24-70L - where is the sharpness?

[ninab]

I did read the comparison of the Sigma and the Canon in the FAQ Sticky, yet I would like to see if anybody else has had the same experience;

I got the 24-70L a few weeks back and have been shooting some lanscapes and 4 weddings with it. I expected to be blown away by the sharpness, but – I am NOT, on the contrary, I am very disappointed. I can't seem to be getting any decent DOF in landscapes, I am shocked every time I look at the files; is f/22 simply not small enough? Seems that I get more DOF with my cheaper lenses!

I zoom into the group shots from the weddings and they're ok, but not superb like I would've expected from a highly priced and praised lens like this one. I used a tripod, f/8-11, granted, no MLU, but - things just don't seem right.

In the above mentioned comparison, fstopjojo mentioned that with his first of these lenses he didn't seem to be able to get any shots in focus; I feel the same way. I've been shooting my son like crazy, trying to figure out what in the world is wrong with me, now I wonder if it might be the lens? They're not totally blurry, but certainly not crisp, either.
And, in some situations the auto focus had trouble focussing when I couldn't even believe it; for instance, when I purposely chose a focus point that was right at the edge of the grooms tux/shirt, plenty of contrast, where none of my other lenses would've had a problem. This was last Saturday around 7pm, not bright daylight, but plenty bright for auto focus.

Has anybody had similar experiences? Sent it in to Canon? I'll be happy to post a couple of shots, if that helps. I use this lens on a 5D.

[erdavis]

Post some shots that you've taken with the lens. I use the 24-70 and get sharp pics.

[mbellot]

Samples always help. :D

And FWIW, f/22 is probably not a good idea. Several other members have posted examples of how sharpness actually starts to break down above f/11 due to diffraction.

Bad copies do happen, but before you rush it off to Canon its worth a small investment of your time to test it properly under controlled circumstances.

[rklepper]

great lens. if it is giving you fits I would send it in for calbration.

[ninab]

Can't believe anybody gets landscapes with a lot of DOF at f/11. I have a Sigma 17-35 that works decent even down to f/36, f/40! Anyway, I will work on some samples right now..

[Rumjungle]

Huh? Something doesn't sound right to me but I'll wait until the samples are up.

[basroil]

Can't belive anybody gets landscapes with a lot of DOF at f/11. I have a Sigma 17-35 that works decent even down to f/36, f/40! Anyway, I will work on some samples right now..

even at f11 and 24mm on a 5d, everything past 10 feet or so should be in decent focus. no image will be razor sharp on digital without mild sharpening just because of how the sensors work. after a few re-reads, sounds mainly like user error here. lens could be soft, but without some pictures with crop at the focus point, it's impossible to actually know. 5d/20d/30d have a more accurate center af point when used with a f2.8 or faster lens. since you chose a point, i would assume it's not the center one. with that said, considering it's a wedding, i would guess you used the lens wide open. wide open and towards the telephoto side, the focus must be dead on or else you risk a slightly oof picture. also, when under f4, f2.8 lenses are hardly as sharp as past f5.6. seems that you are pixel peeping way too much in this case, but these images you are talking about would make good samples.

[ninab]

crops at 100%, JPGs straight out of the camera (have RAWs, also);
landscape with tripod, MLU; wedding tripod, no MLU. The latter is ok, but not what I would call tack sharp. Or am I real picky? The landscape, though, I think is pretty bad...

http://www.punktumphoto.com/sharpness/sharpness.htm

[coreypolis]

1st one was shot at 1/5 of a second, was it handheld? even with a tripod your hand depressing the shutter or the wind could have moved the camera enough for that to happen. Thats not a lens issue, its a camera shake issue

[coreypolis]

2nd one looks backfocused

[basroil]

something's wrong with the wedding pic, but doesn't look like it was the sharpness, because the stones on the dress can be clearly seen. as for the landscapes, part of it is fairly soft, but f22+close focus looks to be the problem. in that shot, f11+ focus at or near infinity would have resulted in a better image. try the battery test in low light, bright light, and bright lights+flash at f2.8, 5.6, 11, 16, 22 and check the results. still can't say that that lens is horrible, but it sure isn't as sharp as the 70-200@f2.8... (closest thing i have to compare). looks like a nice shooting location you have though, it'de be a shame to miss out on that landscape.. if worst comes to worst, 17-40 or 16-35 are always there to buy as replacements
;)

quick edit: also, remember that your camera's actual af area size is much larger than the af point indecator, so i'm guessing that the dress had more contrast than the tux and the camera focused on that instead.

[ninab]

this was in regards to your first post...

basroil, I am hoping everybody will tell me I am too critical and these look fine, but I don't feel they're good enough.

And, isn't the point of shooting for DOF to have sharpness not only right at the focal point?

You're right, in the instance I mentioned where I chose a focal point it was not the center one, but for almost all other group shots I had it set to the center one (as in teh sample).

However, because it was a wedding group shot, no, I did not shoot wide open. And the lens was at 27mm, nowhere near telephoto.

[coreypolis]

you really have to test it with higher shutter speeds to avoid camera shake as a possible issue. even 1.50 is too slow of a shutter speed in the wedding pic, the rule of thumb is to have it 1/70 for that lens or faster

You bought a f/2.8 lens, And I would keep it between 2.8 and 11, but more on the 2.8 side. Threres no reason on either one to stop down that much, and you'll get a better shutter speed to work with

[ninab]

The focal point was actually right on the bridal bouquet, not the tree or anywhere else behind the bride. At least you agree that it's not great! Even though, that worries me... how do I get them to come out better? I really really try...

As for the landscape, I have gotten very decent results with this method in the past, but will test f/11 plus infinity asap.

coreypolis, like I mentioned earlier, of course this was shot with a tripod... My experience with groups and larger apertures hasn't been to good in the past, someone's always out of focus, which is why I now use a tripod with smaller apertures.

btw, the location is Lake Tahoe.

[coreypolis]

no they aren't ok, but finding the cause of error is teh issue. It could be the lens, it could be the lens needs to be calibrated to your camera, or it could be the settings/user error

Why did you focus on the bouque rather than her face? the bouquet is the foremost object, so you're then asking the focus to go 2 peoples worth back. Even if you focused on her face the flowers would still be in focus (in theory if the lens behaves)

[ninab]

I can't believe I should even have to think about bying a replacement, I just spent ELEVENHUNDRED DOLLARS on that supposedly incredibly good piece of glass!!! Pretty much solely for groups at weddings (the 70-200 is at the very very top of my list of things to get next). I am so disappointed, I really thought this lens would blow me away... Even if I can get more out of it, it still doesn't seem to be living up to its reputation :(

[coreypolis]

I can't believe I should even have to think about bying a replacement, I just spent ELEVENHUNDRED DOLLARS on that supposedly incredibly good piece of glass!!! Pretty much solely for groups at weddings (the 70-200 is at the very very top of my list of things to get next). I am so disappointed, I really thought this lens would blow me away... Even if I can get more out of it, it still doesn't seem to be living up to its reputation :(


this is not normal of the lens, relax for a minute and try some more samples to isolate the problem and go from there.

put it on a tripod indoors, use mirror lockup and a remote or atleast the self timer, a shutter speed of 1/125 or faster and a aperature of 2.8-8 (try them all) and shoot something that isn't moving, preferably something like a brick wall thatssquare to the camera

[ninab]

Because also in theory with f/10 the bouquet as well as her face and the other faces should be in focus. And it's not 2 people's worth in front of the bride, maybe 6 inches. The bouquet was right at the center focal point, is why. Seems to be the most reliable one. Yet even the bouquet is not tack sharp.

Finding the cause is my goal, it's why I posted this...

[basroil]

And, isn't the point of shooting for DOF to have sharpness not only right at the focal point?


if you really want a lot of dof, buy a nice p&s with a very small lens, preferably in the 3-6mm range on wide side. even at f4, these lenses keep everything between 1' and infinity within reasonable focus. :rolleyes:

[sasa007]

I have older 28-70L and I am happy with it.Yet that handheld pic and that shutter speed is TOO slow to have it handheld...Also coming from a 17-85IS
I find that I have to re-invent my shootnig tehnique.

[ninab]

coreypolis, we keep missing each other's replies by a hair...

