|sent on April 18, 2016 |
Pros: Sharpness, focus, af fast, excellent color rendering.
Cons: Weight it has not 'a defect ..
Opinion: Finally, after many used vehicle research at a good price I found this lens !! I come from a Canon 24-105 usm ... Do not 'comparison, another world !! I think the tele zoom all do to excellence .. And speaking of the first set. Bright and punchy! In certain situations it can 'replace a disk from the same opening ... Highly recommended for those photographing weddings and portraits .. And even for landscapes. In short they are in possession of 3 days and already 'I love him !! I just hope I do not go up the monkey? and make me want to buy the second set ... But for now, so that's great !!
|sent on April 11, 2016 |
Pros: Sharpness, robust, construction, fast and precise in focus even in situations with low light, creamy blurred
Cons: Weight, bulky lens hood reversed when at rest, variety of specimens
Opinion: My opinion for what it's worth is very favorable, I needed for the type of photos that I prefer a zoom 2.8 and alternatives (excluding the second overpriced version) were Sigma, dismissed out of hand and Tamron also very good but after him trying 2 copies of this I clearly preferred the canon! it is true, does not have the stabilizer but these focal is not necessary and I've never missed, it is heavier and cumbersome, and they say to be more clear .... BUT ... !! the canon in my possession sharply in focus accuracy and speed in focus even wins in extreme situations and in low light, even the side of my 6d guessed. The sharpness in the center is more than valid, decade by a thread at the edges, but the blur that can give you chase away the desire crisp stra lens (for what use the 100 macro). The flawless robustness, the immense hood protects the entire lens and the lens body, sins when it is in the rest position is a bit annoying. Now I use it for over a anNo, and I'm pleased stra, my last example is a fact because the code date appears to be the end of production in 2011, perhaps much older specimens may present some failure, so dispassionate advice given attention to that if you decide to take used as I did.
|sent on February 19, 2016 |
Pros: really unsurpassed colors, fast and precise auto focus, quality and brightness: the ultimate optical in this range. Weight! Do not get me wrong it is not light but from the perspective grams well distributed. Blurred photos seem outnumbered those who did it with the lightest 24-105 at exposure equal.
Cons: Price from L series, but I must confess that never before has similar figures appear justified.
Opinion: Portrait, wedding, reportage. This objective has passed into history as one of the best and most used professional lenses from Canon and personally chasing for years. First with the thought, then when I finally got to break the porcelain pig is playing the real research;). One thing must be said: they will be the years of honorable service of counterfeits in circulation, it will be that everyone wants a ride, which will be used permanently now hurtling around the euro 8-900, then real money, but I struggled a bit ' find a quality specimen. All the test shots I did send me did not make justice to its reputation as the "Holy Grail";) The good news is that at least as I write, it is a lot of the abundance of ads so the game is quite open. My advice is to try as long as you're not convinced at most (always in relation to the price that you're willing to spend, of course). The thing that struck meto now is its handling. All right is big, heavy (but the right, at the end I thought worse) and 24mm stands out but the feeling of having something in your hands TOP I have had suffered. The final epiphany came with the first summary of file viewing. I also had several optical L-series but had not yet tasted what it's like to have colors and tones sopraffini like these. I understood immediately why the great photographers, Annie Leibovitz in James Nachtwey have entrusted to him for so long with no regrets. As for me, I can say, after much wandering I finally found you and we will never part! ;)
|sent on October 17, 2015 |
Pros: Clarity, versatility, construction, maf
Opinion: Bright lens and clear, I switched from an old sigma this unique Canon, I use it mostly in landscape night and I must say that is brighter than the sigma despite both f2.8, the sharpness is stunning, maf rapid and precise in situations of very little light .... Lens handyman bright and sharp ...... OUTSTANDING consigliatissima .... I use the Canon 5D Mark II and I was in doubt whether to take this or the Tamron ... But the Canon me He has removed any doubt !!!
|sent on August 26, 2015 |
Pros: Image quality, blurry, color, three-dimensional, perfect focal range on FF. The MAF is great.
Cons: Bulky hood.
Opinion: Sold, sold and reconditioned. Magnificent lens, much loved by the matrimonialists and trying it out, you understand why. I also have the 35 f / 1.4 l and I find that they are, opening apart, very similar: both have a magical, so-called "wow effect". But both are a bit lacking in open-mindedness. The first specimen was better than the second, which starts to offer the best at f / 3.2 - 3.5, although probably with a body-slow accurate calibration (which I never wanted / reason to do) would improve the notorious issue of productive tolerances.rnConstruction and Focus from L series, of the highest level.rnWow effect for the wow effect remains my first choice for ceremonies and events although I often prefer other lenses, stabilized and sharper in travel . The hood, very protective, is, however, ugly and huge.
|sent on July 22, 2015 |
Pros: Sharpness, color, contrast, brightness, construction, auto focus, aperture.
