Buy Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR CamerasCanon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras Product Description:
- EF mount; standard zoom lens; Comes with Lens Cap E77U, Rear Lens Cap, Lens Hood EW-83F, Soft Lens Case 1219.
- Ultra-low Dispersion glass with Fluorite elements; inner focusing ring; full-time manual focus; aspherical lens
- 24-70mm focal length
- f/2.8 constant maximum aperture
- UltraSonic Motor (USM) AF actuator
Product Description
Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L USM Lens
Customer Reviews
Most helpful customer reviews
687 of 700 people found the following review helpful.
A great general-purpose lens
By erugifog
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.Update 2-12-12: It's been over six years since I wrote this review, and I continue to use and enjoy my 24-70mm, which is now paired with a Canon 7D. Anyone considering buying this lens today, however, should know that Canon announced on 2-7-12 the successor to this lens: The 24-70mm f/2.8L II. Contrary to rumors that had been circulating for years, the mark II version does not add image stabilization. Canon's USA website lists the MSRP for the new lens at $2,299.00.
212 of 214 people found the following review helpful.
Read this if you are debating the 24-70 vs the 24-105
By Eric Strate Photography
UPDATE - October 3: Wanted to update my review on this lens after using it for a couple weddings and portrait shoots lately. Normally, these wouldn't warrant an update for a lens that is so obviously well-suited to these roles, but this lens literally saved the day. I was shooting a wedding in one of the most difficult type of circumstances - never seen the location before, had 15 minutes before the ceremony to scope things out, had no chance to get my basic flow figured out by watching a rehearsal and this place was an exposure nightmare - black tuxes, white dresses in a very poorly lit chapel. I was shooting with a backup camera (50D - great camera, read my review, but it doesn't perform well enough at high ISO for me to trust it for a wedding shoot as I don't want any noise introduced into things.) So I knew I was going to be limited to some extent in terms of the freedom I'd have to play with different F-stops - I was going to need to be wide open to shoot at an ISO that I trust on the 50D for weddings (no higher than 200 in my experience) and have a shutter speed that wouldn't give me motion blur during the proceedings. Suffice it to say that I was more than pleased with how sharp things were at F2.8. I don't know that I could have done the same thing - on this camera - with the 24-105. That extra full stop down to 2.8 was absolutely critical. On another note, aspiring wedding photographers would be well advised to make an initial investment in a 5D Mark II or something in the 1D lines if you really want the freedom to work at high ISO and not worry about image degrading noise. I am ultra-picky about noise, so perhaps what I notice wouldn't bother some, but the investment will be worth it in the quality of your work. 40D and 50D are wonderful prosumer cameras (high level consumer/amateur, entry level professional), but the 5D and 1D series truly set themselves apart at higher ISOs. 50D is a perfect backup, or a great second camera if you want to throw a 70-200 or something ultra-wide on it and switch to that on the fly during the wedding. This lens pays for itself again and again.Perhaps the most common agony-inducing lens choice that Canon L-series fans may run into is the choice between the 24-70 F2.8 and the 24-105 F4 IS. People waiver back and forth between the benefits of the 2.8 aperture vs. the IS and extra reach of the 105. Some say there isn't a wrong choice because both lenses are both so good. I have a slightly different take - both lenses are good, they are both phenomenal, but you CAN make the wrong choice here, depending on the kit you already have and what you need the lens for.First off - the IS vs. the F2.8. The 24-105 has image stabilization - a definite plus in low light, handheld situations. While IS is great for up to 3 stops of exposure to prevent camera shake, it isn't going to freeze motion. To do that, you need shutter speed. To get shutter speed in lower light situations, you need wide aperture (and you want QUALITY glass so things are sharp wide-open). I am not knocking the 24-105 at all, but the way I see it the F2.8 outweighs the benefit of IS - it lets you go up to a shutter speeds where camera shake shouldn't be an issue (especially in the 24-70mm focal length range) and is pin sharp at that aperture. And these shutter speeds let you freeze action - good if you want to capture a toast in lower light at a wedding or something (unless a bit of motion blur is desired, which can easily be obtained...but if you don't have the 2.8 to begin with, there is no adjustment you can make to compensate save for bumping your ISO up and introducing more noise). So in the debate over the benefit of 2.8 on the 24-70 vs. IS on the 24-105, I think the nod goes to the 24-70.Next, the extra reach (to 105mm on a full frame or 168mm equivalent on an APS-C like the 40D, 50D, Rebels). In this case, you might think about the lenses you've got or that you plan to purchase. For example, the 70-200mm zooms that Canon makes in its L-series are INCREDIBLY popular lenses, for good reason. Whether you have the 70-200 F2.8 with or without IS or the 70-200 F4 with our without IS, you have yourself an