I'll try some test shots tomorrow; thing is, this is not the first wedding I've ever done and I've gotten hundreds of good shots, and now that I get better and my equipment is getting better (and more expensive), things get worse. Very frustrating.

[Rumjungle]

It really would help to see an example with very high shutter speeds. That way, the possibility of camera shake is eliminated. If it wasn't user error, then this is a very bad lense indeed. While the 24-70L isn't known to be an extremely sharp lens, it's more than capable of producing some very good results:
Image 1 (http://i.pbase.com/o4/60/643160/1/63386144.k3MM2d57.Birdcrop.jpg)
Image 2 (http://i.pbase.com/o4/60/643160/1/63635632.c3zA7Mg6.LiveCrab.jpg)

[ninab]

THE SHOT WAS NOT HANDHELD!

[ssim]

The two images that you are unhappy with were shot in AI Focus mode. I have always shot my landscapes in One shot mode. Perhaps there is something wrong with this mode on your camera. Try shooting the exact same scene in the different focus modes. Your wedding shot was done in one shot.

I can attest to the sharpness of the 24-70. It will perform fine.

Have you looked at where your focus points were. This can be displayed in zoombrowser. If the image inside and in close proximity to these points are not sharp then perhaps you have a lens issue. It does happen sometimes that a lens will get thorugh the QA process.

[ninab]

basroil, I really don't know what I have done to deserve that

[ninab]

ssim, I often shoot my landscapes in One Shot Mode, why not this one, not sure. I'm on a Mac, haven't heard of zoombrowser, but I could try to copy the photo back onto a card and see if the camera will diplay them? But like I said, for the wedding shot it was right on the bouquet. Does that seem sharp enough to you?

[Thunderheart]

Hi Nina, a quick word from an amateur here that has a little bit of Photoshop knowledge.

I put your photos into Photoshop and went down this route: Image>Mode>Lab Color then click on Channel>Lightness. From there go to Filter>Sharpen>Unsharp Mask. Amount 300% - Radius 0.3 pixels - Threshold 0 levels. Then go to Image>Mode>RGB Color.

The results are pretty darn good and any more than that IMHO is "pixel peeping" but as I said, I'm really just an amateur.

As a point of interest, Canon in their 1D series brochure actually recommend using USM with the above formula as a starting point.

Cheers, Helen

[ninab]

ok, so here's a few shots of my son from the last few days; different shutter speeds, different ISOs, different apertures; all were set to use all focal points except the two where noted; all with some flash, except the one that says "no flash".

See for yourself and let me know your thoughts - to me, they're all soft... this might take a little time to load.

http://www.punktumphoto.com/sharpness/sharpness2.htm

[ninab]

Helen, thanks so much, I will try that! That's a lot of sharpening. I do know a bunch about Photoshop myself, but never stop learning... interesting that Canon recommends that.

[Thunderheart]

You're most welcome Nina. I have to say it surprised me too, but it's all there in black and white in Canon's EOS_Digital.pdf (page 30) which I downloaded off of the USA website.

Sure does make a difference though and the recommendation is all because of the anti-aliasing filter in front of Canon sensors... which is why we're privileged with less noise. :D

[Rumjungle]

While I think the focus can be better, a bit of PP goes a long way on the wedding image. The top will be the original image (resized to 800 wide) followed by the PP'ed version:

http://i.pbase.com/o4/60/643160/1/64164766.S0sThlBu.ninabwedding.jpg
http://i.pbase.com/o4/60/643160/1/64164767.pkEzWmQr.ninabweddingpp.jpg

I went with a more conservative approach to USM (same technique but 100/.8/0), levels, softened bride's skin, and brightened everyone's teeth.

[cdifoto]

I'm not sure about the landscape but the wedding shot almost looks to me like the people weren't exactly holding still. 1/50th introduces some subject movement. You also compressed the heck out of it so it's showing a lot of artifacts from that.

My copy is actually quite sharp when I do what I'm supposed to do as a photographer.

[JRJay]

I have to say it surprised me too, but it's all there in black and white in Canon's EOS_Digital.pdf (page 30) which I downloaded off of the USA website.

Out of curiosity I tried to find this pdf and could not find it. Can you provide a link.

[coreypolis]

Out of curiosity I tried to find this pdf and could not find it. Can you provide a link.

check the bottom of my sig, its on that page, 1dII tips and techniques

[JRJay]

check the bottom of my sig, its on that page, 1dII tips and techniques

Thanks.:)

[Tareq]

I got 24-70 and found that it is soft photos produced.
later on i learnt more on this lens, now i can produce sharp Image even with shutter speed 1/30 -1/50.
you should give it a try on small still subject with different settings before you use this lens outdoor or on people.
always i test my lens on something before real using, and do compare sample test, and do some pp to see how will the results be.
Don't worry if you got high level lens but low level results, sure problems occur with settings.

[Thunderheart]

Out of curiosity I tried to find this pdf and could not find it. Can you provide a link.

Firstly apologies, it wan't on Canon's website afterall, but a quick Google found the link (just over 1mb): http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/EOS_Digital.pdf

Scroll down to page 30 to find the bit about using Unsharp Mask in Photoshop. ;)

Cheers, Helen

[Juan Zas]

Nina,

just check it, but also you are shoting with Adobe Color SPACE, your images are: _MG_XXXX and RGB color space start with IMG_XXXX.

[ninab]

wow, you guys are on it... I'll start from where I left off last night –

Did anybody look at the shots of my son? Not to show him off, but he's my test object and someone asked for higher shutter speed shots. Let me know what you think about the softness in those: http://www.punktumphoto.com/sharpness/sharpness2.htm

Rumjungle, nice work, looks great! I realise that PP does a lot, but I would have expected a $3300 camera with an $1100 lens not to require as much PP sharpening on every single shot. (I know there's always some, but these shots are SOFT!) That is why I bought the lens and why I use a tripod for group shots, with a decent aperture to have everyone in focus.

cdi-ink – sure, a fast movement would have shown, but I told them to hold still when I count them down, and even the little girl is no more blurry than the rest of the people.

Tareq, I am glad to hear that you ended up figuring this out, but I am not at all sure how. I have been shooting like crazy, I did test the lens beforehand, but often times problems don't occur in test situations, but then in real ones. I never feel that I can simulate the situations I need. Is there ANY way you can give me more hints? I would really really appreciate any input.

Juan, the Adobe RGB space is larger than sRGB, which is why I use it.

[Rumjungle]

Nina, dslrs all need some amount of PP for the images to look right. Unfortunately, it's a fact of life for us. Think of it as developing film. There are things you can do as a photographer to cut down on the amount of PP necessary. The better the initial image, the less you have to do during PP. This will come with experience so don't worry about it too much.

[Lord_Malone]

http://www.punktumphoto.com/sharpness/sharpness.htm

Lake Tahoe!

[Incredirebelz]

my experience with the 24-70:
I seem to get soft pics when i have my Hoya pro1 UV filter (very clean) on the lens (AF seems inaccurate, par focal doesnt help);
I get very sharp pics (matching what i see with the 70-200f4) when i have no filter or when i use my cir pol (hoya pro1)... and i have been v. happy with it since i ditched the UV filters.

perhaps this is can be an issue? I m using 350D.

[ninab]

it's a possibility - I used to always use a UV filter, but lately I've been leaving it off mroe and more, for better image quality (after having read comments about that). I am not sure on which od these I hada filter on and on which I didn't, except the Lake Tahoe one definitley had a polarizer on it (it's a Hoya, but the regular, not pro).

I am about to shoot some tests, I'll include that...

Thanks!

[Sir Tony]

From what I see from your shots they do seem a bit soft. Something is wrong somewhere. The shots I take with my 24-70L are tack sharp right of the camera.

[ninab]

Ok, so dozens of shots later...

I used the 24-70L, a Canon 28-200, a Sigma 24-135, each with/without UV and polarizer, and with/without flash, at different focal lengths from 24-70, apertures and shutter speeds. I was fairly close to the subject for 1 and 2, moved a few feet away for 3. I used stuffed animals and toy cars, to have soft and hard objects and various textures, a CF card and ruler with writing on it and a plant. Tripod, mirror lock-up, self timer.

