Reviews and Problems with Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
Showing 1-10 of 65
Value for money 8
schizoo23, Photography Review
17 September 2010
Summary: Nice zoom. The global rendering is what you can expect from a L zoom, the focal range is perfectly adapted for any situation except maybe sport BUT: -No IS for a 2.8 aperture, that would be a plus for wedding pictures and low light situations -Not that sharp on full frame. Any prime beats it. Of course they are primes but at this price I would expect a bit more sharpness, especially at 5.6 or 8.
Conclusion: This was my first Canon L Lens purchase and had very high expectations for its performance. Current inventory: Canon 50 1.8 & Canon 18-200EFS 3.5-5.6 The 18-200 is half the price of the 24-70L and at similar focal lengths the 18-200 came out on top on what I thought was a 'sharpness' factor (details of back focusing below). As for depth the 24-70L and wide aperture was very noticeable. Also nice bokeh.
Pros: Great Bokeh, Quick & Quiet Focus
Cons: Heavy, Mis-Calibrated Autofocus (Battery Test/Back Focus Test), Low Light performance not as good as prime lens, UV Filter overpriced
Conclusion: I've had this lens for 8 months, and I had to AF micro adjust it on my 5D Mark 2 several times because of "back-focusing" issues. On occasion, this lens would be sharp. However, if you focus off to infinity, good luck. Everything looks "smudged" and it would just ruin your entire day. Took this lens to the desert, which had high winds (30mph) and came back with "crunching" in the focus ring. I'm guessing my lens is not a "good" copy, so it mis focuses a lot.
Pros: F/2.8, Huge lens hood makes zooming un-noticeable. Makes a lot of people think you have an insane zoom range! Sometimes can be very sharp.
Cons: Weather sealing is questionable certain situtations, Mis-focusing, "have to win the lottery to get a good copy". HEAVY, and doesn't seem to be as consistent as my GF's 24-105 f/4 IS
Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
shepard061644, Rate it all!
7 February 2009
Summary: The 24-70 2.8L should be a fantastic piece of glass - it is clear to me that canon has some serious quality control issues with this lens. I cannot find the sweet spot for image quality -- I sent the lens back to Canon, they "repaired" it and it came back no better than before. After I wrote their CEO, they replaced the lens under warranty. The new one is slightly sharper -- but still disappoints.
Conclusion: 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.
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.
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 ...
Summary: I purchased the 24-70 2.8L and was expecting a superb lens for the price. After comparing with my 70-200 4L, the 24-70 performed worse at 70mm f4 than my 70-200 4L. At 35mm, the sharpness was only average, slightly less than my 28-135 at f4. The image does get sharper as I increase to f8 or higher, but the whole purpose of getting this lens is for the f2.8. The color and contrast was outstanding as expected from Canon L series.
Conclusion: I bought this lens about a year ago along with a 70-200L f/2.8 IS. I am using them with the 30D body. I was impressed with both, but being fairly new to photography, it has only been in the last 2-3 months that I have really understood what sharp & soft mean, and what front & back focusing mean. Took this lens and the 70-200 & 10-22 on a recent trip to the Southwest USA. While they all performed well, the 24-70 definitely was soft and had some autofocus issues.
Pros: Once sent to Canon, very sharp, nice color, and great bokeh.
Cons: On 1.6X crop, not wide enough at 24mm (38mm) and not long enough on the other end at 70mm (112mm). Canon - can I see an EF 10-135L f/2 IS for $500 please? ;-) Had to be sent to Canon for major work. Caused me to feel that my photography skills were inferior! Well, maybe they still are, but a bum lens doesn't help...
Conclusion: There are probably bad copies of this lens out there and I was unlucky enough to get two lens in a row that are bad. First one has back-focus problem. Shooting test against 18-55mm kitlens, 50mm f/1.8 and 28-135mm IS confirms the problem. Return to BH photo for exchange. Second lens is even worse. The electrical contact on the lens has problem. It won't communicate with the camera. When I first mount the lens onto the camera, it works fine.
Conclusion: We all look for excellent quality and know that Canon provides it (at the right price). What puts me off from this lens though is the 8cm lens hood which covers the controls when not facing the front. I hope this lens will produce minimal flare as this piece of plastic is staying at home when I go on tour.
Pros: It's a Canon 2.8L lens
Cons: Can anyone tell me what to do with this silly lens hood. I'm sure that at £950 Canon can come up with internal zoom and improved exterior design.