360 of 373 people found the following review helpful
You will not be sorry you bought this!,
This review is from: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras (Camera)
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.
Tracked by 1 customer
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 12 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 2, 2009 12:53:06 PM PST
With f/2.8....he should not have to use the flash that much anyway. It will work in very little light....and natural light always looks better anyway. Thanks for the review. I am looking for another lens (I have the crap 18-55 that came with my kit, and the "nifty fifty." It is Canon 50mm f/1.8 II. It is a really good lens, but a really cheap one. I just wanted another lens to add to my arsenal.....need some wide shot capability.
Posted on Jun 3, 2009 2:57:03 AM PDT
Thanks for a review with such sensible remarks about (not needing) IS and built-in flash
Posted on Nov 24, 2009 10:40:24 PM PST
I am really into your reviews. Just bought a Nissin Di866 Flash, which I feel it's a good compatitor to Canon 580EX II. But I am decideing to buy the Canon 24-70 instead of Canon 24-105 or the new Sigma 24-70 F2.8 lens.
Thank you very much for your post.
Posted on Jan 22, 2010 2:52:21 PM PST
Posted on Jan 18, 2012 6:17:52 AM PST
dj button says:
You are so right in your post! I have made sure to do my homework before buying this lens. Reading forums I was totally swayed to be against this lens. I should have known better to just go with my gut. I ended up getting a 16-35 and I was unhappy after two days. I found myself wanting to zoom. So I sold it and bought the 24-70. I am in LAla land now! This thing is awesome! The only thing I can compare it to is my Canon 85mm 1.8. That lens has amazing quality and I see that in this lens in so many ways. Only now I get to start at 24 and go to 70mm! Dont hesitate to buy this. And dont listen to the people who pick things apart. Odds are you wont ever look that close! Nothing is perfect!
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 18, 2012 3:03:36 PM PST
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 13, 2012 7:20:58 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Feb 13, 2012 7:21:37 PM PST
Bruce Wayne says:
Ambriz, Your response might be taken with more seriousness if your spelling and grammer weren't akin to that of an 8 year old's. Again, not agreeing/disagreeing with you, nor am I attempting to imply anything about your intellect. A lot of smart people have poor spelling/grammer... just saying that your spelling grammer ain't helping.
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 2, 2012 4:02:18 PM PST
Thomas J. Wilczek says:
I agree with you that it was awfully tough reading Ambriz's assessment of the lens, but if you are going to crack on someone's spelling and turn what should be a lens review into a spelling bee you should at least do a quick spell check yourself. It's grammar, not 'grammer'. You spelled it this way three times, so I'm going to go out on a limb and say you didn't have a clue. Not to imply anything about your intellect because a lot of smart people are poor spellers.