1) Manual exposure, 35mm, f/8, 1/40, ISO 100, all focus points; I had it on AI Focus, I should’ve chosen One Shot, and the focus changed when I put on the Sigma, but nevertheless, the result here is very clear:
The filters on the 24-70 do make a big difference! The no filter shot is much sharper. I will keep testing, I'll shoot my son some more tonight, specifically filter / no filter (because he’s a person and he moves around, like people at weddings, not because I want to bore everybody with my son...).
I didn't check for filter differences on the other wo, but overlayed the no-filter shots and the 28-200 does pretty well compared to the 24-70, however, the Sigma doesn't hold a candle. Neither in the focused areas nor in the OOF background.


2) 70mm, AV set to f/5.6, then f/11
70mm is much tighter crop on the 24-70 than the other two. Again, the 28-200 performed surprisingly well, I dare say about as well as the L lens. The Sigma... Anybody want to buy a Sigma?


3) 50mm, AV set to f/5.6, then f/11
50mm is much tighter crop on the 24-70 than the other two. Manually selected the top left focal point, which was right on the eye of the triceratops, good contrast, and reflections in the eye. Again, the 28-200 performed surprisingly well. The Sigma...


After these tests, the sharpness seems fine to me - I just wonder why I don’t get that in the field? I’m pretty sure I had no filter on for the wedding. I did, though, the last few days when I was shooting my son. I also did last week in a ghost town because it was pouring down rain and those shots are a little soft, too. Like I said, I’ll test some more. Will keep you posted.

Any advice on what polarizer to get so I can use one without softness? Incredirebelz suggested Hoya Pro1, any other experiences? I can ditch the UV, but do need a polarizer, esp. for our beautiful lake!

[Tsmith]

The Hoya Super Pro1 is one of the best available.

[ninab]

Oh, and so affordable at only $225... it just never ends, does it! Anyone know what makes the digital filter digital?

http://www.adorama.com/HY77CPLP1.html

Thanks, Bluedog!

[Incredirebelz]

Glad you did the test... I had that hunch and never knew if it was real... afterall, the hoya pro1 UV filter on my 70-200 didnt seem to cause any softness.

I use the Hoya super-pro1 Circ pol (not the digital) and had no issue with sharpness... i have been very happy with the contrast, colours and consistency.

I do have reservation about the Kenko pro1 circpol. I bought it becuz it was significantly cheaper n it's been said kenko and hoya pro1s are the same. While I dont have a proper test, I will say photos with the kenko are a bit duller. The Hoya pro1 seems much easier to clean too.

ps. check ebay for good pricing. I bought them all from ebay.

[IainUK]

I use the 24-70 all the time as it's my only L! I was a bit disappointed at first but have found that shooting in AV helps at around f8. This was f4 at 1/60 at ISO400....IMHO I think it's sharper.

[dr_who]

One good test of sharpness is set up a tripod with camera looking 45 degree down (this way you can find out if it back focus). Find a very detailed street map, and put it 2~3 meters away. Mark a dot on the map, and focus on the dot. Make sure you have very good light, no wind (map will move), and shoot with remote and mirror lock up. Pick your "sharp" len vs. your new len without moving the tripod. I just bought a Tamron 28-75F2.8 based on user comment it was "razor sharp" and I was greatly disappointed. This is not to say Canon lens is any better, all of my 3 canon lens, 50mm, 28-135mm, and 70-200F4L were softer than my Tamron 17-35, and in fact 50 and 28-135mm are so bad I had to sell them with a loss.

[Mr. Clean]

Strange - I've used El Cheapo S&W MCUV filter and have found no ill effects on sharpness, as with others. But in the end, if you don't need to, don't shoot with a filter.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=171070

[Tsmith]

Oh, and so affordable at only $225... it just never ends, does it! Anyone know what makes the digital filter digital?

http://www.adorama.com/HY77CPLP1.html

Thanks, Bluedog!

A lot cheaper from: www.2filter.com

this is the DMC version that carries the same specs as the Pro1 that I can tell (have both types one in 67mm & 77mm): Hoya Pro 1 77mm Digital Circular Polarizer "Hot July Special" plus Free Shipping PRO1D77CPL $146.71

or the Super Pro1: Hoya Super HMC Pro 1 77mm Circular Polarizer "perfect for digital" SMCP77CPL $198.11

[basroil]

Nina,

just check it, but also you are shoting with Adobe Color SPACE, your images are: _MG_XXXX and RGB color space start with IMG_XXXX.

aahh.. that solves my _MG naming problem i've had since shot #2405...


basroil, I really don't know what I have done to deserve that

just a suggestion. point and shoots are actually great for a very deep dof, which is especially useful for macro shots. i've taken a lot of great photos with a point and shoot and some horrible ones with an slr. more expensive doesn't always mean better.

as for your new set of pictures, the focus is all over the place. some are dead on and look great (one where the eyelashes have full detail), some are back focused, some are front focused. doesn't seem like a lens problem, rather useage problem. i'de be more worried about that iso 320 noise in the shadows, it's more noticible than in my rebel xt! since all those pics are 100% crops, i can now tell you 80% that it is operator error. and as i've said before, those damn little focus point boxes are much larger than the display tells you. somewhere in 3x the area of the box, some point is in focus and quite sharp. just keep at it with this lens for a while longer, i'm sure when you get used to it it'll all turn out better.

[ninab]

just a suggestion. point and shoots are actually great for a very deep dof, which is especially useful for macro shots. i've taken a lot of great photos with a point and shoot and some horrible ones with an slr. more expensive doesn't always mean better.

as for your new set of pictures, the focus is all over the place. some are dead on and look great (one where the eyelashes have full detail), some are back focused, some are front focused. doesn't seem like a lens problem, rather useage problem. i'de be more worried about that iso 320 noise in the shadows, it's more noticible than in my rebel xt! since all those pics are 100% crops, i can now tell you 80% that it is operator error. and as i've said before, those damn little focus point boxes are much larger than the display tells you. somewhere in 3x the area of the box, some point is in focus and quite sharp. just keep at it with this lens for a while longer, i'm sure when you get used to it it'll all turn out better.

I thought you were telling me to give up on SLRs...

anyway, my test revealed a big difference with the filter on; as far as the second set of photos having the focus all over the place, I don't know, there are some where I just can't find anything in focus... ISO 320 so I could shoot at higher speeds to avoid motion blur with little man running around.

So, if 80% is my error, how do I improve? It's not like have no clue. Off to pick up the guinea pig for more testing.......

[ninab]

A lot cheaper from: www.2filter.com

this is the DMC version that carries the same specs as the Pro1 that I can tell (have both types one in 67mm & 77mm): Hoya Pro 1 77mm Digital Circular Polarizer "Hot July Special" plus Free Shipping PRO1D77CPL $146.71

or the Super Pro1: Hoya Super HMC Pro 1 77mm Circular Polarizer "perfect for digital" SMCP77CPL $198.11

thanks!!!!

[Wilt]

Your lens is broken. If you want to dispose of it, I can take care of that for you!;)

[izzypizzy]

all of your shots (as far as i can tell) are AI servo, have you tried any with one shot to see if the problem still persists?

[Rumjungle]

I agree. Try using only the center focus point, ONE SHOT with MF and AF. Personally, I'm not a big fan of AI Focus.

[halfmoonray]

I had the 24-70L and was disappointed with it for the same reasons. Sold it for a prime. It's just not up to par....or very difficult to get a good copy.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

It's just not up to par....or very difficult to get a good copy.

Hehe..it's neither. It's more than up to par. All of mine have been incredibly sharp, and I never went through multiple copies to get one. It's a lens that takes getting used to. Admittedly, it's quite a heavy lens for a standard zoom or "walkaround" lens. 2.1 lbs on its own. Some will say there's a "learning curve". I honestly don't remember, it's been so long since I got my first one. I've never once been disappointed by any of mine. I've had 5 or 6 of them, and the reason is that I was so sure that I'd always get a good one, that I freely traded them around for other lenses I'd like to try or something like that. It's a just plain great lens. Not to pick on those with "bad copies", but there's a chance you're doing something wrong. It's not perfectly sharp at 2.8, either; few lenses are. I'll admit that. It's acceptably sharp, though. By f/4, it's impressive.

Blame yourself before the lens..then work from there. There must be some reason thousands upon thousands of copies of that lens sell and you only hear of a handful of people with problems. There's many hundreds of people on this forum alone that own it. I'd say at least 98% are perfectly content with it.

[halfmoonray]

I've had 5 or 6 of them

Why so many if it's a keeper?

