Cons:
|
weight
|
|
As a music photographer working in arenas and such, this is my workhorse lens. If I could chose only one lens to live with, this would be it. The focal length is perfect to get some full body shots, and yet long enough for some nice head shots.
On a bigger stage, I'm not able to get a close up of the drummer, thats why I also have the 70-200 on a second camera.
The lens is amazingly sharp and has a very fast focus speed, which is essential for the photography I do - always in the dark.
The new version is sharper, but not sure it is worth it for the price. I'm still keeping this tried and true favorite for a while.
In fact, while my second body was being fixed up, I shot for about 2 weeks with only one camera and one lens, and this was the lens.
Here is a link to a bunch of show images all done with the 24-70 in a show this past March 2013
http://pierrebphoto.com/2013/03/show-matt-kim-metropolis-montreal-music-photographer/
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2013
|
|
haringo
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Oct 7, 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 12
|
|
Review Date: Mar 17, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
sharpness, build quality, great overall image quality, color
|
|
Cons:
|
none
|
|
I used to have the older version of this lens. It is called Canon EF 28-70mm F2.8. Both the older version and this one are amazing. I use it every weekend for professional photography. You need this one and the 70-200mm 2.8 or 4.0 and you are covered. You may need to add the 17-40 if you want to shoot wide and you are set!
Be careful when you buy a used one because my friend photographer ended up with a "soft" copy. Buy it new and send it back if colors and sharpness is not top. You will be happy for ever if you get a good copy of it.
Anyway! It is an amazing and very versatile lens. You won't regret of buying it. I use it for all types of photography scenarios. You can find photo samples here: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Haring-Photography/154205936576
|
|
|
Mar 17, 2013
|
|
kezeka
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 18, 2010
Location: United States
Posts: 2530
|
|
Review Date: Jan 26, 2013
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $1,150.00
| Rating: 9
|
|
Pros:
|
Good contrast, OK sharpness, good coloration, fast AF, built like a tank.
|
|
Cons:
|
Hood is massive, not-small amounts of CA/fringing wide open, distortion wide open at both ends of the zoom spectrum.
|
|
While I used this lens with a 1.6x crop factor camera for a while, the 24mm end really shines on a full frame sensor. In fact, this lens lives to be used on a full frame body. There is a fun bit of distortion to play with at 24mm but you really have to be careful with it when taking photos of buildings.
For the most part, this lens is for photojournalists who need the zoom range to quickly adjust the crop factor on a dime. It gets the job done every time and wont miss a focus point (the hit rate is astonishingly good).
The reason I sold it was that it never really produced superb images in my hands. Sure, it ALWAYS captured the moment and did it in focus with good color and decent sharpness but the photos never had that magical/3D/whatever feel that a great photo has. I'll be damned if there isn't a better all around "get the job done and do it well" lens though... except for the 24-70 f/2.8 mkII.
I know some people have complained about the weight of this lens but it never bothered me in the few years I owned it and walked carried it around for 8 hour days. For reference, my 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS never bothered me either during 3 hour football games.
Some sample photos:
http://smu.gs/14hUxXi
http://smu.gs/X0BhrX
http://smu.gs/14hVgYO
http://smu.gs/X0BxHB
|
|
|
Jan 26, 2013
|
|
coffeyboy
Offline
Image Upload: Off
Registered: Feb 12, 2010
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 28
|
|
Review Date: Nov 8, 2012
|
Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10
|
|
Pros:
|
Superb build, reliability, fast and accurate focus, sharp with good technique, reverse zoom, Bokeh near MFD
|
|
Cons:
|
A tad heavy
|
|
|
I bought this lens second hand in 2006 and used it on a 5D and 5DII for everything from landscapes to weddings.
It is my most used lens and images are vivid with excellent contrast when stopped down a stop or two.
Build quality is solid and the zoom ring, focus ring and barrel extension are as smooth as when I bought it.
Focus is quick and accurate with the center points on the 5 series though I wish it were parfocal.
Sharp corner to corner landscapes can be achieved if used with proper technique. I've found that focusing a third into a frame as recommended often results in softish corners with this lens even at f11-f16. My workaround is to focus at slightly short of infinity (at the start of the infinity line) while letting the aperture take care of close details. Found this to be the same for the Nikkor 14-24 I also own and is probably a result of the field curvature of both lenses.
Overall I'm very pleased with this lens though may consider adding the new 24-70mm f/4 for travel and landscapes.
|
|
|
Nov 8, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
532
|
965897
|
Jan 13, 2022
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Price
|
|
88% of reviewers
|
$1,189.84
|
|
|
Build Quality Rating
|
Price Rating
|
Overall Rating
|
|
9.67
|
8.34
|
9.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
