Buy Used and Save: Buy a Used "Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Standard Zoom Lens ..." and save 76% off the $520.00 list price. Buy with confidence as the condition of this item and its timely delivery are guaranteed under the "Amazon A-to-z Guarantee". See all Used offers.
Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
- EF mount; standard zoom lens
- Internal focusing; full-time manual focus; aspherical lens
- 24-85mm focal length
- f/3.5-4.5 maximum aperture
- Micro UltraSonic Motor (USM)
Customers Who Bought This Item Also Bought
Special Offers and Product Promotions
|Compatible Mountings||Canon EF|
|Included Components||Front & Rear Lens Caps|
|Item Dimensions||4.3 x 4.6 x 5.2 inches|
|Item Weight||0.84 pounds|
|Lens Type||Standard Zoom|
|Maximum Focal Length||85 mm|
|Minimum Focal Length||24 mm|
|Photo Filter Thread Size||67 mm|
|Shipping Weight||1 pound|
Built into the system is a replica aspherical lens element that minimizes optical distortions to give you sharp images. The flare-cutting diaphragm helps the lens produce a high-contrast image, even in tough lighting. Its high zoom ratio of 3.5x allows you to take tighter shots of your subjects. It's fully compatible with all EOS cameras.
Read about our customers' top-rated lenses and cameras on our review pages: Lenses, Digital SLR Cameras, Compact System Cameras
Top Customer Reviews
The 24-85mm F3.5-4.5 lens is excellent for a midrange medium zoom on a 1.6x camera. Image quality, even wide open, is far better than the 18-55 kit lenses, plus you get USM with FTM, and a wider aperture. However, this lens really is best used in the F5.6-11 range, where the sharpness is quite good. Contrast and color are excellent at pretty much all apertures. Focusing is fast and accurate, and it has a nice distance meter.
The main downsides to this lens are it's mediocre build quality, which is a little wobbly at least on my copy, and the focus and zoom rings could have better feel. However, if you are comming from the kit lens or another cheap lens, it is right on par.
If you compare it to the 17-85mm, the 24-85mm isn't as WA and doesn't have IS, but it has FF capability, much better edge and center sharpness at all apertures, a faster aperture, lower price, and is a little more compact.
For full frame cameras, it covers a very important range, the wide zoom, which often used indoors, would preferably have good F2.8 IQ for indoors, something like the Tamron 28-75mm, or preferably the Canon 28-70mm, which is excellent indoors FF.
Overall, if you can get the Canon 24-105mm instead, it's definitely a much better lens in every respect. But if you don't want to spend that, this is a great lens at 1/3 the cost.
- it has bigger light-factor (3.5-4.0 vs 4.0-5.6 in the low-class lenses). This gives you more possibilities, for instance to use faster shutter speeds or to decrease the depth-of-fild for special effects)
- the first (outer) lens doesn't spin what gives you an opportunity to use square filters; using a poliriser becomes as easy as any other filter.
- the USM (Ultra Sonic Motor) gives you a really super speed of focusing and completely silent engine. You'll catch the fastest actions and nothing will distrub your object!
These are the most important and useful features of the lens. I should also admit, that the focal distance of this lens is almost ideal for everyday photography, because gives you an opportunity to shoot from landscapes (~24-50mm) to portraiture (~50-85mm) with an equal simplicity and quality.
If you just enjoy taking pictures and want a good, "walk around" lens that's not ridiculously heavy, you'll love this lens--and believe me, I envy you.
Sharpness. Its reasonably sharp at all apertures except wide open. No big deal since few lenses are great, wide open. Nothing is blurry (at least on an SLR with 1.6 crop factor) but nothing will make you break into a smile at the devastating crispness, either. Best f-stop was between 5.6 and 8, just where it should be.
Chromatic aberration. Not great, but there is something about digital cameras that makes even the most well corrected lenses show some "CA". If you can live with good-not-great sharpness, the CA shouldn't be a concern.
Barrel distortion. Gracious. The test at photozone_de should have prepared me for this, but at the 24mm end this lens is almost in semi-fisheye territory. So....flowers, people and landscapes, fine. Walls, windows and anything flat or square, not fine. Correctable in Photoshop but tedious to get just right.
Construction. Space age Polycarbonate (plastic). Seems fine to me. From the comments on "build quality" you'd think every doctor on vacation in Tahiti was embedded in Afghanistan. Its a precision item, made out of plastic but it looks to me like it will be fine, unless dropped.Read more ›
Most Recent Customer Reviews
When I bought a Canon 6D I wanted some quality lenses to go with it, so I started looking at the usual round of Canon lenses. Read morePublished 5 months ago by Cheralyn
This is a good unit. I rate it a 4 star only because it lacks image stabilizationPublished 6 months ago by happy joe
An "OK" general purpose lens. Lite weight, but feels "cheaply constructed".Published 19 months ago by Barry H.
This zoom debuted in 1996 as the kit lens for the EOS IXE/IX (APS). It was a popular lens well into the new millennium, but was finally discontinued in 2009. Read morePublished on December 22, 2013 by P.K. Frary
The Canon EF 24-85mm lens was just what I was looking for and just as described.I am happy with it!Published on February 19, 2013 by boxer
I just love this lens. Im into portrait and background at the same time and this lens give me what i was looking for!!!Published on February 11, 2013 by Sergio
I've used this lens for nine years for product, wedding, event, portraiture, and fine art shooting. Here are my thoughts:
* For a full-frame zoom, it's... Read more
Purchased lens on Amazon and everything went just fine. Lens arrived in peach condition. Everything on the lens functions as it should and for the money; it gives a good focal... Read morePublished on December 12, 2012 by Dont.trip