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Hehe..it's neither. It's more than up to par. All of mine have been incredibly sharp, and I never went through multiple copies to get one. It's a lens that takes getting used to. Admittedly, it's quite a heavy lens for a standard zoom or "walkaround" lens. 2.1 lbs on its own. Some will say there's a "learning curve". I honestly don't remember, it's been so long since I got my first one. I've never once been disappointed by any of mine. I've had 5 or 6 of them, and the reason is that I was so sure that I'd always get a good one, that I freely traded them around for other lenses I'd like to try or something like that. It's a just plain great lens. Not to pick on those with "bad copies", but there's a chance you're doing something wrong. It's not perfectly sharp at 2.8, either; few lenses are. I'll admit that. It's acceptably sharp, though. By f/4, it's impressive.

Blame yourself before the lens..then work from there. There must be some reason thousands upon thousands of copies of that lens sell and you only hear of a handful of people with problems. There's many hundreds of people on this forum alone that own it. I'd say at least 98% are perfectly content with it.

It's the one I was always sure about.

[halfmoonray]

Maybe I don't understand, but when I find a great lens I don't sell it.

[cdifoto]

Maybe I don't understand, but when I find a great lens I don't sell it.

Ronald is...well he's unique. :)

[Ronald S. Jr.]

My first one that I sold (Woolburr from this forum got it) was because I had to for money. When I got the second one a while after that, and it was just as good, I wasn't worried when I wanted to try the 35L, because the second was every bit as good as the first. So, I sold it to take advantage of the deal on the 35L I was getting, and saved up for my third 24-70. It too, was every bit as good. From then on, I just didn't worry about it. I've always had a great confidence in that lens. It's never let me down. I actually have the cash to buy another, which I was going to do, but again, I'm not worried, so I'm trying out the 24-105. maybe I'll keep it; maybe I'll sell it and get another 24-70. Don't know yet!

I haven't posted an awful lot of my shots on here, but every one that I did was sharp as hell. 90% of those were from the 24-70.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Ronald is...well he's unique. :)

I'll assume you meant that lovingly. :p

I've never gotten a bad copy of any L that I've owned, and that's well over a dozen in the last 18 months or so. (since I started with SLR's) I suppose that's part of why I only use L's. They don't disappoint, and they perform, time and time again. Only one I've never sold is the 70-200L IS. Don't know why..just never had to/wanted to. It's a special lens. :-)

[halfmoonray]

I need to take more pictures. A lot more pictures.

[halfmoonray]

I guess I can see selling a good lens to try another. It would be difficult for me to part with it.

[ninab]

It's a lens that takes getting used to.

By f/4, it's impressive.

Blame yourself before the lens..then work from there.

Right. So, how does a lens take getting used to? I mean, what else is there to do than work with shutter speeds, apertures, and try to focus on what you want to focus on? That's dandy that all yours work great, and maybe mine does, too, but if there is some stupid secret behind using it, please tell us. I'm at a loss. And freaked out because I have weddings coming up and I spent a fortune on that thing.

I just shot another 90 photos, my son and some dogs, same results; some ok, some soft, some plain out of focus. I used AI Servo to be able to track th emoving subjects. For a few I know for sure that I had the focus right on my kid as he was squatting - making for a compact square - and the street behind him is in focus. I just don't get it. Been shooting for 4 years and the cheaper lenses I have don't give me grief like this! Not that I'm Michele Celentano, but I do have some decent shots.

So, how do I get used to this lens? I know it's highly praised and that's why I bought it.

[cdifoto]

Right. So, how does a lens take getting used to? I mean, what else is there to do than work with shutter speeds, apertures, and try to focus on what you want to focus on? That's dandy that all yours work great, and maybe mine does, too, but if there is some stupid secret behind using it, please tell us. I'm at a loss. And freaked out because I have weddings coming up and I spent a fortune on that thing.

I just shot another 90 photos, my son and some dogs, same results; some ok, some soft, some plain out of focus. I used AI Servo to be able to track th emoving subjects. For a few I know for sure that I had the focus right on my kid as he was squatting - making for a compact square - and the street behind him is in focus. I just don't get it. Been shooting for 4 years and the cheaper lenses I have don't give me grief like this! Not that I'm Michele Celentano, but I do have some decent shots.

So, how do I get used to this lens? I know it's highly praised and that's why I bought it.

I don't know the answer to that but I just shot with mine. A lot. The more I shoot the better my results get. I can't say I do anything different. Maybe I do, maybe I don't. I just shoot.

Maybe when/if you have some downtime you can send ALL your Canon stuff to Canon for a total calibration. They'll get everything working together in sync to guarantee nothing is off.

[ninab]

all of your shots (as far as i can tell) are AI servo, have you tried any with one shot to see if the problem still persists?

I have been with my son to be able to track the moving subject. I use One Shot a lot with still subjects, like landscapes (maybe not in this example), or groups - looks like I might need to do that even more. I'll go and shoot the lake with some trees tomorrow, filter/no filter, and different focussing modes. I often focus on a tree or something and recompose because the lake is large and if I focussed in the center, the mountains on the other shore would be focussed on. (Yes, I have produced hundreds of good slides/files with this method and I have sold quite a few prints, also, for those who are ready to tell me I am doing just everything wrong).

[Rumjungle]

Let's be fair here, it's pointless to compare zooms and primes. If what you want is the flexability of a standard zoom and want a quality lens, the 24-70L is right up at the top. I can't speak for everyone else, but as long as I do my part as a photographer, this lens has delivered excellent images. Proper technique goes a long way towards making good photos.

[ninab]

Maybe when/if you have some downtime you can send ALL your Canon stuff to Canon for a total calibration. They'll get everything working together in sync to guarantee nothing is off.

Not before October. Unless they have a turn-around time of less than two weeks, haha. I would like to give that a shot, though.

[David S]

I would try the battery test as this is very easy to setup and try. Shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes to do. This will at least give you a general idea if you are back or front focusing. Regardless of the results, if you are really worried, send it to Canon since you still have warranty and have them check it out for free. At least this will give you a definitive answer.

I tried the battery test and the focus chart test with my 24-70 and it focuses perfectly. I get very sharp shots at f/2.8 at both the wide and long end.

[ninab]

Let's be fair here, it's pointless to compare zooms and primes. If what you want is the flexability of a standard zoom and want a quality lens, the 24-70L is right up at the top. I can't speak for everyone else, but as long as I do my part as a photographer, this lens has delivered excellent images. Proper technique goes a long way towards making good photos.

I really really try hard to use proper technique, at least most of the time. Maybe I should just become an assistant and carry lights. Who was it that wanted that lens?

Thanks Andy, your input has been great!

[Rumjungle]

I have been with my son to be able to track the moving subject. I use One Shot a lot with still subjects, like landscapes (maybe not in this example), or groups - looks like I might need to do that even more. I'll go and shoot the lake with some trees tomorrow, filter/no filter, and different focussing modes. I often focus on a tree or something and recompose because the lake is large and if I focussed in the center, the mountains on the other shore would be focussed on. (Yes, I have produced hundreds of good slides/files with this method and I have sold quite a few prints, also, for those who are ready to tell me I am doing just everything wrong).

For the sake of this focus testing experiment (so that we can have a definitive conclusion), I suggest the following for tomorrow:

choose a stationary object as your subject
iso100
manual exposure
One Shot focus (no ai servo and no ai focus)
center focus point only
tripod
mirror lockup
2 second delay (or remote shutter)Once you're all set up with the subject centered, focus and then shoot. Don't recompose, don't change the focal length. Just focus and then shoot...in that order. Try it once with autofocus and then try it a second time using manual focus. Then, let's see the results. As long as you follow these steps, we should be able to determine if there is an issue with your lens or not.

Sound like a plan?:)

[ninab]

I would try the battery test as this is very easy to setup and try. Shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes to do. This will at least give you a general idea if you are back or front focusing. Regardless of the results, if you are really worried, send it to Canon since you still have warranty and have them check it out for free. At least this will give you a definitive answer.

I tried the battery test and the focus chart test with my 24-70 and it focuses perfectly. I get very sharp shots at f/2.8 at both the wide and long end.

The battery test?

[Rumjungle]

BTW, I wasn't implying that your technique was off or anything as I just don't have enough info to make that determination. Hopefully, we'll get to the bottom of this tomorrow.

