Canon 24-70L Lense Photo Critique Needed

[jimchapin468]

Below is a link to some photos a have taken with my Canon 20D and 24-70L f/2.8 lense. I am trying to figure out if this lense is sharp or do I need to return it for another. Will you please take a look at these and give me some feedback on if you think it is a keeper or not. I increased the brightness on a few photos with Adobe.

These photos are 100% cropped. Most of them wqere taken outside @ 45-65 mm f/5.6-f/7.0. Film Speed about 200. Shutter speeds were 250-500.

Here is the link.

http://www.pbase.com/jimchapin468/inbox&page=1


Thanks

[Jwreich]

I only looked at a few, but the Baseball glove looks good. The Master Lock and the Gate latch look soft. Were you shooting with tripod or hand held. Also I do not see any exift data. What focal distance where you at ~200?

I'm no pro and will not comment on your decision to return for another copy, but I would be a bit worried about the softness. I got to try a 70-200 f4L the other day and was amazed at how sharp it was at 150mm hand held.

--

[Andy_T]

Jimmy,

it would be quite helpful for us if you could provide the complete EXIF information for one or more of the shots.

Some look a bit soft (e.g. the dog pictures), but it's quite hard to tell without knowing the EXIF info and whether these are 100% crops or if they have been post-processed.

Also, bear in mind that there are a lot more ways to get a soft, out-of-focus or otherwise technically not perfect photo than there are to get a keeper :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[Andy_T]

You might also take a look at this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77573)

Best regards,
Andy

[Dante King]

They look good to me. What was it you were specifically unhappy with?

[wibbly]

You might also take a look at this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=77573)

Best regards,
Andy

And here

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=78013

and here

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=79290

John

[ghocking]

A lot of people seem to ask the question is my 24-70 L sharp. In my view they are all sharp, its just the user that needs to get used to the weight, I use mine on 20D and 350D and because of its weight I bump up the shutter speed. There is another thread going on at present, and a member states that the 24-70 is really designed for the 1 series and this gives a better balance, and this is a fair point.

Get used to it you will not be dissappointed.

[Tom W]

They look good to me. What was it you were specifically unhappy with?

I suspect that the power of the internet has made all our lenses suspect until proven acceptable. The incredible speed with which bad news about a particular copy of a lens has spread has given undue fear to all people who read the internet (and especially if they read DPReview where bad news travels at warp speed).

Most lenses are good. Some are great. A few are less than good, and precious few are actually bad.

I think that a good deal of your images look good. A few are softish, but there's a lot of variables that affect image sharpness that are not within the realm of lens quality. Camera shake has a tremendous effect on image sharpness, particularly when you look at a 100% crop - the rule of thumb about 1/focal length goes out the window when you're analyzing such extreme crops.

Anyway, if you want to test the lens, eliminate all other variables. Watch for depth-of-field issues, use a tripod and mirror lockup, keep ISO at 200 or below, and test under a variety of lighting and color situations.

[griff2]

I agree with all of the above except ISO: for the right DOF/minimum shutter speed, I'd increase the ISO up to a maximum of 800 and use noise reduction rather than risk an out of focus or soft picture.

[Tom W]

I agree with all of the above except ISO: for the right DOF/minimum shutter speed, I'd increase the ISO up to a maximum of 800 and use noise reduction rather than risk an out of focus or soft picture.

That's a good technique for capturing the image and it's very useful in low light But do understand that noise reduction does reduce the detail in the image, making it a little less desirable if the purpose of the shot is testing the lens.

[griff2]

Agreed.

[mrclark321]

Hi Jim

Is Chester a Havanese?

Dan

[raylks]

I would say in order to avoid hand shake, I would take a tripod along. ^^

[jimchapin468]

Thanks for the help -- Not Chester is a Maltese.

[SeanH]

That lens IMO is hit & miss. I still don't trust it, I get some shots that are plain out of focus, and some that are razor sharp like this one I just shot a hour ago.
.......again 100% @ full Res...........56K death...lol
http://www.pbase.com/blue622/image/44908970

I'm not new to cameras and know all about the proper speeds to shot (handheld) with, but I still get more than the normal soft shots with this lens.......and have no clue why??? My honest opinion is that these lenses have something going on with the focusing........it just plain misses. But when it nails it the lens can't be beat. OH and BTW, this is my 3rd.......yes I said 3rd copy of this lens.

And yes.....that's my cutie!!!

[Bob_A]

Hi Sean,

Just curious, but do you use a UV filter with the 24-70?

[SeanH]

Hi Sean,

Just curious, but do you use a UV filter with the 24-70?

Yes I do ......a Tiffen

[Bob_A]

Maybe shoot without the filter for awhile and see if your focus problem goes away. There was a link to a web article on Steve's Forum where a fellow tested the focus of his DSLR with and without a UV filter and he concluded that the inexpensive filter that he was using was causing his focus issue. If I remember correctly, he claimed sometimes the lens would front focus, sometimes backfocus. I've been searching for the thread, but I can't find where I read it, sorry.

I have no idea if this is true since I have had no focus problems with my 24-70. But I decided a while ago to stop using a UV filter.

[SeanH]

Maybe I will try that, but I have UV's of the same type on all my L lenses (70-200 2.8 & 17-40 ) and never had that problem with them......or the non L's(10-22, 50 1.8 & 18-55) either. I have no doubt a cheap UV could mess with the focusing, but a Tiffen is not a cheap filter. Also I shoot quite a bit of Motocross so a filter is almost a must have in all that dust. But I will do another shot around the house without the UV and see if I get less soft shot's. Thanks for the info.......if you find that link please post it.

[Bob_A]

I will if I can. I spent about a half hour looking for it last night ... no luck.

[jimchapin468]

What is a cheap UV Filter -- I paid 35.00 for mine. I cannot remember the name of it, but it is Wolf Cameras brand -- I just remembered "quantarary" Please let me know. -- This could be part of my problem. Thanks Jimmy

[Bob_A]

As I mentioned, I have no proof that a filter can cause the problem. However, before judging the lens shoot without it to see if focus issues go away. If they do, toss the filter and shoot without one.

[Savolpen]

Got to say that I'm not that happy with Your shots. There really seems to be softness in every shot.

I'm also new to 24-70L but my test shots turn out to be very sharp and need minimum postprocessing if any. This is my best lense so far.


I've wondered the mass posts where ppl are returning their lenses back and getting new one - nice for customer. This procedure is not familiar here in Europe - we just get'em serviced/calibrated.

Best Regards
Pentti