excellent piece of glass with those mid-range zooms. If you have one, or if you are planning on getting one, the 24-70 becomes the perfect compliment to them, giving you L-series performance from 24-200mm - if you have the 70-200 F2.8 you've got the ability to shoot at that wide aperture from 24-200mm - a very, very useful ability to have. Granted, the 24-105 saves you from having to switch lenses if you are in the 70-105mm range, but I don't know if that is too much of an inconvenience. I will say this, if you EVER plan on owning the 70-200 F2.8, you owe it to yourself to get the 24-70 F2.8 now. Remember, F/2.8 is a full stop ahead of F/4 in light gathering capability, so if you are somewhat new to all of this, you will collect double the light at F2.8 than you will at F4 - meaning you could shoot at twice the shutter speed and get the same exposure as you would at F4 with a given shutter speed. I know many pro's that look at aperture as being the #1 priority with any lens purchase, always get as much of it as possible. So, if you have any plans of ever owning one of the very popular 70-200mm mid range zooms from Canon, I think the 24-70 is the better choice.Now let's discuss image quality. In this case, there is no loser. The F2.8 lets you get shallower DOF. I've read some reports saying the 24-70 is sharper across more focal lengths and apertures and others that say the opposite, but when you are comparing the sharpness of these two lenses you are really splitting hairs. My 24-70 is PIN SHARP at F2.8 - so sharp that I was literally stunned when I took my first test shots of the kids playing in the yard in the early evening. Motion was frozen perfectly and details all the way down to their eyes were extremely sharp - there is no way I could have done this and gotten the results I did with anything but the freedom I had to shoot at 2.8 with a higher shutter speed in the evening light. Sure, I could have shot at F4 with double the ISO and managed to keep the same shutter speed, but as I said before, the noise factor creeps in (to be fair, higher end Canon's do a great job with high ISO and noise). But in cases where the need for the extra aperture isn't an issue, both of these lenses are superb. You can't go wrong with either as far as image quality goes.Based on all this, it probably sounds like I'd never recommend the 24-105 over the 24-70. But I would. If you are planning on owning only one L-series lens (financially this is a very real issue for most of us) and want the ULTIMATE is high quality walkaround lens - a lens that will let you do professional quality work and has the added benefit of image stabilization, then I'd say go with the 24-105. If, however, you plan on owning the aforementioned mid-range zooms and plan on doing things like event photography in poorly lit indoor settings, I think the 24-70 is the way to go.One more thing, if you get either of these lenses, don't plan on putting anything less than a high quality filter on them. L-series lenses need very high quality filters or you are going to suffer degradation in image quality. Spend the extra $80-100 (or more) and get a nice B+W UV filter.Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about this lens or if there is some aspect of the decision between these lenses you didn't see here that you are interested in.2ND UPDATE - June 29: After borrowing one off and on for several months, I have also added an 85mm F1.8 to my collection (look for my review on it if you want the details). Because I know that some people may be reading this review in the hopes of deciding on a good lens for portrait photography, I wanted to quickly reference this other lens as an option. First, the 24-70 F2.8L continues to prove itself a great investment. It is a true workhorse lens for wedding photography, giving you a very useful combination of zoom and width, nice shallow depth of field with great sharpness at F2.8, and phenomenal build quality (after shooting an outdoor wedding in the pouring rain I really came to appreciate the rubber seal this lens has around the rear element where the lens connects to the camera.) So while I am obviously still a big proponent of the 24-70 as a portrait and general purpose lens, I have to mention that if you are really stressing out about the cost of this lens, you might seriously consider the Canon 85mm F1.8. For around $380, this lens provides you with AMAZING portrait opportunities, incredible shallow depth of field with great sharpness at the focal points and silky smooth bokeh in the background. So, if a portrait lens is what you are looking for and the cost of L-series glass is an issue, consider the 85. Obviously it is not as versatile as the 24-70 and there are some additional optical characteristics that make L series glass a bit better than non-L series glass, but the 85 F1.8 could be used for a professional portrait shoot without any concern at all. Best of both worlds - get the 85 AND the 24-70! :) Email me if you have any questions about this lens or equipment in general and I'll help if I can. My contact info can be found at my website.
377 of 386 people found the following review helpful.
Best available all-around Canon lens
By R. M. Kohary
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.
See all 352 customer reviews...Latest Price:
See on Amazon.com!
More Info:
See on Amazon.com!
See Customers Review:
See on Amazon.com!
Buy Canon PL-C 48mm Drop-in Circular Polarizing Filter
Comparison
Only decent in comparison to other L's