Ultra-wide zoom lens with a high zoom ratio. By having multiple lens groups move during zooming, the lens could be made compact and light-weight. The aspheraical element suppresses distortion. High Contrast is maintained at all Focal length and sharp images are obtained.
We have not reviewed this lens yet, will be updated shortly.
Why should you care what I think?
My relationship with this item: Editor review
Conclusions at a glance
Would you recommend this Item: Undecided
User Lens Reviews
Average user rating from: 13 user(s)
Overall rating (weighted)
4.0
Sharpness
4.1
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
4.0
Value for Money
3.9
Add new review
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful
Bread and butter, Friday, 25 July 2008
Overall rating (weighted)
4.0
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
4.0
Value for Money
4.0
This is a good-value lens that was designed back in the days of 35mm film cameras, although Canon still sells it as of 2008, and it works fine on Canon's digital models. It is a standard EF lens that will fit all of Canon's digital cameras. It is not one of those EF-S lenses that is restricted to the e.g. 400D / 40D range.
I believe it is one of the least glamorous lenses that Canon sells, in the sense that it has a moderate zoom range that is neither particularly wide nor particularly zoomy; it is not the cheapest, or the most expensive EF lens; it is not the most or the least fully-featured; it is neither flimsy nor rock-solid. It uses USM focus, which is silent and generally accurate. It doesn't have image stabilisation. It doesn't have a constant aperture. The zoom range is roughly 40-135mm on a x1.6 cropped sensor body, such as a Canon 400D / 40D. The zooming mechanism on my example doesn't creep. The closest focus distance seems relatively far, something like a foot and a Bit. The manual focus ring feels a bit cheap, but then again the autofocus is fast and quiet, so it balances out. It has a 67mm filter thread, which is an odd size.
I have had a chance to take a few shots on a tripod at different apertures. At f3.5 it has a nice tight field of view, and it is decently sharp; it seems to jump up in sharpness between f5.6 and f8, and doesn't get much sharper beyond that. On my 35mm Canon 600, with an uncropped field of view, there is noticeable distortion at both the wide and the tele ends. This is less noticeable on a cropped 350D, although it is still noticeable. Otherwise the image quality has no obvious glaring deficiencies. The background Blur is pleasant. I found that I had to underexpose by a stop to get the exposure just right, but that might be me, or the camera.
It's attractive as a useful, well-priced walkabout lens for digital cameras, for people who don't mind the relatively tight field of view (40mm is just slightly wideangle). The only problem I can see is that the zoom bellows seems to suck up dust. My example had quite a few specks, although apparently this has an almost unnoticeable effect on image quality. It's a shame that Canon doesn't include a lens hood.
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Make that 3.5 stars, Saturday, 19 July 2008
Overall rating (weighted)
3.3
Sharpness
3.0
Build Quality
3.0
AF Speed
3.0
Value for Money
4.0
Here's another case where it all depends on how you use it and what you expect. Personally, I like really sharp images. This means, I can photograph something that has a lot of detail and examine the corners of the image at 100 - 200% and "read" what's there. If this sounds like you, then this isn't what you're looking for (unfortunately, neither is the 24-70 L but its much closer).
If you just enjoy taking pictures and want a good, "walk around" lens that's not ridiculously heavy, you'll love this lens--and believe me, I envy you.
Sharpness. Its reasonably sharp at all apertures except wide open. No big deal since few lenses are great, wide open. Nothing is blurry (at least on an SLR with 1.6 crop factor) but nothing will make you break into a smile at the devastating crispness, either. Best f-stop was between 5.6 and 8, just where it should be.
Chromatic aberration. Not great, but there is something about digital cameras that makes even the most well corrected lenses show some "CA". If you can live with good-not-great sharpness, the CA shouldn't be a concern.
Barrel Distortion. Gracious. The test at photozone_de should have prepared me for this, but at the 24mm end this lens is almost in semi-fisheye territory. So....flowers, people and landscapes, fine. Walls, windows and anything flat, not fine. Correctable in Photoshop but tedious to get just right.
Construction. Space age Polycarbonate (plastic). Seems fine to me. From the comments on "build quality" you'd think every doctor on vacation in Tahiti was embedded in Afghanistan. I did notice that dust gets inside but since lenses do not take pictures of themselves I don't see what this has to do with image quality. Dust sure hasn't hurt my ancient view camera lenses.
Focusing. The ultrasonic motor works flawlessly. Fast and silent.
So that's it. For me, the sharpness and barreling were an issue. But its a perfectly usable lens; just not a great one. Reasonably priced, too. While I wait for a spectacular L wide angle zoom, I'm going to get the 50 macro and probably the 35/2 as well. Not very convenient, I admit, but along with the Tokina 12-24 and my 70-200 L, I should be in good shape.
