Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras

5 Comments

1. erugifog says:

   March 5, 2010 at 7:30 pm

   I’ve owned the 24-70mm for almost a year now. This lens has been a favorite of many since it replaced its well-regarded predecessor, the 28-70mm. It shoots images that are very sharp and have excellent contrast and saturation. It’s sharp wide open and only gets better when stopping down. The USM (Ultrasonic Motor) focuses very fast, and full-time manual focusing is allowed. I’ve thought about buying a 50mm f/1.4, but the results from this lens are so good, I’m having a hard time justifying the purchase. I’ve been nothing but pleased with the pictures I get from the 24-70mm. The constant f/2.8 aperture is great for shooting indoors and produces a very nice bokeh (background blur) when shooting portraits. This lens is much heavier than comparable consumer-grade zooms, but I don’t object to the weight. I actually like the heft and feel of this lens on my 20D. The only feature I wish it had is IS (image stabilization).

   The one thing preventing an unqualified recommendation is the recent release of the Canon 24-105mm f/4.0L IS. The latter lens costs about the same and has some noteworthy advantages. It is .7″ shorter, .2mm narrower and .6 lbs. lighter. It has 3rd generation IS that gives you a 3-stop shutter speed advantage when shooting handheld. I know from my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS that image stabilization is a very welcome feature when shooting handheld at slow shutter speeds. And, obviously, the 24-105mm adds an extra 35mm of focal length on the long end.

   The 24-70mm bests the 24-105mm in one way: It’s a faster lens. That translates into the following advantages: At f/4.0, the 24-105mm cannot stop subject motion blur as well in low-light situations where the 24-70mm’s f/2.8 can give you a shutter speed that is twice as fast. Note that IS does not have any impact at all on subject motion blur, only on camera shake on your end. If bokeh (background blur) is important to you, the 24-70mm will have a slight advantage over the 24-105mm given its wider aperture. A wider aperture also helps a camera focus a little better in low light.

   The first run of the 24-105mm had a flare problem (see Canon’s Web site for more info), and the early production models have been recalled. But the problem has now been fixed. You’ll have to consider your photography priorities when deciding which of these two excellent lenses best suits your needs. You would be well served by either.
   Rating: 5 / 5
2. R. Kohary says:

   March 5, 2010 at 10:25 pm

   Simply put, this is the best all-around lens that Canon manufactures. It produces razor-sharp images with startling color and saturation, and at f/2.8 across the zoom range is capable of shooting in all but the dimmest of lighting conditions. The “L” glass (Canon’s professional line of lenses) is simply the best out there, bar none, from any manufacturer. It’s pricey, but well worth it.

   I use this lens for portrait and wedding photography, landscapes, sports, and anything else that doesn’t require extreme telephoto. In concert with my EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM lens, I find that these two lenses cover just about everything I ever want to shoot. Of the two lenses, if I could pick only one, it would be the 24-70mm, because it’s so versatile and can shoot so many situations (the 70-200mm is also a marvelous, invaluable lens, but at 70mm is limited in wide-angle situations).

   I can’t recommend this lens highly enough. If you can afford the entry fee, you’ll have no hint of buyer’s remorse once you see the spectacular images this lens produces.
   Rating: 5 / 5
3. Larry Kottraba says:

   March 5, 2010 at 10:54 pm

   In April of 2005 I bought the Canon 20D with the 18-55 kit lens, my first SLR camera. After getting used to properly taking pictures with the camera I bought the 24-70 as a lens upgrade – and what an upgrade it is. All the positive stuff you read about this lens is true … the color, the contrast, the sharpness, it’s unbelievable how well this lens performs compared to a consumer grade lens.

   A lot of reviews complain that the 24-70 is too heavy, and it is heavy for a lens, but it’s not “too” heavy to carry around all day. I also regularly use my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS – that’s a lens that is maybe too heavy for regular use but it’s also A LOT bigger than the 24-70.

   A note about debates you’ll find everywhere comparing the 24-70 to the new Canon 24-105 f/4 … These lenses are not built to be an either-or, they are different lenses targeted at different uses. The main complaint I found online about the 24-70 is that it lacks Image Stabilization, a complaint I eventually dismissed as irrelevant. I’ve taken thousands of photographs with this lens and not once did I miss a shot because the lens didn’t have IS. Simply put, this lens isn’t long enough to require IS.

   If you’re new to SLR photography be careful when reading product reviews, especially those in discussion forums. Just like any other hobby (like computers), people who are in to photography have very strong opinions and tend to have to have the latest and greatest thing that just came out. If you’re thinking of purchasing a lens this expensive and are unsure if you should get one or the other, try renting one for a few days.

