Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L – So Good Your Other Lenses are Already Jealous

  • Sexiness Ratings:
  • Value to your kit
  • :( 5 of 5 stars)
  • Image quality
  • :( 5 of 5 stars)
  • Build quality
  • :( 5 of 5 stars)
  • Jealousy Factor
  • :( 5 of 5 stars)
  • Bang for your buck
  • :( 3 of 5 stars)
  • Overall Sexiness
  • :( 5 of 5 stars)

24-70 f/2.8 L

 

After a long hiatus, here I am back with some hot review action for your pleasure. My first (but I assure you not my last) Canon “L” lens review is about the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L. Ryan wrote earlier about his first “L” lens, and I must say that my experience emotionally mirrored his a great deal when this arrived from B&H. It was the first “L” I owned, and it is to date my favorite lens that I have used.

It’s really somewhat difficult to know where to start talking about this lens. It’s just that good. I guess a solid thing to lead with is that I went though a lot of inner turmoil deciding between this lens and the similarly priced 24-105mm f/4L IS. It seemed at the time like a hard decision. The 24-105 had the obvious advantages of being a little longer, and having the image stabilization built in. Would this make up for the difference in aperture? I really didn’t know. After objectively browsing through my Flickr account, I realized three things.

  • I like shooting portraits and people more than anything else.
  • I often like a narrow depth of field when shooting people.
  • I often shoot in very low light.

With this in mind, I decided that the extra width on the 24-70 was worth it, and I made the purchase.

In hindsight, this was a no-brainer decision. I’ve now shot with both of these lenses, and while the 24-105 is a truly awesome piece of gear, I would take my 24-70 over it seven days a week and twice on Sundays. If any of you out there are also making this choice, that is my two cents on the matter.

So let’s talk about some of the things that make shooting with this lens so truly wonderful. To start with, as noted, I love shooting portraits. On my Canon 30D with the 1.6x focal length multiplier, this lens is effectively a 38-112mm lens, which really covers a perfect range for social portrait shooting. You can be three feet away or fifteen feet away, and you’ll be able to nail your shot. The f/2.8 gives a great background blur of course, so your subjects will pop into sharp relief in your images. It’s built solidly, as all the Canon L lenses are, and is fairly weather resistant if you’re shooting in harsher environments.

But, those are really just the things you’d obviously expect from looking at the basic specs. Impressive, sure, but not really magical. I can assure you though, dear reader, this is a genuinely magical lens.

When I got my first round of images shot with this lens into Aperture, I was nothing short of astonished. The richness of the colors, the depth of the contrast, and the incredible sharpness were far beyond anything I had ever produced before myself. It was literally a whole new level for me. I remembered that soon after I’d gotten my first DSLR, I asked my friend and photography mentor Peter Reid the question, “How much of it is the photographer, and how much of it is the gear?” His response essentially was, “Nothing is more important than the person taking the shots, but I won’t lie… the gear definitely helps.”

This lens, it helps. It does more than help, really. I think it would be more accurate to say that it inspires. When looking through my images with this lens, I felt for the first time like I might have a real shot at one day being able to take “truly great” photographs, as opposed to the “very good” level I had been previously aspiring to. I know it’s a bit cheezy to say that, but it’s true.

Is it perfect? Well, no. Not quite anyway. There are a very few cons that I’ve found, and here they are as I see them. First off, there’s the obvious cost. It’s not cheap, but if you can afford it I will say without reservation that it is worth the money. Second, it’s heavy. It weighs more than the Canon 30D body does. On my kit, with the battery grip attached, you are very aware of the weight when you put your eye up to the viewfinder. Personally, the weight is something I kind of like, but it is definitely a factor. There is technically a smidgen of barrel distortion when you’re zoomed all the way out at 24mm, but you have to really be looking hard to see it. The zoom control ring is a teensy bit sticky feeling at the ends of the range, though it’s like butter through the middle. And finally, the oddest con (for me) is that the zoom telescopes in reverse from how you expect it to. Meaning that when you are as wide as you can go at 24mm, the lens fully extended. When you are at 70mm, the lens is not telescoped out at all. No doubt there’s a good technical reason why it’s built that way, but it’s just a bit eerie to me.

All in all though, that list of cons is so incredibly trivial when you think about them relative to the quality of the shots you’ll get, I almost didn’t mention them here. It just seemed like the right thing to do for posterity. The best way to close, I think, is by saying this: if I were told that I could only ever have two lenses for the rest of my life, based on everything I’ve used so far, it would be this lens, and Ryan’s 70-200 that was reviewed previously. It’s my goto glass for the majority of my shooting, and my favorite piece of gear in my kit. If you can get one, I urge you to do so without delay.