[Rumjungle]

The battery test?

Check out this thread:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=161952&highlight=battery+test

[cdifoto]

Not before October. Unless they have a turn-around time of less than two weeks, haha. I would like to give that a shot, though.

I had mine back in about a week.

[David S]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=178655&highlight=battery+focus+test

Just make sure you put it on a tripod, mirror lockup, center focus on middle battery, and remote shutter. Shoot at f/2.8.

[ninab]

For the sake of this focus testing experiment (so that we can have a definitive conclusion), I suggest the following for tomorrow:

choose a stationary object as your subject
iso100
manual exposure
One Shot focus (no ai servo and no ai focus)
center focus point only
tripod
mirror lockup
2 second delay (or remote shutter)Once you're all set up with the subject centered, focus and then shoot. Don't recompose, don't change the focal length. Just focus and then shoot...in that order. Try it once with autofocus and then try it a second time using manual focus. Then, let's see the results. As long as you follow these steps, we should be able to determine if there is an issue with your lens or not.

Sound like a plan?:)

I did that today, with various apertures; I can go look for that shot; It was fine, as far as I can tell, I'll pull it out. After that test I though for sure it was the filter because there is a difference, and the no filter shots were fine. Yet I do not understand why I have don't have these issues with my 28-200; of course I get oof shots with it, but not this many. I wish I had another body to test the lenses with.
I will still do a test with a landscape tomorrow, today I was pretty close to my subject.

[Wilt]

The battery test?

arrange an echelon of batteries, each one staggered back from the other by about the thickness of the battery, focus on the center one and see in the photo if it is the sharpest one, or if one of the ones in front/back from the point of focus is the sharpest.

(I personally would use a row of books on a shelf, and arrange them so that each one is about a 1/2 inch farther back than the adjacent one...flat surfaces with printing to judge point of focus, rather than rounded surfaces of a bunch of batteries.)

]
..]
....]
......] focus on this book............... [] camera here
........]
..........]
............]

[ninab]

arrange an echelon of batteries, each one staggered back from the other by about the thickness of the battery, focus on the center one and see in the photo if it is the sharpest one, or if one of the ones in front/back from the point of focus is the sharpest.

(I personally would use a row of books on a shelf, and arrange them so that each one is about a 1/2 inch farther back than the adjacent one...flat surfaces with printing to judge point of focus, rather than rounded surfaces of a bunch of batteries.)

]
..]
....]
......] focus on this book............... [] camera here
........]
..........]
............]

Nice explanation! I will do that in the morning. Thanks.

[ninab]

I had mine back in about a week.

I'll call them tomorrow see what they say, yet no way I can send anything before August 5th wedding... Thanks for the tip

[ninab]

I can't find the center focus shots, I only did a few, and way too many during the day, I will do the book and landscape test tomorrow

See, I'm not saying there's no way I'm doing something wrong, but it doesn't make any sense and it is very very frustrating

Thanks everybody for really trying to help... I'll post a couple of shots tomorrow

[ninab]

BTW, I wasn't implying that your technique was off or anything as I just don't have enough info to make that determination. Hopefully, we'll get to the bottom of this tomorrow.

I didn't take it that way. Whatever it is, I need to fix it... me, the lens, the world... ;) I am asking you guys for help, and if you all think it's me, then so be it!

[ninab]

I like how I keep posting... at this point, I'm talking to myself...

anyway, as far as AI Focus; I took this of my mom and son (again...) last week, looking up at our deck; with my 28-200, at dusk, AV at f/8, with flash - the faces are pretty sharp.... no PP.
http://www.punktumphoto.com/sharpness/sharpness3.htm

[Rumjungle]

I think you forgot to include the link.:)

BTW, I think AI Focus is a bit hit-and-miss. In fact, the 1-series cameras omit it altogether. With moving subjects, I much prefer AI Servo with the custom function set so that the "*" is the focus button.

[ninab]

I think you forgot to include the link.:)

You are so too fast...

BTW, I think AI Focus is a bit hit-and-miss. In fact, the 1-series cameras omit it altogether. With moving subjects, I much prefer AI Servo with the custom function set so that the "*" is the focus button.

Right. My EOS 3 doesn't have it, either, I need to get in the habit of using AI Servo when the object is moving.

[Rumjungle]

Got it. I see why you are frustrated. A little underexposed for my tastes, but nice and sharp (great timing too!). Now just have to find out why the 24-70 isn't working for you.

[Tom W]

arrange an echelon of batteries, each one staggered back from the other by about the thickness of the battery, focus on the center one and see in the photo if it is the sharpest one, or if one of the ones in front/back from the point of focus is the sharpest.

(I personally would use a row of books on a shelf, and arrange them so that each one is about a 1/2 inch farther back than the adjacent one...flat surfaces with printing to judge point of focus, rather than rounded surfaces of a bunch of batteries.)

]
..]
....]
......] focus on this book............... [] camera here
........]
..........]
............]

Keep in mind also that the actual AF sensors are larger than the indicator boxes in the viewfinder might indicate. Here's an image I "borrowed" from Popular Photography magazine, showing the sensitivity area in red superimposed over the viewfinder indicators:

http://www.pbase.com/photosbytom/image/52629179.jpg

This is important in testing AF because if the sensor overlaps the adjacent book, it might grab focus instead of the intended book. Make sure the part you focus on is large enough that no other object can "grab" the sensor.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Right. So, how does a lens take getting used to?

There's no special secret that you're missing..no worries. It's just that every lens (especially L's, it would seem) has something special about it. Some have a particular learning curve, some are very heavy and it changes the way you have to shoot. I can't tell you what it is about this one in particular, but I do remember how very different it felt shooting with it after the 28-135 IS, which was what I had before it.

[ninab]

Thanks for all the input, guys, I will tackle the books later... great diagram!

[stuartf287]

I didn't read all of the replies to your original post so forgive me if this point already has been made, but you may be getting diffraction blur @ F/22 on your landscape shots. I have and use the 24-70L and like so many other uses, rave about its sharpness, color reproduction and contrast. My lens does seem to be at its best between F/4 or 5.6 to F/11. I find it to be sharp enough for most of my purposes @ 2.8.

[ninab]

I didn't read all of the replies to your original post so forgive me if this point already has been made, but you may be getting diffraction blur @ F/22 on your landscape shots. I have and use the 24-70L and like so many other uses, rave about its sharpness, color reproduction and contrast. My lens does seem to be at its best between F/4 or 5.6 to F/11. I find it to be sharp enough for most of my purposes @ 2.8.

I am still planning to for exactly that later today. If diffraction is the cause, though, I have to say, for this price and all the rave I would find it disappointing. I didn't buy this lens to have to make sure not have it on f/22, or make sure to be between 27.35 and 64.89mm. Luxury to me means it'll work great in all its settings. Anyway, landscape later.

I did the videotape (instead of battery or book) test - 70mm, 50mm, 35mm, 24mm. In every single one the focus is on the right spine. I guess that means I have too much lens to handle? When it was set to 70mm, however, it took A LONG TIME to focus on the center spine, even though it was right on black letters on white ground. Went back and forth at least 12, 13 times. Had that same problem with the bride dancing last week; granted, it was darker, but what was that red beam coming out of the flash for again?

http://www.punktumphoto.com/sharpness/videotest.htm
nd of Windows was in the center point

[Ronald S. Jr.]

How far away from the bride were you? that red beam only has a limited effective distance. Either that, or it was really dark. I've never had any focus problems with it in low light. Pretty much always locked right on, assuming there was contrast.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Now..as for that recent test. That's a 100% crop? Did you PP it at all? Looks damn fine to me. Underexposed, though. If you're in AV, and you're using a 5D, you should get in the habit of dialing EC to the right +1/3-2/3.

[Tom W]

I am still planning to for exactly that later today. If diffraction is the cause, though, I have to say, for this price and all the rave I would find it disappointing. I didn't buy this lens to have to make sure not have it on f/22, or make sure to be between 27.35 and 64.89mm. Luxury to me means it'll work great in all its settings. Anyway, landscape later.