   Another reviewer on this page commented on using this lens with the built-in flash on a 10D. If you’re buying an $1,100 lens you should know that Canon didn’t design it specifically so you could use it with the built-in flash. They probably assumed that if you could spend a grand plus on a lens that you could also step-up and buy a real flash. This reviewer gave the lens a 3/5 rating because his camera body didn’t have the right flash, something that has nothing to do with the lens at all.
   Rating: 5 / 5
4. Jesse R. Hunter says:

   March 6, 2010 at 1:04 am

   If you have read the 22 or so reviews below this one and are still teetering on the fence whether or not to purchase this lens, allow me to try and give you the final push. I can honestly say that this is one of the only peices of equipment I own that I enjoy and appreciate using MORE every time I use it. Holding this lens literally brings a smile to my face.

   I’ve owned this lens for about six months now and have shot ~1500 exposures with it. The first thing you will notice taking it out of the box is the weight and build quality. Holding it in your hand, you will FEEL the value of the lens. Needless to say, this lens excels in the realm of sharpness, contrast, color, and versatility.

   The weight seems to be an issue to some, but to me it is perfect. It’s just heavy enough to give you stability in slow shutter speeds, yet not too heavy that your arms tire out. I have acheived sharp 1/15th F/2.8 exposures handheld, for which I give credit to the weight.

   Something not many people mention in these reviews is the bonus of Macro in this lens. It is capable of a 0.29 magnification, which for someone who is casually interested in macro like me, produces a capability for some very interesting composures. The lens does very well in commercial product photography.

   It seems that the AF nails perfect exposure about 40%-60% of the time at longer range shots (95% at ranges within 15 feet). When it misses absolute focus, you still get incredible pictures with no complaints. However, when it does acheive that perfect focus, the shot will rival the 135mm F/2 in terms of sharpness.

   Note that the lens utilizes a reverse-zoom extension. i.e., when you zoom out to 24mm, the lens extends another three or so inches. This has never been a problem for me.

   The built-in flash of the 300D, 350D, 10D, and 20D simply will not do with this lens (try it and you will se why). You will have to order a speedlite to overscome the inherent length of the lens + hood.

   Order this lens with a B+W 77mm UV filter. Get no filters below this quality. I tried to skimp, and suffered a loss of saturation, contrast, and increased flaring.
   Rating: 5 / 5
5. Eric Strate Photography says:

   March 6, 2010 at 2:44 am

   UPDATE – October 3: Wanted to update my review on this lens after using it for a couple weddings and portrait shoots lately. Normally, these wouldn’t warrant an update for a lens that is so obviously well-suited to these roles, but this lens literally saved the day. I was shooting a wedding in one of the most difficult type of circumstances – never seen the location before, had 15 minutes before the ceremony to scope things out, had no chance to get my basic flow figured out by watching a rehearsal and this place was an exposure nightmare – black tuxes, white dresses in a very poorly lit chapel. I was shooting with a backup camera (50D – great camera, read my review, but it doesn’t perform well enough at high ISO for me to trust it for a wedding shoot as I don’t want any noise introduced into things.) So I knew I was going to be limited to some extent in terms of the freedom I’d have to play with different F-stops – I was going to need to be wide open to shoot at an ISO that I trust on the 50D for weddings (no higher than 200 in my experience) and have a shutter speed that wouldn’t give me motion blur during the proceedings. Suffice it to say that I was more than pleased with how sharp things were at F2.8. I don’t know that I could have done the same thing – on this camera – with the 24-105. That extra full stop down to 2.8 was absolutely critical. On another note, aspiring wedding photographers would be well advised to make an initial investment in a 5D Mark II or something in the 1D lines if you really want the freedom to work at high ISO and not worry about image degrading noise. I am ultra-picky about noise, so perhaps what I notice wouldn’t bother some, but the investment will be worth it in the quality of your work. 40D and 50D are wonderful prosumer cameras (high level consumer/amateur, entry level professional), but the 5D and 1D series truly set themselves apart at higher ISOs. 50D is a perfect backup, or a great second camera if you want to throw a 70-200 or something ultra-wide on it and switch to that on the fly during the wedding. This lens pays for itself again and again.

