Canon EF 24-70/2.8L USM Lens Review

Thanks for the information. I hope you will have a chance to provide your comments on image quality. In my opinion, it's second to none for zooms, and better than many primes in the same range of focal lengths (including many "alternatives"). I agree that IS isn't required for this lens, although I often take a steadying door frame with me in the form of a monopod.

After using the lens for over one year, I have a few comments about this "review":

1. First of all, the term "review" is misleading. It is more of a opinion, perhaps;

2. The lens is heavy, yes, but that is the price to pay for a top quality, highly versatile, zoom lens. I have used this lens extensively in deserts (Wahiba sands of Oman, Arabian Empty Quarter), mountains (Oman mountains); it is heavy indeed, but I soon forget the weight when I look at my Velvia 100 slides;

3. I wish people would stop writing "whole truth" sentences about flattering or unflattering focal lenghts for portraits. 70mm is quite adequate even full-frame, and much more so in cropped sensor DSLRs! You just have to be more flexible!

4. The lens does not have IS, granted, but it also does not have the strong corner light fall-off of the 24-105 IS lens.

4. In the end, I would strongly recommend this lens.

i just got this lens... OMG this is the best lens ever. i like the feel of it much betterr than 24-105. compare to 24-70, 24-105 feels like a toy. and the optics is FANTABULOUS

I have used this lens on a Canon 20D for portraits. Works great, with an equivalent focal length of about 40-110mm, I can do everything from head shots to groups. Image quality is outstanding, I would even say stunning considering it is a zoom. From what I have read, among Canon-weilding wedding and photo-journalists for 35mm or full-frame sensor digital it is a very popular lens. Do a Google and/or Google Groups search, you will be hard pressed to find a single negative comment about the performance of this lens.

The review is correct that the lens is a poor choice for travel because of its size and weight. It is also a poor choice for discretion.

But the quality of the images I get from this lens make it all worth it. I believe the 70mm will do in a pinch for portraits.

If I were forced to use only one lens the 24-70L would be it. An excellent lens in every respect. IMO, the best zoom in that range. Its close focusing min. distance allows for pseudo-macro as well.

I was just wondering how the lens would compare on a 'bang for your buck' style review against the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DG MACRO and whatever the corresponding Tamron is... I understand that the Canon is superior, but is the extra cost really worth it?

"The review is correct that the lens is a poor choice for travel because of its size and weight. It is also a poor choice for discretion."

After using the lens extensively in Oman, travelling through mountains, wadis, deserts, and remote villages, I have to disagree on the above. Granted, the lens is heavy, but I can carry it during treks without any problem. It does require a comfortable backpack; I have the Lowepro Minitreker, and it suits me fine. For other occasions, I use the Lowepro Slingshot 300, it is also very comfortable in distributing the weight.

So, for travel, I would say there is no better high-quality zoom lens; what are the options, carrying 3-4 prime lenses? As I said before, the 24-105 IS could be it, as it is lighter. But the poor light-fall off performance does not suit me.

As far as discretion is concerned, I have had no problems whatsoever; I have found out that the human rapport is much more important than the size or colour of the lens.

I've been using mine for two years now and I can't imagine not having it. I have many other lenses, some of which are much lighter and serve the same focal range...but none compare to the quality of the 24-70 2.8L. I do miss the added depth when I was using a 20D, but getting back the wide angles and just moving my lazy butt still make it a perfect companion for my 5D. If I had to choose one lens for the rest of my life this would be it!

How about distortion? Many lenses of this range are very poor in distortion, no comparison to primes. Anyone has any idea?

Agree with Paulo, this is not a review rather an introduction. How about distortion for this lens? Many lenses of this range give strong distortions at both ends and in between, no comparison to primes.

I just want to add that the review seems geared towards shooters who are using it on full-frame, so when the reviewer says that the tele end isn't long enought for portraits they are not necessarily taking the crop into account.

I like this lens best on my 1D, it's still wide enough to give me a wow and long enough for effective portraits. On my Rebel XT it is great on the tele end, but not wide enough in my opinion.