Cons: Ergonomics, hood, distortion at 24mm.
Opinion: Great lens handyman bright. In circulation there are defects in the specimens with precision and sharpness of focus. My fortunately does not have these problems, so I can not recommend it because it is a really good lens! Construction, sharpness, color rendition and excellent contrast, even very good speed focusing. Only negatives, the distortion at 24mm the lens hood and almost as big as that of the 70-200 f2.8. Lastly, the ergonomics, to 24mm, the weight is unbalanced forward due barrel completely outside, with small cars and light becomes a little 'uncomfortable, in this his successor has definitely improved. For everything else, as I said before, I can not recommend it enough!
|sent on June 01, 2015 |
Pros: Build quality, bokeh, three-dimensionality and Out of the plans that approaches the fixed hood that doubles as a bumper.
Cons: Weight, dimensions especially with the lens hood, sharpness let it down in pieces not perfect.
Opinion: I state that I had two copies of the 1st series f / 2.8 that I had never met and a 24-105 f / 4 that was even worse, although the latter recently built (2013). Then I switched to the new version II of 24-70 f / 2.8 that I especially enjoyed for more lightness and sharpness, but in the end I wanted to come back to the objective in question because I found a great sample used almost perfect. ^ 1 This version has a sharpness definitely lower than the new, but overall I find it more enjoyable for bokeh, three-dimensionality and Out of the plans that recalls more closely the performance of fixed. At least for my taste! In addition, the 1st model like the construction of the tank (although you pay in terms of weight) and the big hood which protects it better, also mechanically (especially at 24 mm when it is fully extended, unlike the new model in maximum extension is 70 mm). For those who want greater clarity and lightness, and less space,the new version II of the zoom would strongly regret it because no fixed with those features in the focal (a bit like the 70-200 f2.8 IS II L- except the mythical 50 and 85mm f / 1.2). For the rest I prefer the version 1 or, at least, my esemplare.rnrn rnrnrn
|sent on September 28, 2014 |
Pros: Image quality, fluidity of the L series, bright, a good focus
Opinion: Optics nothing short of exceptional, taken in place of the 24-105 f4, I was afraid to miss the 35 mm but it was not like that, get the 2.8 instead of 4 is more important to me because I often take pictures also to 'internal and in situations of low luminosità.rnGrazie the focus of the TA 2.8 is also excellent portraits manage to steal, or to create images with an excellent three-dimensional, in some cases, I miss the stabilizer which never hurts, the rest are very soddisfatto.rnUna which limits the weight is enough .. if you take it with a full day is a nightmare.
|sent on August 05, 2013 |
Pros: Build quality and image at the top, ideal range of focal lengths of FF
Cons: Dimensions and weight
Opinion: Used with immense satisfaction as a handyman on 5d mark2, I sold it just because for the amateur who did not have tolerated any longer the only defects (size and weight) that often do not allow me to carry it in your bag. For the rest I buy another one with my eyes closed if I needed that kind of slow and I can not recommend it enough.
|sent on February 24, 2013 |
Opinion: Hi, I tried this lens in different situations at a wedding with flash and various photographic services outside and it seemed clear only to 2.8 did not convince me molto. attended a master of wedding photography and studio. In both situations without flash photos seemed completely out of focus and mosse. Ho brought the 'optical canon service center and they told me that the barrel was not good.
|sent on November 22, 2012 |
Pros: image quality, accurate and silent AF, rugged construction, does not suffer from the backlight
Cons: weight, focal length 24 distorts a bit 'but just keep it' on the bubble 'and be careful.
Opinion: I was able to find new and cheap, because of the expected release of version MK II. Great for universal use, ceremonies, portraits, landscapes with light rain. The big hood protects well, and the lens shows to hold the backlight without flare widespread. Behaves very well at night, even at maximum aperture.
|sent on February 11, 2012 |
Pros: professional building, the center maintains high optical quality
Cons: weight and size, made the edges insufficient
Opinion: Maybe I was unlucky and I hit a bad specimen came, but in the end I had to get rid of it because I could not stand the lack of sharpness of the edges (which in my type of photography is rather important) and the significant difference compared to that of the center of the frame. On APS-C, things were better, but I found it more practical to use this to replace it by 15-85. FF on the other hand, I switched to fixed lenses. I read around many tests and comments and, apparently, many have had the same problems, but not all, which suggests a certain lack of homogeneity of the production.
|sent on November 12, 2011 |
Pros: Optical quality since 2.8
Opinion: It 'a lens that makes a kit, high sharpness in the center and the edges since 2.8, beautiful colors, absent or very low chromatic aberration, it's really hard to get purple fringes with this lens. The images have an airiness and a fascinosità overall, I recommend it to all those who have a FF Canon. For f2, 8 has a curvature of field of fire that can be a problem with planar subjects, while with three-dimensional subject not known. It has a slight distortion at 24mm. It 's the typical lens events, it is a little awkward to carry around photos for a walk. Overall a really bell'obiettivo.
|sent on November 06, 2011 |
Pros: Construction phenomenal clarity (especially TA), resistance to flare.
