28-70 2.8L - Soft

[LarrySilva]

Hi Folks,

Im curious to know if anyone has experienced soft images with the older 28-70 2.8L lens. Its pretty bad. My 17-40L is awesome

Larry

[drisley]

I think schmoelzel did. So he took it to Canon for servicing, they lost the lens, and gave him a new 16-35L as replacement :)
Maybe you will be as lucky if you try to get it serviced.

[Dante King]

Now is this an older lens as I though the canon L was 24-70? I am seriously looking at a 24-70 to replace my 28-135 but I have seen many posts on soft images.

[cactusclay]

I hadn't heard about the 28-70 being soft, like the 24-70. I think it has close to a ten rating on FM reviews. I wonder what it is that causes that, like maybe elements out of alignment or something, maybe clouded glass. Anyone know?

[cc10d]

I tried 2 copies of the 24-70 and both were about the same. They did both come from the same store and the 2nd within a week of the first one, so they may have been the same lot. I had not checked serial numbers. Any way they were dissapointing for me, Seemed soft to me for L lens, they did sharpen up well by f 5.6, but my 28-135 started there, not quite a sharp but worked. At f8 to 16 it was harder to tell the difference between them. I returned the 2nd one also. Later I purchased the Tamron 28-75 xr Di LD Aspherical (IF0 Macro. It seemed very similar in Optical quality for a lot less $. It is not a L lens, and there are some things I don't care for about it, but it does have f2.8 for a lot less $. I particularly miss the manual focus override in autofocus mode. I don't believe it is as good a build as the L, but is not bad. I believe that when I can get a L in this range that is sharper than the copies I had, I will. This Tamron is the only non-canon lens I use. All my other Ls and non-Ls perform as well and better than I had anticipated. So I do not think that my dissapointment was unfounded. I am looking forward to true L performance in this range when I can find=verify it, from Cannon as I like their usual quality/price performance.. PS: I love my 16-35.

[drisley]

Dante, the 28-70L is an older version that the 24-70L replaced (http://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/).

[steibeldj]

Now is this an older lens as I though the canon L was 24-70? I am seriously looking at a 24-70 to replace my 28-135 but I have seen many posts on soft images.

Dante, note that the 24-70 is really missing the reach of the 28-135. The 28-135 has many great applications, and I don't see it as a replacement. May make sense to keep it. I do not find the 24-70 to be a 'walk around' lens. I am always worried about it. The 28-135 is more rough and tumble.

[Dante King]

I dont worry about my gear. If somehting happens I would prefer it happens while using it not that it grew mold in my desk. you are probably right. my copy of the 28-135 is very good and the IS does do alot for some low light apps. might just hold off on the 24-70 as I played with one today and it was, well disappointing for what I expected a 1000$ plus L to do.

[Dante King]

Dante, the 28-70L is an older version that the 24-70L replaced (http://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/).


Great data drisley, thanks!

[drisley]

Dante, so you would say your 16-35L is a better lens than the 24-70L you tried?

[Dante King]

sharper to be sure.