Well, at f/22, you will be seeing some effect from diffraction, though not to the extent that some of your test images have shown. They have other issues, whether focus-related or camera shake-related. Here's a series of images showing the diffraction effects of various apertures on a 5D (expect the 1.6X cameras to show similar results, but at a somewhat lower aperture setting):

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=179204

I did the videotape (instead of battery or book) test - 70mm, 50mm, 35mm, 24mm. In every single one the focus is on the right spine. I guess that means I have too much lens to handle? When it was set to 70mm, however, it took A LONG TIME to focus on the center spine, even though it was right on black letters on white ground. Went back and forth at least 12, 13 times. Had that same problem with the bride dancing last week; granted, it was darker, but what was that red beam coming out of the flash for again?

http://www.punktumphoto.com/sharpness/videotest.htm
nd of Windows was in the center point

That test looks good. The slow AF puzzles me, unless the room lighting was very low. So far, it appears that the camera/lens combination can focus well at least in controlled conditions.

I'm not sure about the wedding situation, unless your subject was very far from the camera and out of the effective range of the AF assist beam. Note that grabbing accurate focus in AI-Servo is more difficult than in one-shot. Adding low-light to the equation makes good results even more difficult.

[form]

Not to stray from the subject, but...

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/35mm_e.html

The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 could be a decent alternative for the Canon EF 24-70, if you don't mind using a "cheapo third-party" lens. Or, if you want more expensive equipment matching the price of your 24-70, you could consider getting an adapter to mount Contax Zeiss lenses on your camera, such as the 35-70 talked about so much on that website.

[halfmoonray]

I would sell the lens and try the 24-105.

[Master-9]

Did you have cheap UV filter on?

[ninab]

How far away from the bride were you? that red beam only has a limited effective distance. Either that, or it was really dark. I've never had any focus problems with it in low light. Pretty much always locked right on, assuming there was contrast.

a few feet. lots of contrast - white dress, skintones, black tux on groom.

[ninab]

Now..as for that recent test. That's a 100% crop? Did you PP it at all? Looks damn fine to me. Underexposed, though. If you're in AV, and you're using a 5D, you should get in the habit of dialing EC to the right +1/3-2/3.

100%, 0 PP

I wasn't worried at all about the exposure in this test, only focus, but thank you for the tip!

[ninab]

Did you have cheap UV filter on?

In which case? I have had it on and off, can't really remember exactly which when, but I've been shooting more without than with; also, I did a test on a still object which revealed teh filter decreases quality, yet when I shot my son runnung around that same night alternating filter/no filter every 10 shots, I couldn't really make out a difference.

I just shot a landscape earlier, still need to look at those...

[ninab]

Not to stray from the subject, but...

http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/35mm_e.html

The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 could be a decent alternative for the Canon EF 24-70, if you don't mind using a "cheapo third-party" lens. Or, if you want more expensive equipment matching the price of your 24-70, you could consider getting an adapter to mount Contax Zeiss lenses on your camera, such as the 35-70 talked about so much on that website.

well, thing is that I have had not-so-great-experiences with third party products; I don't really like my Sigmas, esp. after a test I did yesterday and the 24-135 performed so much worse than the other two; they're loud, and the AF is just not as fast; I have a 2x Tamron TC which pretty much disables the auto focus. Mu mom has that same problem with hers. A friend who has a Canon loves it.

And no, I am not crazy about spending as much as possible on my equipment... I just want stuff that performs!

[ninab]

I would sell the lens and try the 24-105.

I have read bad things about that one, light fall-off and such. Besides, no way I am selling that thing with a loss after just a few weeks! Even though I like the range of 24-105 and did consider that one, also, but wanted the large aperture.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I wish I could tell what the problem is with yours. I just don't get it, when like I said, so many people have it and tell us how it delivers time and time again. Too bad you don't have someone on here that you trust enough to send it to. Did you just buy it new? Any chance you could exchange it for another, just in case?

It puzzles me, though, that the one shot with the "windows" thing looked very very sharp for 100%, and yet you're having troubles in everday situations.

I just don't get it!

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I have read bad things about that one, light fall-off and such. Besides, no way I am selling that thing with a loss after just a few weeks! Even though I like the range of 24-105 and did consider that one, also, but wanted the large aperture.

Whaa? Where'd you hear about light fall off? Not that I don't believe you, but I just paid someone for that lens. I'd like to see any of those reports. The early ones had a flare problem, but that was fixed long ago. I love the 24-70L dearly, but I wanted to give the 24-105 a try. My house is so dark, that even the 2.8 can't cut it sometimes, and that's where IS kicks in. ;-)

[ninab]

I wish I could tell what the problem is with yours. I just don't get it, when like I said, so many people have it and tell us how it delivers time and time again. Too bad you don't have someone on here that you trust enough to send it to. Did you just buy it new? Any chance you could exchange it for another, just in case?

It puzzles me, though, that the one shot with the "windows" thing looked very very sharp for 100%, and yet you're having troubles in everday situations.

I just don't get it!

I don't get it either, that's my problem... I bought it about 2 months ago, and the hood definitely looks like it's been used.

how about these, shot out of the car while in traffic:
all AV at f/8, center focus, 100% crop of the focus point:


uhm, how do I insert images in the text?

[ninab]

Whaa? Where'd you hear about light fall off? Not that I don't believe you, but I just paid someone for that lens. I'd like to see any of those reports. The early ones had a flare problem, but that was fixed long ago. I love the 24-70L dearly, but I wanted to give the 24-105 a try. My house is so dark, that even the 2.8 can't cut it sometimes, and that's where IS kicks in. ;-)

I'll have to go look for it, but I think it was on dpreview...

[Ronald S. Jr.]

uhm, how do I insert images in the text?

If they're hosted somewhere, click the little picture of the mountain and sun in the toolbar, and put the link in. If they're on your computer, click "go advanced" and click the paper clip in the resulting toolbar. Make sure they're less than 100k, and less than 800 pixels on the longest dimension.

[Benandbobbi]

Here is a photo I just took of my home entrance in VERY dark light. Hand-held, 1/13 shutter, iso400, F2.8, single shot, no filter, 100% crop. I think the 24-70 (in general) is a good lens. If yours is not working for you, send it to Canon. In the mean time, rent one for the weddings you have scheduled.

[ninab]

landscape:

f/11 produced an overall much sharper picture than f/22
(both all same settings, focus at infinity)
UV filter and polarizer make a difference, softer image.

what a SCIENCE this has turned into!!! And all I wanted was a good lens...

I'm still not so sure about how sharp it really is, look at this:
http://www.punktumphoto.com/sharpness/lake.htm
the first one is from the 24-70, the second from the 28-200

[ninab]

tied this earlier, guess my files were too large...

so here are the signs I shot from the car - what do you think?

[ninab]

...and a wall/fence, focus was on the corner; doesn't it seem like it backfocuses? can't get it small enough, here...

http://www.punktumphoto.com/sharpness/fence.htm

[Benandbobbi]

Lens is a less-than-perfect copy. Send it to Canon and let them replace it or repair it for you.

[ninab]

Lens is a less-than-perfect copy. Send it to Canon and let them replace it or repair it for you.

So I'm not crazy or clueless? Good, I was starting to wonder... On the other hand, not good, I don't want to deal with sending it out, not having it, renting one.. sigh.

Thanks for the help!!!

Anyone else agree?

[Benandbobbi]

So I'm not crazy or clueless? Good, I was starting to wonder... On the other hand, not good, I don't want to deal with sending it out, not having it, renting one.. sigh.

Thanks for the help!!!

Anyone else agree?

Do you want a crisp image on demand or keep your current copy the way it is? Simple choice--for me at least.

[ninab]

Does anyone have a suggestion of where to call? Service Center in Irvine?

[ninab]

Do you want a crisp image on demand or keep your current copy the way it is? Simple choice--for me at least.

well, yes, of course the first, I just wish I didn't have to deal with it!

[ninab]

Whaa? Where'd you hear about light fall off? Not that I don't believe you, but I just paid someone for that lens. I'd like to see any of those reports. The early ones had a flare problem, but that was fixed long ago. I love the 24-70L dearly, but I wanted to give the 24-105 a try. My house is so dark, that even the 2.8 can't cut it sometimes, and that's where IS kicks in. ;-)

Ronald,

I googled it and a whole bunch of reviews pooped up:
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=review+Canon+24-105&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

[SuzyView]

I bought my 24-70L in February and sent it in for recalibration due to poor focus. After getting it back from Canon in NJ, it is very sharp, and stays on my 20D unless I need my 17-40. I basically use 4 lenses now and the 24-70 is excellent for light and focus. It's not perfect, it's heavy has heck and I can't do the grip and this lens on my 20D, but for outdoor shoots, it's great. It took about 10 days to get it there and back so it was well worth it.