I bought the 24-70 f/2.8 L as my first lens to use with my EOS 20D. I have never been disappointed by my results. The color transmission and contrast are very good and the sharpness is too. I have never seen noticeable distortion on a 1.6 crop factor. Before Canon digital I shot film with Leica R's. I initially believed the 24-70 to give results rivaling Leica lenses. Recently, I bought a Novoflex adaptor that allows me to mount my Leica R lenses on the 20D. My Leica 100mm f/2.8 APO Macro Elmarit R shows incrementally better performance. Keep in mind that the Leica APO 100mm is probably one of the best prime lenses ever made and sacrifices autofocus and full aperture metering when mounted on the Canon. The Canon 24-70 is a zoom of a shorter focal length and is not far off the performance of this legendary Leica optic. The autofocus with the 24-70 is fast, silent and accurate. It can use the center cross type autofocus sensor on the 20D. The 24-105 f/4.0 L cannot use the more accurate cross type sensor due to the smaller aperture.

I dont care what anyone says. I tried this lense at a show on the weekend and I WANT ONE! (Any second hand ones out there?)

I agonized over the 24-70 vs. the 24-105. I ended up with the 24-70 and couldn't be happier with it mounted on my Canon 5D. The 24-105 just didn't feel as good in my hands and the zoom ring seem to hug the camera body a little closer than I liked.

The 24-70mm's quality build and great performance make it worth investing in a good carry system in order to make carry easier. A Domke J-3 (I own one)or a Thinktank ChangeUp (plan to buy) should make carrying the 24-70mm and another lens a good walk about system. The LowePro Slingbag 200 is also another bag that I checked out with my equipment.

The 24-105 has lower size/weight and more zoom of course, and someday that might be a purchase for me. But in the meantime I'm enjoying this very high quality lens. I think the 70-200mm f/2.8 dovetail well with the 24-70, so I've got no regrets buying the 24-70 over the 24-105.

There is no wrong choice of course. Your own requirements and tastes will guide you better than individual opinion. Dive in!

I really don't see this as a review either. More of an Op-Ed piece. I have had this lens for going on one year. To me the weight is nominal. It's the size that is absolutely annoying. And especially the fact that it is at its largest when it is at 24mm. You want to get up close and personal and your lens is 6.5" without the hood (7" with). I hate that. Unfortunately, there isn't a wide zoom that is environmentally seal that compares.

I look at my friend's Nikkor 17-55mm with pure envy.

As good as it is, I would have liked it to have IS. Even if it adds a few bucks, I am spoiled with IS on my 70-200. The thing that kept me from getting the 24-105 was it's f4 - I love the f2.8!

I've had this lens (24-70mm 2.8L USM) since February, and it has been back to the Canon repair center twice -- without success. Zooming from 24mm to 28 or 30mm it very tight, as though something is sticking -- it binds and jerks. This happens only when the lens is in horizontal (landscape) orientation; it zooms relatively smoothly when rotated to portrait orientation, bottom-side-up, or aimed at the ceiling. And it's smooth when zooming from roughly 30mm to 70mm. The repair center first replaced a collar, which didn't help, then replaced a zoom key, which didn't help either.

Has anyone else observed this problem? It doesn't seem as though an "L" lens should work this way.

Anyone have the Hood Mounting ring (w/red band) separate from the barrel? Talk about a true hassle with it getting in the way locking up the barrel.

Welcome to the 24-70 L.

L is for Lottery.

My shiny new 24-70 2.8L is extremely soft. it's been back to the very helpful Canon repair agent in London and they've spent hours on it. They can now say that there's something wrong with the lens, but they don't know exactly what as it's a perculiar problem. They're now sending it back to Canon for even closer analysis.

Almost every shot i take with it at the wide end with 2.8-8.0ish or more is soft. Nothing in the image is in focus. At the 70mm end is exceptional!

Compared to the plasticy 18-55mm that came with my 350D (Rebel XT), this $1100 Pro L lens fails miserably!

So we'll see... (just so you know you're not the only one!)

It's almost like shooting in 3D at wide aperture with this lens. I'm really enthusuastic about it and I feel confident in warmly reccomending it! ciao Alessandro