Sharp, hardly any CA, well built, super color rendition and contrast

size and weight, price, might not be wide enough for some on APS-C DSLRs

An extremely sharp lens with a useful range thats only shortcoming is its great weights and size.

Top notch color, contrast and sharpness across the focal length range stopped down to the f/4-f/11 range (haven't done much work at f/2.8 to evaluate). Doesn't appear to vignette with an ordinary HOYA uv or circular polarizer even at 24mm Rubber weather seal on lens mount Relatively light considering it's a pro zoom (undoubtedly why Canon increased polycarbonate content of lens barrel).

More polycarbonate than predecessor 28-70 f/2.8L USM and doesn't have the "metal" feel of the 70-200 f/2.8L USM. Telescoping zoom design (surprised Canon didn't take the opportunity to make it internal focusing when they redesigned this lens) Price (a tad high but an essential tool to go with the 1v and 70-200 f/2.8L USM)

I bought this lens to go along with my Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L USM and EOS-1v. It balances nicely on the 1v and produces beautifully saturated color and contrast (as judged by viewing Velvia 50 transparencies) that (at least to me) seems even better than that produced by the 70-200 f/2.8L USM (which is top notch). Both lenses basically provide optical performance on par with prime lenses except for distortion on this one at wide angle settings, but still acceptable for having the convenience of a "pro" zoom. Reportedly this lens came out because the 11MP Canon 1Ds is very demanding of optical sharpness and the previous version, the 28-70 f/2.8L USM, was showing its age. Will be interesting to see how it fares with the even more demanding 16.7 MP 1Ds MK II. (Anyone shooting this combo please post a review).

Customer Service

Not needed for this product

Similar Products Used:

Canon 70-200 f/4L USM Canon 70-200 f/2.8L USM

* Sharp * Saturated Color

* Big & Heavy * Expensive

Very sharp lens with a great "bokeh". A great daily lens with f/2.8 aperture. Must have zoom lens for Canon SLR user !

Customer Service

none

Similar Products Used:

EF 17-40 mm f/4L

Quality of Pictures and very good AF

Price, and weight, but forget the weight. If you are used to cheap plastic consumer lenses, then this will be heavy (by comparison), but it's all about getting used to it.

I will not sit here and compare this lens to other lens, as this is my first lens from Canon. I came from film (Nikon). I am really satisfied with this lens. People say that this lens is very heavy, but are we here to judge how heavy it is, or how good it is in terms of quality. In terms of quality, it works beautifully with my Canon 20D. No problems whatsoever.

Customer Service

None needed yet

Similar Products Used:

Nikon N75 28-80mm 3.3 and Sigma 70-300mm, both suck in comparison :-)

Best wide-to-mid length zoom I've used for the Canon system optically, good contrast. Good build by Canon's low construction standards.

Price (let's face it, it's overpriced) and weight, seems to lose some degree of contrast with higher flarity at the wide end. Since the lens is heavy and expensive anyhow, I wonder why they couldn't extend the range to 85 giving you another highly useful lens length. Probably because that would greatly reduce the necessity of the 70-200 f/2.8L that a lot of people pair with this lens.

Overall the best zoom in the Canon line that I've yet used, it's arguably my most commonly used Canon system lens. The build quality is high by Canon's standards (in other words, rather cheap) and the optical quality is quite good, especially from around 35mm on up though the shorter focal lengths to my eye seem to suffer greater flarity. There's no doubt however that this lens offers the highest degree of contrast of any ZOOM lens that I own, the difference from a number of other zooms I've used is very noticeable. If you shoot AF 35mm and need a zoom at wide to moderate lengths, aren't put off by the weight which is rather excessive nor the price which is downright overpriced in my opinion, this is a good optic to own and make extensive use of. In fact, I'd challenge anyone with such needs to name another lens they'd use more. The hood mount ring came loose within the first 3-4 weeks I owned the lens. Typical Canon cheapness in construction quality...

Customer Service

Never bothered to go to them to complain about the hood mount ring coming loose within the first month of ownership.

Similar Products Used:

Lots of 35mm wide-to-moderate zooms, but for Canon most notably the 28-70mm f/2.8L and the 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (my cheap versitile go everywhere zoom when low weight and portability is desired and sharpness and contrast do not matter).

Very Sharp, Crisp shots.

kind of heavy

This is the main lens I use now. I am very happy with my purchase and feel that it is worth the money. I did a serious upgrade from my 28-135mm IS. My 24-70 is such a better quality lens. Recommended.

Customer Service

None!