[Incredirebelz]

Ninab,
I would like to tell you that the pics you just posted are NOT the best the lens can do,
BUT they look NORMAL to me of a properly functioning 24-70. Altho i am not 100% sure what your shooting conditions was like, judging from the lighting there I would think you would have made an identical wedding photo with my copy. (And I do think my copy is sharp... send me your email and i'd forward u some sharp / not sharp photos with my copy for your judgement).

Believe me I have had worse defocused photos than what you posted and those almost convinced me that i had a lemon. Now, after testing it myself, and after about 2000 shots in the real world with it, I have a lot more faith in what it CAN do: as sharp as a 70-200F4L in the RIGHT conditions. I dont think the lens is to blame looking at your photos... it's not your skill either. Sometimes the ingredients for an ultra sharp, well coloured photo is simply not there.

What i think i have learned with this lens and not others is that ligthing conditions seems 2 strongly influence the overall sharpness i get... and i also think it's an AF issue. While I will say the 24-70 seems more finicky than any other lens i've owned, the very best that I can get with the 24-70 walks all over any lenses. Yes, I do on average have more sharp photos per shooting trip from my 70-200F4L than the 24-70L. BUT the good ones from my 24-70 is on par and even better than those from the 70-200. So overall, I simply think the 24-70 needs some getting used to.

From what i have read, there is not much at all about quality control issue regarding this lens, so dont be paranoid (yet). I really advice you do a thorough focus test and if the lens is not a dud, go shoot more under different conditions and find out what works best for you.

hope this helps. enjoy shooting.

[basroil]

...and a wall/fence, focus was on the corner; doesn't it seem like it backfocuses? can't get it small enough, here...

http://www.punktumphoto.com/sharpness/fence.htm

nope.. that focused correctly...
just happens to be that the highest contrast area is actually the stones behind the fence, where a very dark stone meets a very overexposed surface of the stone at the other side... (2/3rds down the red box, just behind the red line)

the lake pictures look good though, a bit of sharpening and you'll have a nice looking poster... and remember, proper exposure does matter, just as much as proper focus. a slightly out of focus image that is properly exposed can look amazing when printed, just like a very under/over-exposed shot that has pixel perfect sharpnes can look like absolute crap :rolleyes:

i'de say take another 500-2k pics with that lens before checking it at canon. my 70-200 gave me major problems just days after i got it. horrible shots that were too soft and generally useless to me. 500 shots later, i started liking the lens a lot more, more of my images were keepers than not useful, and even fewer still were garbage. 2k shots later, that lens is stuck to my camera unless i need wider shots (not that often in nyc now, kind of exhausted the cool buildings)

[ninab]

Oh, geez, well, ok, I will use it some more and see if things get better - I really hope so!!!

Suzie, can you tell me where you sent yours? And, with or without the camera?

Thanks, everybody!!

[Rumjungle]

nina, since you're in california, send it down to the irvine service center. They'll calibrate it for you if you want the extra piece of mind.

[grego]

Why so many if it's a keeper?

If you know Ronald, he goes through lens like Paris Hilton goes through men! :lol: But he's used many lens through his selling/buying methods.

[totalbeginner]

Nina, I've been following this thread and I agree that the "softness" you describe is not normal.

From what I can see the images are soft, but not OOF. The softness looks consistent with the kind of results you get from dirty glass. I suggest that you check both the front and rear of the lens. Hold the lens by a window and tilt it at an angle, this should show up any marks.

I remember having strange soft results from my EF-S 17-85mm that came completely out of the blue. It nearly drove me crazy. God knows how I managed it, but it turned out to be a finger print on the rear glass of the lens.

Might be worth a look.

[condyk]

I got the 24-70L a few weeks back and have been shooting some lanscapes and 4 weddings with it. I expected to be blown away by the sharpness, but – I am NOT, on the contrary, I am very disappointed. I can't seem to be getting any decent DOF in landscapes, I am shocked every time I look at the files; is f/22 simply not small enough? Seems that I get more DOF with my cheaper lenses!


There are many complaints about its performance and unreliability in day to day shooting. Do a search here over the last year. This is one of the few L class lens I would never buy. Price to performance just isn't there for me. Each to their own tho'.

I have read bad things about that one, light fall-off and such. Besides, no way I am selling that thing with a loss after just a few weeks! Even though I like the range of 24-105 and did consider that one, also, but wanted the large aperture.

Light fall off - rubbish. What does 'and such' mean? I bought the 24-105mm IS L. No complaints and very reliable.

[SuzyView]

Nina, there is a really capable service facility in Irvine, CA, just go to the Canon website. My closest one is in NJ. I sent it USPS insured 2 day and it cost $19. They paid for everything else. You can send it with your camera because sometimes, it's one or both being the problem. The factory posted their progress with my lens, so I knew day to day what was happening. In the end, they replaced the zoom ring and cleaned it top to bottom. It was beautiful when it returned. This lens is way too expensive an investment not to get it right. I complained about it for about a week and then thought I could do without it to get it looked at. It killed me for 10 days (emotionally), but when it came back, all was well.

This is what you do: Contact Canon through their website. Tell them you want them to look at the lens. Mine was under warranty, so they said at no charge. They send you an e-mail with the order and you put the lens (don't put any filters or anything) with/without your camera in a box, make sure you use a small box with plenty of padding, and the order. I put my name on everything, even use magic tape with a business card and put it on the lens and camera. They do take care of keeping things together. Insure it at the post office or ups. When the factory gets it, you will get an e-mail. Before they send it back, they will e-mail you again with a tracking number.

Good luck. Keep us posted.

[Rumjungle]

There are many complaints about its performance and unreliability in day to day shooting. Do a search here over the last year. This is one of the few L class lens I would never buy. Price to performance just isn't there for me. Each to their own tho'.

I didn't realize it was that hard to get a good copy of this lens. Perhaps I should just count my blessings as I've never had to fuss over it.

[ninab]

Nina, I've been following this thread and I agree that the "softness" you describe is not normal.

From what I can see the images are soft, but not OOF. The softness looks consistent with the kind of results you get from dirty glass. I suggest that you check both the front and rear of the lens. Hold the lens by a window and tilt it at an angle, this should show up any marks.

I remember having strange soft results from my EF-S 17-85mm that came completely out of the blue. It nearly drove me crazy. God knows how I managed it, but it turned out to be a finger print on the rear glass of the lens.

Might be worth a look.

Thanks, but the lens is spotless!

[ninab]

Light fall off - rubbish. What does 'and such' mean? I bought the 24-105mm IS L. No complaints and very reliable.

The better. Hope what I saw was just an isolated comment.

[ninab]

Nina, there is a really capable service facility in Irvine, CA, just go to the Canon website. My closest one is in NJ. I sent it USPS insured 2 day and it cost $19. They paid for everything else. You can send it with your camera because sometimes, it's one or both being the problem. The factory posted their progress with my lens, so I knew day to day what was happening. In the end, they replaced the zoom ring and cleaned it top to bottom. It was beautiful when it returned. This lens is way too expensive an investment not to get it right. I complained about it for about a week and then thought I could do without it to get it looked at. It killed me for 10 days (emotionally), but when it came back, all was well.

This is what you do: Contact Canon through their website. Tell them you want them to look at the lens. Mine was under warranty, so they said at no charge. They send you an e-mail with the order and you put the lens (don't put any filters or anything) with/without your camera in a box, make sure you use a small box with plenty of padding, and the order. I put my name on everything, even use magic tape with a business card and put it on the lens and camera. They do take care of keeping things together. Insure it at the post office or ups. When the factory gets it, you will get an e-mail. Before they send it back, they will e-mail you again with a tracking number.

Good luck. Keep us posted.

Thanks, Suzie! I know about the Service Center, just wanted to be sure that's where I need to send it. Bummer is, I'll have to wait until after my next wedding on the 5th, I actually have a bit of a break then, might just try to borrow/rent an extra lens for that one. I will send it in, though, I just don't feel confident with that lens at the moment!

Even though incredirebelz says they're in focus... I'd rather be safe! Sounds like calibrating goes reasonably fast, anyway.