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Make that 3.5 stars, Saturday, 19 July 2008
Overall rating (weighted)
3.3
Sharpness
3.0
Build Quality
3.0
AF Speed
4.0
Value for Money
3.0
Here's another case where it all depends on how you use it and what you expect. Personally, I like really sharp images. This means, I can photograph something that has a lot of detail and examine the corners of the image at 100 - 200% and "read" what's there. If this sounds like you, then this isn't what you're looking for (unfortunately, neither is the 24-70 L but its much closer).
If you just enjoy taking pictures and want a good, "walk around" lens that's not ridiculously heavy, you'll love this lens--and believe me, I envy you.
Sharpness. Its reasonably sharp at all apertures except wide open. No big deal since few lenses are great, wide open. Nothing is blurry (at least on an SLR with 1.6 crop factor) but nothing will make you break into a smile at the devastating crispness, either. Best f-stop was between 5.6 and 8, just where it should be.
Chromatic Aberration. Not great, but there is something about digital cameras that makes even the most well corrected lenses show some "CA". If you can live with good-not-great sharpness, the CA shouldn't be a concern.
Barrel distortion. Gracious. The test at photozone_de should have prepared me for this, but at the 24mm end this lens is almost in semi-fisheye territory. So....flowers, people and landscapes, fine. Walls, windows and anything flat or square, not fine. Correctable in Photoshop but tedious to get just right.
Construction. Space age Polycarbonate (plastic). Seems fine to me. From the comments on "build quality" you'd think every doctor on vacation in Tahiti was embedded in Afghanistan. I did notice that dust gets inside but since lenses do not take pictures of themselves I don't see what this has to do with image quality. Dust sure hasn't hurt my ancient view camera lenses.
Focusing. The ultrasonic motor works flawlessly. Fast and silent.
So that's it. For me, the sharpness and barreling were an issue. But its a perfectly usable lens; just not a great one. Reasonably priced, too. While I wait for a spectacular L wide angle zoom, I'm going to get the 50 macro and probably the 35/2 as well. Not very convenient, I admit, but along with the Tokina 12-24 and my 70-200 L, I should be in good shape.
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Make that 3.5 stars, Saturday, 19 July 2008
Overall rating (weighted)
4.0
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
4.0
Value for Money
4.0
Here's another case where it all depends on how you use it and what you expect. Personally, I like really sharp images. This means, I can photograph something that has a lot of detail and examine the corners of the image at 100 - 200% and "read" what's there. If this sounds like you, then this isn't what you're looking for (unfortunately, neither is the 24-70 L but its much closer).
If you just enjoy taking pictures and want a good, "walk around" lens that's not ridiculously heavy, you'll love this lens--and believe me, I envy you.
Sharpness. Its reasonably sharp at all apertures except wide open. No big deal since few lenses are great, wide open. Nothing is blurry (at least on an SLR with 1.6 crop factor) but nothing will make you break into a smile at the devastating crispness, either. Best f-stop was between 5.6 and 8, just where it should be.
Chromatic aberration. Not great, but there is something about digital cameras that makes even the most well corrected lenses show some "CA". If you can live with good-not-great sharpness, the CA shouldn't be a concern.
Barrel distortion. Gracious. The test at photozone_de should have prepared me for this, but at the 24mm end this lens is almost in semi-fisheye territory. So....flowers, people and landscapes, fine. Walls, windows and anything flat or square, not fine. Correctable in Photoshop but tedious to get just right.
Construction. Space age Polycarbonate (plastic). Seems fine to me. From the comments on "build quality" you'd think every doctor on vacation in Tahiti was embedded in Afghanistan. Its a precision item, made out of plastic but it looks to me like it will be fine, unless dropped. I did notice that dust gets inside but since lenses do not take pictures of themselves this shouldn't affect image quality. Dust sure hasn't hurt my ancient view camera lenses.
Focusing. The ultrasonic motor works flawlessly. Fast and silent.
So that's it. For me, the sharpness and barreling were an issue. But its a perfectly usable lens; just not a great one. Reasonably priced, too. While I wait for a spectacular L wide angle zoom, I'm going to get the 50 macro and probably the 35/2 as well. Not very convenient, I admit, but along with the Tokina 12-24 and my 70-200 L, I should be in good shape.
