| 
 enlarge | Brand: Canon
Category: Photography
List Price: $1,900.00
Buy New: $1,039.00
You Save: $861.00 (45%)
New (19) Used (2) Refurbished (1) from $1,029.00
Rating:  124 reviews
Media: Electronics
Autographed: No
Memorabilia: No
Optical Zoom: 2.9
Maximum Focal Length: 70
Minimum Focal Length: 24
Shipping Weight (lbs): 4
Dimensions (in): 8 x 5.6 x 5.6
all-glass-optical
MPN: 8014A002
Model: 8014A002
UPC: 013803020090
EAN: 0013803020090
ASIN: B00009R6WT
Availability: Usually ships in 24 hours
|
| Customer Reviews:
 Very nice images, but heavy November 25, 2008
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
I picked up this lens along with a 40D for my wife. I did research for months and talked to every one I knew about what lens to buy. I finally settled on the 24-70 2.8L mainly because of the volumes glowing praise for the quality of images it would take.
the good:
The reviews are right, the pics are breath-taking. After just a few weeks of dinking around with the camera my wife is taking shots of our kids on par with what we get at the local semi-pro photographer studio. We also have some nice shots of bugs/flowers, this isnt a macro lens but it does a damn fine job at it if you ask me.
The long and short of it was I wanted 1 lens to use for pretty much all occasions and this delivered just that.
The Bad:
Its freaking huge! I was ready for heavy, and it is a little heavy, but the lens is so big my wife dosent like to take it with her. She complains it makes her stand out in a crowd. With the lens hood attached folks tend to stair making it hard to get candid shots. There is no-chance of blending into the background with this beast stuck to the front of your face.
The conclusion:
Was it worth the 1300 spent? Heavens YES! This is a fantastic chunk of glass. Ive had the chance to shoot some other glass in the last few weeks and I keep going back to it. The only reason for 4/5 stars is the size.
 Awesome!!! November 23, 2008
2 out of 3 found this review helpful
LOVE, LOVE this lens!!!!! It produces beautiful, SHARP images! It is a must have!!!
hardly ever take it off November 10, 2008
5 out of 5 found this review helpful
For some perpective, I use a 5D and other lenses I own and use are: 15mm fisheye, 70-200 2.8 non IS, 17-40, 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135 f2. I owned for some time the 24-105 f4 IS concurrently with the 24-70. I have recently sold the 24-105. I prefer the 2.8 and to me, it seems to you have to work harder to get good, sharp images from the 24-105. Again, I don't think you can compare the 2, but I hardly used the 24-105 which is why I sold it. IS or no. the f4 is what did it for me. After using both lenses, I have come to the conclusion that my preference is to have 2.8 without IS than f4 with IS. this lens is NOT that heavy. If you've used the 70-200 then this should not be any heavier. If it is, either get a neoprene strap or you're purchasing the wrong class of equipment for your needs. Good glass, esp those with fast apertures, are large. The front element needs to be large. Add to that zoom and it gets larger still. I have owned this lens since using a 20D (crop body).
When I buy equipment, the weight does not factor. If it provides great images, then that's my criteria. Obviously if we're talking about shooting pictures of the moon, then stability is an issue, but for wide to medium or 200-400 focal lengths, why even look at the weight? Again, if that's important, then this may not be the lens for you. But then neither is the 70-200 2.8 series. Or a 1D body. Or carrying extra batteries. Or a tripod on your back or shoulder. Know what I mean?
I rented this lens before (and the rental store takes care of their equipment) -- it was made in 2004 I think? It was terrible. At any aperture or focal length. So I was hesitant to purchase, but it seems the newer ones are all sharp. Perhaps the question "Is yours a sharp copy?" no longer applies.
On a full frame, the wide to medium tele are perfect for capturing just about anything. It focuses a little slower than say a 70-200 but it has a different focal range and focuses much closer so it's understandable.
I want lenses that are sharp wide open (or near wide open if it's cheap enough). Otherwise, why pay $1000+ for a lens you need to stop down? This fits the bill. Sharp at 2.8, color, contrast are all there. Vignetting to me is also a non-issue. Many times desirable, fixable in software when it's not.
Great lens for crop or full frame, wide is great on a full frame.
The best canon standard zoom lens October 27, 2008
1 out of 1 found this review helpful
I bought this lens 3 months ago and I'm loving it. There is still slight back focusing issue in some distances condition, but it's really ignorable. The picture is sharp as knife and L lens reputation does what it suppose to do. Previously I had 18-55mm, 50mm 1.8 and Sigma 18-200mm DC OS, now I sold all of them because this lens deserves every penny I paid. Zoom range is little dissappointing but I heard 3x zoom range is the maximum capability that can bring the best picture quality, which means if the zoom range go more than 3x, the quality degrades.
So for example 18-200mm lens is good for all around purpose which covers 10x zoom from wide angle to super zoom, but the quality isn't great as lens that zooms 3x or less.
So I'm quite happy with this lens so far. And if I point out one that really bothers me about this lens is its weight. Because after I carry this lens with my 40D on my shoulder for hours, I easily get tired. =P
Everything else is wonderful. You will forgive tireness once you see the quality of the pictures you take with this lens. I highly recommend this lens to all canon users. 5 stars!
Tactically Tac-Sharp! October 22, 2008
4 out of 4 found this review helpful
When I was looking for a General Purpose glass I contemplated between the 24-105mm F4L & this one. I knew that this lens would weigh much heavier than the 24-105 because of the 2.8 glass which could be a potential concern. I really didn't need the extra focal length as I already have the 70-200 for that. I knew that the 24-105 & 24-70 would run neck & neck as far as sharpness being that they're both L-Lenses. But I did love the speed of the 2.8 on my 70-200IS so I decided on the 24-70.
I have no regrets but damn!.. damn!. damn! What a piece of Glass! And the weight while on any of my Canon bodies, indeed, it's Heavy... But I don't mind after seeing the results. I actually like it being heavy. My, my, my it's 'Oh so sharp! Another bonus feature I love is the Lens Hood which BTW came with the lens & I have it on 100% of the time, stays in a fixed position (it does not extend/retract), the objective lens retracts deeper into the hood as the focal length is increased. The hood is deep & huge! It looks DOMINATING!
All I know is that if I went with the 24-105mm F4L, soon if not later I'll always wonder how the 24-70mm F2.8L would be & probably end up buying one down the road. Hence, ending up with 2 General Purpose glass that have practically similar focal range. Grant it the 24-105 has IS, extra focal length & much lighter(No, thanks). I get nothing less than Tactically Tac-Sharp images! Going with the 24-70mm F2.8L route, I'll never wonder about the 24-105 nor own one for that matter. If you get the 24-105 you'll end up buying this later on I'm sure of it. If you get this first... After using it - Believe me, you'll never want the 24-105. Save & spend your money on the 70-200mm F2.8L IS instead. As partners, these two are a one two punch to have in your Canon Gear!
|
|
|