Test Shots

  • demian
  • aggie
  • eric mcfadden trio  5533.jpg
  • eric mcfadden trio  5523.jpg
  • AEA Seattle 2007  6472.jpg
  • striking a pose in the glow
  • shasta
  • mexican sunset
  • edward sharpe and the magnetic zeros  7754.jpg
  • bones
  • venice  5656.jpg
  • the after midnight project  9014.jpg

 

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM Autofocus Lens Tech Specs (from bhphoto.com)
Filter Size 77mm
f/Stop Range 2.8-22
Minimum Focus Distance 1.25′ (0.38)
Magnification 1:3.5
Zoom/Focus Control Two touch
Angle of View 74 to 29 degrees
Groups/Elements 13/16
Length 4.9″ (123.5mm)
Maximum Diameter 3.3″ (83.2mm)
Weight 2.1 lb (950 g)


  1. HeyJules on Monday 20, 2007

    I really value these reviews you do on the different lenses. One thing I’ve been wondering about – I see you refer to this and a few others as “L” series. How is that different than their other lenses? Is it a “pro” level or special glass or what?

  2. chl on Monday 20, 2007

    Yup, the “L” is what Canon uses to designate their “pro” line of lenses. They also all have that red stripe you see around the end of the barrel. They’re typically heavier, as they use more glass than the standard lenses, and they are build sturdier.

    Expensive, for sure, but once you get used to them it’s really hard to go back. :)

  3. E-ville81 on Monday 20, 2007

    What he said I just got mine last night and it is amazing that I own such a peice of perfection. I also was on the fence between the 24-105 and the 24-70 but once you handle it for the first time you realize you wasted alot of time trying to make a decision. I have the 40D and love the focal range. Don’t think you have to have a 5D for this lens. You just have to have Money! Great review Very accurate.

  4. [...] Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L – So Good Your Other Lenses are Already Jealous [...]

  5. Phil on Monday 20, 2007

    Just a bit of trivia on the reverse zooming extension you mentioned above – it’s so that you get good coverage from the lens hood at all focal lengths. At 24mm the end of the lens is extended towards the end of the hood, as you zoom out the end retracts and more of the hood is used to protect against flare. Pretty clever really.

  6. [...] this in mind, I will typically start out a show using my 24-70L f/2.8 lens opened up all the way to f/2.8, ISO 1600, and a shutter speed of 1/125th of a second. Depending on [...]

  7. taltal on Monday 20, 2007

    Sounds like a dream… but a heavy one! (950g…)

  8. HK on Monday 20, 2007

    I mirror what Phil says. The reverse zooming is a pro and not a con in my book. Its an excellent design that means the lens hood provides maximum resistence to flare throughout the zoom range! Most hoods tend to only cover the wide end of the range.
    I don’t yet own this lens, but its soon to be purchased after trying I tried it out a few weeks ago! Amazing! (but heavy!)

  9. PTofTheNorth on Monday 20, 2007

    I looked hard and long at both lenses and agonized over which one to get. Do I get the EF 24-105mm f/4.0L to match the speed of my EF 17-40mm f/4.0L and its extra length or do I get the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L to match the speed of my EF 70-200mm f/2.8L. I didn’t need it so much for portraits — I use my EF 50mm f/1.2L for that or when light is even beyond the f/2.8s.

    So after much consideration of the conditions I shoot in I decided on the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 because of the faster speed and the unique lens hood that works right in wide angle and telephoto ranges.

    I am very pleased with the results I’m getting. I took some hand held night shots of the Detroit Skyline with the lens and the results we pretty good.(hand held = propped up in the window of the hotel on Gideons bible triggering the shutter release manually – remote release was left at home in my camera backpack).

    Earlier in the day I was shooting along the river in bright sunlight and the results were also good. There were a couple of times when I needed a bit more reach but I had left the 70-200mm at home. The extra length of the 24-105mm would have been handy.

    The only disappointing shots were the Detroit skyline during the day time from Caesar’s Windsor Hotel — I didn’t notice the Windows were tinted blue and the pictures have a blue cast to them. AWB didn’t catch and adjust for this.

  10. Andrew on Monday 20, 2007

    Yes the 24-70 2.8L is a must, I have a few other lens in my bag all L’s but I mainly use the 24-70. I just wish Canon would make a 24 105 2.8L IS then I really won’t need anything else ever.

    A



FireStats icon Powered by FireStats