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
very good lens - underrated, Thursday, 31 January 2008
Overall rating (weighted)
3.5
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
3.0
Value for Money
3.0
I had been using the 24-85 for years on a series of Canon DSLRs starting with the original d30 and culminating with the 5d. Finally decided to spring for the 24-105L. I was immediately surprised that pix from the new lens didn't look so great as 3-4X higher price would suggest. Detailed comparisons showed the 24-85 was just as good in many instances. One edge (not the other) of the 24-105L was a bit better, but center sharpness was no better, even wide open. Contrast seemed equally good. I returned the 24-105L to the dealer and kept the 24-85. While it's true the zoom range is less, I also like the much lighter weight and more compact form of the 24-85.
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this review
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful
Excellent outdoor lens for a 1.6x camera, Wednesday, 08 August 2007
Overall rating (weighted)
4.8
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
4.0
Okay, so you are like me and think that standard 18-55, 17-55, or 17-50 zooms are too short for some outdoor events, but telephoto lenses are too long. SO you want a good in between. There are several choices including the Canon 17-85mm, Canon 28-135mm, the Canon 24-85, the Canon 28-105mm, and the Canon 24-105mm. While I would really prefer the Canon 24-105mm L series, it is very expensive, heavy, and large. The ones that start at 28mm aren't wide enough, so that leaves the 24-85mm.
The 24-85mm F3.5-4.5 lens is excellent for a midrange medium zoom on a 1.6x camera. Image quality, even wide open, is far better than the 18-55 kit lenses, plus you get USM with FTM, and a wider aperture. However, this lens really is best used in the F5.6-11 range, where the sharpness is quite good. Contrast and color are excellent at pretty much all apertures. Focusing is fast and accurate, and it has a nice distance meter.
The main downsides to this lens are it's mediocre build quality, which is a little wobbly at least on my copy, and the focus and zoom rings could have better feel. However, if you are comming from the kit lens or another cheap lens, it is right on par.
If you compare it to the 17-85mm, the 24-85mm isn't as WA and doesn't have IS, but it has FF capability, much better edge and center sharpness at all apertures, a faster aperture, lower price, and is a little more compact.
For full frame cameras, it covers a very important range, the wide zoom, which often used indoors, would preferably have good F2.8 IQ for indoors, something like the Tamron 28-75mm, or preferably the Canon 28-70mm, which is excellent indoors FF.
Overall, if you can get the Canon 24-105mm instead, it's definitely a much better lens in every respect. But if you don't want to spend that, this is a great lens at 1/3 the cost.
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
Beginners: Good lens but don't buy it!, Monday, 10 July 2006
Overall rating (weighted)
4.3
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
4.0
Value for Money
4.0
I bought my first SLR camera about two and a half years ago ( a Rebel K2 film camera with kit lens ) before the birth of my daughter. As I became more familiar with photography and hungrier for better picture quality I bought the very cheap 50mm f/1.8 lens and was impressed by how much better the picture quality was.
That motivated me to spend some money and buy this lens with my Rebel Digital XT. This is a good zoom lens-- much better then the lens that comes with the camera. Compact, lightweight with good picture quality. A great value for the money. That's why I gave it 4 stars.
But after a few months I decided to go all out and buy the 24-70mm f/2.8L. WOW!!! "L" glass blows this lens away!
Okay, my advice to beginners is this: If you're buying an SLR camera its because you want to go beyond the normal point and shoot experience to more creative exposures and better picture quality. You're willing to pay much more for these qualities otherwise you wouldn't even consider an SLR. Don't go cheap on the lens. Nothing is more important than optics when it comes to camera equipment. Go all out and buy the L -lenses-- you won't regret it!
Yes they're expensive but they can last a lifetime and they hold their value very well. I don't use my 24-85 anymore so it was pretty much a waste of money. Save yourself some money and buy the 24-70 f/2.8L. The pictures you take will last longer than the memory of the money you spent.
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
not up to specs, Thursday, 23 March 2006
Overall rating (weighted)
2.0
Sharpness
2.0
Build Quality
2.0
AF Speed
3.0
Value for Money
1.0
I was very disappointed with this lens. It has a very cheap feel and the image quality was terrible. I was only able to test it with my Canon 20d and not with film. I couldn't believe how lousy it was, I had read some other reviews and they seemed positive. I tried it on a tripod and shot a variety of things text and 3-D objects and never could pull a sharp photo. I noticed that I had to use a lot more unsharp mask than normal to be useable. I tend to use primes a lot and so maybe I expected to much.
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
quite good for the money, Monday, 21 November 2005
Overall rating (weighted)
4.0
Sharpness
4.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
3.0
Value for Money
4.0
This lens is very cheap as lenses go. I didn't realize it when I bought my Canon EOS 10D a couple years ago. I have had one complaint with this lens since I got it: not very sharp. Not having a lot of SLR experience I wasn't sure if the problem was the lens or the digital camera. Or was it the alorithms in the camera for convering the image to JPG? After all, sharpness is just one of the parameters you can set in the camera. So what I ended up doing was bumping the sharpness in the camera all the way up to get the kind of sharpness in the image I was looking for.