   Perhaps the most common agony-inducing lens choice that Canon L-series fans may run into is the choice between the 24-70 F2.8 and the 24-105 F4 IS. People waiver back and forth between the benefits of the 2.8 aperture vs. the IS and extra reach of the 105. Some say there isn’t a wrong choice because both lenses are both so good. I have a slightly different take – both lenses are good, they are both phenomenal, but you CAN make the wrong choice here, depending on the kit you already have and what you need the lens for.

   First off – the IS vs. the F2.8. The 24-105 has image stabilization – a definite plus in low light, handheld situations. While IS is great for up to 3 stops of exposure to prevent camera shake, it isn’t going to freeze motion. To do that, you need shutter speed. To get shutter speed in lower light situations, you need wide aperture (and you want QUALITY glass so things are sharp wide-open). I am not knocking the 24-105 at all, but the way I see it the F2.8 outweighs the benefit of IS – it lets you go up to a shutter speeds where camera shake shouldn’t be an issue (especially in the 24-70mm focal length range) and is pin sharp at that aperture. And these shutter speeds let you freeze action – good if you want to capture a toast in lower light at a wedding or something (unless a bit of motion blur is desired, which can easily be obtained…but if you don’t have the 2.8 to begin with, there is no adjustment you can make to compensate save for bumping your ISO up and introducing more noise). So in the debate over the benefit of 2.8 on the 24-70 vs. IS on the 24-105, I think the nod goes to the 24-70.

   Next, the extra reach (to 105mm on a full frame or 168mm equivalent on an APS-C like the 40D, 50D, Rebels). In this case, you might think about the lenses you’ve got or that you plan to purchase. For example, the 70-200mm zooms that Canon makes in its L-series are INCREDIBLY popular lenses, for good reason. Whether you have the 70-200 F2.8 with or without IS or the 70-200 F4 with our without IS, you have yourself an excellent piece of glass with those mid-range zooms. If you have one, or if you are planning on getting one, the 24-70 becomes the perfect compliment to them, giving you L-series performance from 24-200mm – if you have the 70-200 F2.8 you’ve got the ability to shoot at that wide aperture from 24-200mm – a very, very useful ability to have. Granted, the 24-105 saves you from having to switch lenses if you are in the 70-105mm range, but I don’t know if that is too much of an inconvenience. I will say this, if you EVER plan on owning the 70-200 F2.8, you owe it to yourself to get the 24-70 F2.8 now. Remember, F/2.8 is a full stop ahead of F/4 in light gathering capability, so if you are somewhat new to all of this, you will collect double the light at F2.8 than you will at F4 – meaning you could shoot at twice the shutter speed and get the same exposure as you would at F4 with a given shutter speed. I know many pro’s that look at aperture as being the #1 priority with any lens purchase, always get as much of it as possible. So, if you have any plans of ever owning one of the very popular 70-200mm mid range zooms from Canon, I think the 24-70 is the better choice.

   Now let’s discuss image quality. In this case, there is no loser. The F2.8 lets you get shallower DOF. I’ve read some reports saying the 24-70 is sharper across more focal lengths and apertures and others that say the opposite, but when you are comparing the sharpness of these two lenses you are really splitting hairs. My 24-70 is PIN SHARP at F2.8 – so sharp that I was literally stunned when I took my first test shots of the kids playing in the yard in the early evening. Motion was frozen perfectly and details all the way down to their eyes were extremely sharp – there is no way I could have done this and gotten the results I did with anything but the freedom I had to shoot at 2.8 with a higher shutter speed in the evening light. Sure, I could have shot at F4 with double the ISO and managed to keep the same shutter speed, but as I said before, the noise factor creeps in (to be fair, higher end Canon’s do a great job with high ISO and noise). But in cases where the need for the extra aperture isn’t an issue, both of these lenses are superb. You can’t go wrong with either as far as image quality goes.

   Based on all this, it probably sounds like I’d never recommend the 24-105 over the 24-70. But I would. If you are planning on owning only one L-series lens (financially this is a very real issue for most of us) and want the ULTIMATE is high quality walkaround lens – a lens that will let you do professional quality work and has the added benefit of image stabilization, then I’d say go with the 24-105. If, however, you plan on owning the aforementioned mid-range zooms and plan on doing things like event photography in poorly lit indoor settings, I think the 24-70 is the way to go.

   One more thing, if you get either of these lenses, don’t plan on putting anything less than a high quality filter on them. L-series lenses need very high quality filters or you are going to suffer degradation in image quality. Spend the extra $80-100 (or more) and get a nice B+W UV filter.

   Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this lens or if there is some aspect of the decision between these lenses you didn’t see here that you are interested in.
   
   Rating: 5 / 5