Cons: Corners at 24mm and 35mm, weight, lacks IS (but does not), so ... but a lot of AC
Opinion: Receptacle recently in place of 24-105. Exceptional sharpness even at 2.8. Nothing to say, is a monster lens. No flare, perfect colors and excellent contrast. Only concern: the corners at 24mm and 35mm, distinct only to f11, I will take a ride service to check that everything is ok. And 'heavy cartoon much until af 4 shows easily and AC. I much prefer the 24-105 for landscapes and portraits.
|sent on November 02, 2011 |
Pros: Quality worthy of the series L, competitive price.
Cons: Lack of IS, weight.
Opinion: Although this lens feels a little design a little dated, rimande a great lens, especially considering the quality / prezzo.rnVersatile and outdoors and in the studio, it becomes a good choice for portraits, given its apertura.rnPurtroppo the its weight limits prolonged use wrists more "sensitive". RNLA maf can be great if obtained thanks to the live view: you can also go into detail more motivated to focal intermedie.rnAggiornamento: rnho just bought a FF (5D3 ) and I have to confirm the vignetting at 24mm. Not everyone, however, bother ... just stay at 26-27 that no longer occurs.
|sent on October 01, 2011 |
Pros: f2.8 - Tropicalization (the hood is so large that lets you take pictures even in conditions of rain drops on the go without front lens)
Cons: No, sin is not only f2 :-)
Opinion: A zoom of extraordinary craftsmanship and strength, coupled with a FF really the best. AF precise and rapid, never found any problem of MAF, also with lateral points of 5D2. At the time, I had "Doubt": 24-70 or 24-105? Of course, 35mm of travel more and stabilizer are decidedly throat at all, but only on certain occasions can compensate for an aperture of brightness. The IS in fact stops the movement of those trips, not of those who are photographed: a 1/30 f4 the subject can move, while at 1/60 f2.8 risks diminish moved a lot. And anyway, regardless moved with f2.8 you can halve the ISO. At weddings uses the body as 5D2 / primary optic, while the Canon EOS 1D Mark III using the 85 1.8 in the church and the 135 f2 outdoors: a perfect superb. Cartoon narrowly wide open, but do not consider it a defect in the ease of correction, the 24-105 from this point of view is much worse. Recommend this light to anyone who needs something extremely sharp and must work in light conditions also quite extreme.
|sent on September 30, 2011 |
Pros: excellent construction, excellent performance, versatile, ok even on aps-c bodies
Cons: weight (even if in line with the competition), if IS would be even more versatile
Opinion: Used for 2 years on a APS-C body and the focal length 24 is short enough for many uses. The sharpness is amazing and not comparable to other L-series lenses though as the 17-40 f4 (obviously at the widest apertures). With a body that has low noise is the ideal lens for taking pictures with low light conditions without a flash. I have used this lens in my travels and versatility is total. Consigliatissima as unique optical always use.
|sent on September 28, 2011 |
Pros: Color, contrast, diframma f/2.8, Bokeh, Flare, Tropicalization, Sharpness, keeping the market
Cons: variability of the specimens, weight, cost, vignetting, distortion
Opinion: I had this lens along with his brother 24-105L which I then held. The lens has excellent colors, good contrast, good / excellent sharpness at room temperature (but varies from specimen to specimen) very good resistance to flare, cartoon f/2.8 but correctable as distortion, excellent bokeh, he also has the suio difettucci, that are the weight, the cost, and the variability of the specimens (not up to the L series). Consider whether you need an f/2.8 lens and a zoom 24-70 or the 24-105L could do for you ...
|sent on September 27, 2011 |
Pros: Wide range of application. Impeccable construction.
Cons: Nothing. It may be useful to IS.
Opinion: Excellent professional zomm the wide range of use, quiet and precise autofocus fast, great sharpness, brightness f 2.8 allows (mostly 70 mm) a good blur. A peculiarity of this zoom lens (unlike the corresponding Nikkor) is that reaches its maximum physical extent in correspondence with a focal length of 24 mm and this is appropriate because in this way minimizes the risk of camera shake or shake (the absence of the SI). Excellent "resistance" to light: flare practically non-existent! The brightness, the mechanical complexity and the quality of materials involve considerable weight (about 1 kg), but it should be so. Essential for the ceremony.