What I am talking about is, say, the edges around your subject's face are not sharp, or your daughter's freckles aren't quite crisp enough, etc.
So I tried a friend's L series Canon lens and got exactly what I was looking for: crisp, sharp, more like my eyes saw the image as I was taking the picture. So, in short, a really good lens that takes really sharp pictures costs a lot of money, 3 or 4 times what this lens costs. Sadly, I already bought one L series lens and it is so amazing I am now forced to buy another one.
But, I just wanted to write this review in case you were wondering why your otherwise awesome looking pictures are just not as sharp as you might have expected. This lens is great in all other aspects, and as I am realizing now, nice and light weight. But if you're obsessive like I apparently am, you might want to fork out more money for a better quality lens.
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
I'm in (not) love!, Sunday, 10 August 2003
Overall rating (weighted)
4.8
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
UPDATE: 29.Mar.2005 (see original review below)
After shooting this lens for several months, I started realizing that I was getting some pretty ugly color shift. Gradually, I became more and more unhappy with it, to the point that I rarely use it anymore. Unfortunately, I can't afford to replace it, so it remains my only lens in the normal zoom range. It's not a bad lens, but it's not nearly the lens I thought it was when I first got it. If you shoot landscapes with it, you're going to be faced with finding a way to fix the color. For every day use, I suppose it's fine. ______________________________________ After shooting Canon's 28-105mm on my Canon A2e for five years, I had to replace it with a similar length lens equivalent for my new Canon 10D. The 24-85mm comes out to be a little longer on the short end, as well as on the long end (38.4-136mm "35mm equivalent"). At twice the price of the 28-105, I can only say that you are getting twice the lens, and it's great. you will pay more for 67mm filters for this lens (as opposed to 58mm for most of Canon's consumer lenses), but it's all worth it!
This is a fantastic lens made from fantastic glass. It's a joy to shoot, and it's a great match to the smaller 22.66mm sensor of the lower-end pro digital bodies. It's worth every dime of the price.
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
middle-class lens, Friday, 18 January 2002
Overall rating (weighted)
4.8
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
This lens is almost superb for its price! It's a middle-class lens, what appears in the following:
- it has bigger light-factor (3.5-4.0 vs 4.0-5.6 in the low-class lenses). This gives you more possibilities, for instance to use faster shutter speeds or to decrease the depth-of-fild for special effects)
- the first (outer) lens doesn't spin what gives you an opportunity to use square filters; using a poliriser becomes as easy as any other filter.
- the USM (Ultra Sonic Motor) gives you a really super speed of focusing and completely silent engine. You'll catch the fastest actions and nothing will distrub your object!
These are the most important and useful features of the lens. I should also admit, that the focal distance of this lens is almost ideal for everyday photography, because gives you an opportunity to shoot from landscapes (~24-50mm) to portraiture (~50-85mm) with an equal simplicity and quality.
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
A Fabulous Documentary Lens, Tuesday, 10 July 2001
Overall rating (weighted)
4.8
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
4.0
AF Speed
5.0
Value for Money
5.0
I've had this lens for a few years now, and I absolutely love it. It is compact, sharp, and dependable. I'm a wide-angle shooter, so this one is just about perfect. Canon's USM is beautiful. Unlike Nikon, Canon seeks and achieves quiet, fast, and accurate auto focusing. Coupled with a light and quiet EOS camera body, and you've got an excellent documentary kit, great for shooting people in close and personal. At 24 mm, this lens gives excellent range for close work, with lots of depth and sharpness, making focusing and composing a cinch in evolving situations. My only gripe with this lens is its manual focus ring. I grew up with manual focus, and I love excercising that skill, but this lens has nothing more than an obligatory, plastic, and poorly placed focusing ring that discourages manual work. Fortunately, Canon's autofocusing system is phenomenal. Round-out your EOS kit with a Canon SpeedLite (compatible all the way down to 24 mm).
Was this review helpful to you?
Report this review
0 of 0 people found the following review helpful
CANON EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM ZOOM Lens, Saturday, 07 April 2001
Overall rating (weighted)
4.8
Sharpness
5.0
Build Quality
5.0
AF Speed
4.0
Value for Money
5.0
CANON EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM ZOON Lens is ease of use, powerful, and lightweight(380g) lens. With silent and high speed autofocusing. The lens will let your pictures have great sharp, high Resolution images.
It is a very great lens-excellent quality and reasonable price. You can replace it with the standard lens. The first choose for Canon user's owner-MUST have one.
