Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
270 of 275 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
A great general-purpose lens, December 15, 2005
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.
|
|
|
285 of 292 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Best available all-around Canon lens, August 27, 2004
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.
|
|
|
189 of 192 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
You will not be sorry you bought this!, February 11, 2006
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.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
Saving...
