Well, the lens arrived today. First of all, I just want to express my affection for FedEx. Unlike UPS, which on several occasions, both here and in Clemson, has knocked once and left, with me sitting unaware in the living room less than 10 feet away, the FedEx guy knocked and rang the doorbell for a while, and when he got no answer, he called the phone number included in the tracking information (which was my home phone number). Unfortunately, I sleep pretty heavily, so this didn't wake me up either. However, by the third or fourth phone call, I finally woke up and staggered to the door. When I realized the effort he had gone through to deliver the package, it brought a tear to my eye. FedEx, will you go steady with me?

Anyway, the lens. First of all, I haven't had a chance to go out and actually shoot with it yet, so all I can talk about for now is its appearance and feel. It's the sturdiest-built piece of photography equiment I've ever handled. At full extension, it would probably serve quite well as a blunt instrument for cranial misadventure (well, it's not really an instrument, it's more of an object, but it's blunt! It's big and it's blunt!). Here it is compared to the rest of my lenses:

Isn't that red L ring pretty? The lens dwarfs the camera somewhat, especially in terms of weight. Unlike the kit lens:

The EF 24-70 L definitely takes charge of the situation:

Especially with the hood attached:

The weight is good because it helps keep the camera steady, but it will take some getting used to. Here's the comparison photo I was trying to find the other day, which I'm borrowing from The Digital Picture's excellent review of the EF 24-70 L:

Pictured from left to right are the EF 50mm f/1.8, the EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, the EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM.

It's interesting how significantly the size of the lens grows as its optical ability improves. I guess what surprises me more is that the other lens I was considering, which is much shorter, focal length-wise (16-35mm vs 24-70mm), is approximately the same physical size. As I sadly don't own the 16-35mm lens yet, I'll have to borrow another image from The Digital Picture, this time from their review of the EF 16-35 L:

Pictured from left to right are the EF 35mm f/2.0, EF 50mm f/1.4 USM, EF 35mm f/1.4 L USM, EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L USM and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM.

It surprises me that the two zooms at the right, and even the 35mm prime in the middle, are so much bigger than the non-L primes on the left. Not only that, but note that the lens on the left and the one in the middle are the same non-zoom 35mm focal length, differentiated only by one aperture stop. Yet the EF 35mm f/1.4 L is about twice the size of the EF 35mm f/2.0.

I'm very curious to learn more about how lenses are built, and what causes such a size increase, and why the barrel of my lens extends outward when I zoom OUT to 24mm, and recedes into the lens barrel as I zoom in to 70mm. One more thing to spend time reading about online, I guess.

Yeah, so it's a big long post talking about how big the lens is. I don't have anything else to tell yet :) Bear with me. Hopefully I'll have some photos in the next few days, and of course there's Bryan and Cat's wedding this weekend.