Similar Products Used:

28-135mm IS

-sharpness even @f/2.8 -Contrast and color rendition -Built quality -Range on a 10D (1.6x)

-Size and weight (2 lb!!!!) -Price

I used this lens for 1 month on a 10D. I got really good results and the built quality is awesome. Sharpness is good even at f/2.8, color rendition and contrast are incredible. Poblems are price and WEIGHT (2 lb!!!). I did a 7h hike with this lens attached to my 10D, at the end your neck is painful. If you are looking for something lighter without compromising performances too much, you can also consider the TAMRON 28-75 f/2.8 ($330), it won't be as sharp and up to f/4 the canon is better but it is really lighter.

Customer Service

Not needed yet.

Similar Products Used:

-EF 17-40 f/4L -EF 70-200 f/4L (incredible lens) -TAMRON 28-75 f/2.8 XR Di

It reigns over the competitors.

It's heavy, and telescoping looks dorky.

I'd been renting/borrowing this lens for a while, and when it came time to buy my own rig, I thought I'd save money on this one by going with the Tokina 28-70 Pro SV instead. I quickly learned that after you've taken the Canon L's sharpness for granted, that there is no competition. The difference is massively visible. The Tokina isn't in any way acceptable in comparison (see my review of it). Admittedly I haven't tried the Sigma in this range, but I'm guessing there's not a real competitor for this one. I've already gone back to buy the Canon, and I'm sending the Tokina back. If you want a backup lens that costs less, I'd now recommend a cheap Canon zoom over the Tokina 2.8. I originally didn't like this lens due to its telescoping form factor, but after trying the lackluster competition it's become endearing to me.

Customer Service

Haven't had to use it.

Similar Products Used:

Canon 28-70 2.8L Tokina 28-70 2.8 Pro SV Canon 28-80 3.5-5.6 USM Canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM

Well contructed giving a solid feeling when hand held, a little less plastic than the 28-70, professional. Appears to have well controlled distortions at al focal lenghts. Reported to have better internal seals against dust. Zoom ring action is smooth and without any stiffness. Images produced apper to be equal to prime lens but on close examination not quite as sharp or as high of contrast, as expected.

Some noted (minor) flare at 24 mm setting, due to lens hood not quite covering as well, compared to the 28-70 lens. Lens hood appears to be weak link, but can be reversed mounted, which is a plus in my book. Also large filter size a negative, 77 mm, recommend Hoya over B&W to allow lens cap operation.

Ideal lens for weddings and single lens for travel but not for landscapes or other stationary subjects and fine art work. As you already know nearly all zoom lenses are a compromise in design and that some are better than others as in this case. The 24 to 70 provides a 4 mm edge over the older 28-70, it is this slight edge that made it my first L lens.

Customer Service

Never had a problem with any Canon lens to date, be it FD or EF series.

Similar Products Used:

Canon Prime lenses, 24, 28, 35, 50 & 85 mm and 24-85 zoom.

Excellent lens to keep on the camera all the time. Sharp, VERY contrasty, good color rendition (not as warm as Tamron). Built like a frickin' tank.

Heavy, bulky, $$$$$$$$$$ for a middle focal length range. I STILL think it's worth it, but weigh your options carefully if money is tight...there are lighter and more cost-efficient solutions. That's why value is only rated 4 stars even though I'm heavily biased toward this lens.

I use this on my Canon Digital Rebel (300D) as my walk-around lens. Yes, it's heavy, bulky, and dominates the camera body, but when I see the color, constrast(!), smooth bokeh (circ. aperature blades), and all out sharpness it's WORTH IT! I wasn't intending to get this lens originally; I went to the store to test a 50 1.4, Tamron 28-75 to see which one I would get to fill the gap between my 17-35 and 70-200, and the 24-70 was just too much. But they had a model there to test and I took some shots for grins (just some bits on the card.) I went home to review the test shots, and ended up finding everything was better with this lens. The sharpness was not better than the 50 stopped down to 2.8...but it was equivalent and something about the color and contrast did me in. Also, I like just being able to keep one lens on the camera 90% of the time, and with this lens I can do that. This is more important for digital considering the dust problem. I find I don't reach for my other lenses much; 24 is wide enough for most of my people shots, including groups, and 70 (x1.6 for digital) is tight enough for a good head shot. Of course, come spring the outdoor shots will call for different FLs. I've heard about distortion at wide, but I cannot confirm since I have a 1.6 crop body. I've also heard focusing problems with the low- to mid-range digital bodies, so test it carefully. I can say MY lens works great with MY body.

Customer Service

New York Camera&Video in Quakertown, PA has great service and great prices. My price beat B&H's, so I'm really happy.

Similar Products Used:

Tamron 28-75, 50 1.4 tested to compare; I have a 50 1.8 II but it never sees the camera anymore.