Thanks, everybody, I really appreciate all the thoughts and input...

[incendy]

I would send it in just for the heck of it, but that picture of your mom and son make me feel pretty safe in saying it is really sharp! Good luck

[curiousgeorge]

Sometimes the ingredients for an ultra sharp, well coloured photo is simply not there.

Incredirebelz makes a very good point here.

I've had similar doubts about both my 70-200 f4 and 17-40. Many of the shots don't seem to be as sharp as I would expect but occasionally they are sharp. Rather than random focussing or human error, I'm convinced it's the conditions (mainly the lighting) and whether or not the shot was properly exposed.

And I do think it's also a matter of getting 'used' to the lens.

[SuzyView]

It is a matter of getting used to the lens. I have to hold it much steadier than my 50 1.4 or 85 1.8. The 24-70L is very sharp, but it is heavy and it is not like the other lenses in that the point of focus in a shot has to be played with at times. I spend a little more getting the right focus points, but when I nail it in MF or AF, it's very sharp. I was expecting a point & shoot lens when I got a picky, but wow the results lens.

[condyk]

... I'm convinced it's the conditions (mainly the lighting) and whether or not the shot was properly exposed.


Exposure is king pure and simple ... leaving aside composition of course. If you can't expose properly then any lens will apparently suck. So, poor exposure and poor use of DOF will render a poor shot and then add in camera shake and we have most of the user errors identified ... but these factors impact on any lens, not just this one. No excuses here.

The fact people send the lens in and recieve it back 'fixed' shows clearly there is a quality issue out of the factory with some of these lenses. I dunno why some have to keep defending this piece of gear. Why not just recognise the problem exists at times and advise people get the lens fixed if they have any doubts.

We have people praising this lens and then we suddenly read they had to send it in because of focus issues :rolleyes: Why not just be honest and say it can be unreliable and if it is then get it fixed?

Even so, IMO it is still overpriced for what it delivers and a pain in the a*s to carry around. But hey ... it is an L and that is what counts for many :lol: :lol:

[ninab]

I would send it in just for the heck of it, but that picture of your mom and son make me feel pretty safe in saying it is really sharp! Good luck

That's the point - that picture was taken with my 28-200, a much cheaper, non-L lens!! I can't seem to get anything like that with the 24-70L!

[incendy]

That's the point - that picture was taken with my 28-200, a much cheaper, non-L lens!! I can't seem to get anything like that with the 24-70L!

oops, I am sorry..:) I thought that was with the 24-70

[tommy6206]

With shutter speeds you are using you would need a tripod and release cable or use the timer. Plus you have posted a screen capture picture use a resized for web picture and post. You dont need to stop a lens right down to get max DOF for landscape..

[Tom W]

oops, I am sorry..:) I thought that was with the 24-70

So did I.

Nanib, maybe it's time to call on Canon service.

[ninab]

so, if anybody ever checks in here again... I have been shooting some more and I have been getting some pretty sharp shots. So, it might be "user error" and getting used to the lens after all, but I am still not sure what to about weddings, when I can't control the,lighting and have to shoot quickly when the moment is right, not when the bride is in the right spot in the right light. I'll most likely still send it in, it can't hurt.

Also, I did look into the 24-105 IS, which might be the lens I should have gotten, it looks like, and all I could find was praise; the one lady that complained about light fall must have been an exception, but I specifically remember readign that. Just for clarification and to stop Ronald from worrying!

[grego]

so, if anybody ever checks in here again... I have been shooting some more and I have been getting some pretty sharp shots. So, it might be "user error" and getting used to the lens after all, but I am still not sure what to about weddings, when I can't control the,lighting and have to shoot quickly when the moment is right, not when the bride is in the right spot in the right light. I'll most likely still send it in, it can't hurt.

Also, I did look into the 24-105 IS, which might be the lens I should have gotten, it looks like, and all I could find was praise; the one lady that complained about light fall must have been an exception, but I specifically remember readign that. Just for clarification and to stop Ronald from worrying!

With a wedding, you just have to become comfortable with all your equipment. Whether its the 24-70, or any of your other lens, lighting will always be an issue. Photography is all about lighting.... Try to put an emphasis on what you do well and limit the liabilities you might have. And of course practice in situations where you might face them. Send the lens in if you think it won't perform. Feeling at ease is important.

The 24-105 would present similar dilemas. You'd have to make sure the light was right, have the right aperture, etc.

Weddings are a good test of a good photographer's ability to perform when you don't have time to take multiple shots to get it right.

[Salleke]

so, if anybody ever checks in here again... I have been shooting some more and I have been getting some pretty sharp shots. So, it might be "user error" and getting used to the lens after all, but I am still not sure what to about weddings, when I can't control the,lighting and have to shoot quickly when the moment is right, not when the bride is in the right spot in the right light. I'll most likely still send it in, it can't hurt.

Also, I did look into the 24-105 IS, which might be the lens I should have gotten, it looks like, and all I could find was praise; the one lady that complained about light fall must have been an exception, but I specifically remember readign that. Just for clarification and to stop Ronald from worrying!

Ninab, I was in your shoes last year and bought me a 24-105.
After using it from the first time I saw that this lens performed
like the 24-70 never did for me.

So I sold the 24-70 and never looked back. IMHO the 24-70 is
Canons most overrated lens in every way. And to expensiive.

A few monts ago I rented me a 70-200 IS for a weekend and
that is the best lens I worked with untill now.

My advise is get rid of the 24-70 and buy yourself a real L lens.
Any way it's my 0.002.

Good luck.

[SuzyView]

Oh, I don't know. I love my 24-70L now that the "user error" problem is solved. I've done several portrait sessions with it outdoors and indoors and the light issue is not as bad as before. If I purchase the 5D, like I want, I might think more about getting the 24-105L that Ronald is getting. Can't wait to hear how that works for him. I don't think the 24-70 is the most over-rated of Canon's line up, just the most hopeful. Being an events photographer, that range is the best for me. So, if I put too much of my trust in it because it's the one on my 20D the most, I do expect it to be wonderful.

[Rumjungle]

Nina, I'm glad you're getting the hang of your lens.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

Oh, I don't know. I love my 24-70L now that the "user error" problem is solved. I've done several portrait sessions with it outdoors and indoors and the light issue is not as bad as before. If I purchase the 5D, like I want, I might think more about getting the 24-105L that Ronald is getting. Can't wait to hear how that works for him. I don't think the 24-70 is the most over-rated of Canon's line up, just the most hopeful. Being an events photographer, that range is the best for me. So, if I put too much of my trust in it because it's the one on my 20D the most, I do expect it to be wonderful.

I don't recall ever once being disappointed by my 24-70L...any of them. :lol: It's a workhorse, and it's always performed as such for me. Extremely sharp shots are a regular thing. Was I lucky with 5 wonderful copies? Doubtful. I think they're all good. ;-)

I'm not doing any paid work, so I'm gonna give the 24-105 a shot. I should have it Saturday or Monday, I imagine.

Like I said...ideally, I'd have both. They're two different animals, as far as I'm concerned. In just "low" light, I'd take the 2.8 for sure. Double the shutter speed. Plus, with the 5D, I'm not afraid to use 3200 ISO at all. Actually, I do it on an almost daily basis. Get the exposure right, and you won't get much noise. However, if the light is very much borderline "too dark", I'd take the IS. Essentially, I'd get two stops ahead of the 2.8. (three, but two counting the difference between f/4 and 2.8)

They both have their uses, and from what I've seen, the 24-105 does a great job with just about everything- just like my 24-70L's did.

[ninab]

Nina, I'm glad you're getting the hang of your lens.

well... sort of. I'm still not thrilled. the sharp shots I've gotten are in either perfect lighting of a still object, or of my son when he actually held almost still and filled 75 % of the frame. I received an e-mail from another member who had the same exact problems and he had googled it and found a bunch more people who had issues with this lens. So, finally, I have decided to really send it in, it's going out on Monday, UPS label on the way. At least that should give me peace of mind.

I wanted a workhorse - like Ronald called it - but it seems a delicate flower so far.

I'd love for one of you guys to test mine out! Anyone near Lake Tahoe? I know Andy is in SoCal, driving to Irvine one of these days... say hi to my lens...

I was just reading the 5D thread and it made me very sad to see a bunch of happy 24-70L users. I wish I could be that enthusiastic about it!