NEW Images with NEW Canon 24-70L -- Take a look --

[jimchapin468]

I took some more images this weekend with my new Canon 24-70L -- WIll you take a look at these and let me know if they are sharp, soft, and etc. These images are 100% cropped. I used the 580 EX flash on some of the, Thanks for the critiques. Jimmy

http://www.pbase.com/jimchapin468/inbox

[schmoelzel]

Hello Jim:

The portraits look pretty good as far as far sharpness goes........the flower shots are pretty soft but it looks more like focussing error than a lens problem. DoF is very narrow and it somtimes helps to use a tripod when doing macro shots. The duck shot is definitely not in focus.......

[condyk]

Given that this lens costs new nearly what I paid for all my current lenses put together here in the Uk I would be VERY disappointed. But we all know this lens has its firm advocates and equally firm distractors ... maybe more than any other lens around.

schmoelzel mentions the term 'pretty good' and I think the best shots are pretty good ... but is that good enough for a £900 + lens? I'd expect my hair to curl for that money :lol:

Hard to say if it's a lens issue or not. It's not a Macro but I would expect better unless you just didn't take note of focus, which I doubt! Do you have shaky hands? The kids are also a bit one dimensional for me ... or rather the photo's are: I'm sure the kids are well rounded personalities :lol: The images just don't leap out at me.

Just my view and sorry if it's a downer. You did ask :)

[summerwind4]

i have always had a soft spot for the 24-70 because i know what i went through to get one that was perfect, and even then i don't feel it was what it should be for the price. what i would do with the one you own at this time is to either try another one, or send it and the body in for calibration as i do not see anything being sharp. the cake shot should have been sharp as a tack no matter what aperture you used, but it is rather soft, indicating a focus problem or the lens being outside the AF specs..............i don't compare apples to oranges, but you should be able to get sharper images from the 24-70

[blue_max]

Did you use any sharpening on these images? I looked a the cake shot and it lacks a little 'bite' (pardon the pun). Are you on a tripod, because when you are so close up, millimetres can throw the focus.
Sorry to call your technique into question, but it needs to be removed from the equasion, so we can see if it is the lens or not. I trust they are wide open.

Graham

[buze]

Jim, is is stricly necessary to send private messages about this subject ? It seems you have posted only about that 24-70 subject in the last 2 weeks or so. Why send private messages randomly like this ? I don't even own a 24-70!

[ayotnoms]

the cake shot should have been sharp as a tack no matter what aperture you used

not so

Have you taken a look at this link?
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Without knowing the focal length/aperture/distance you took the cake shot I wouldn't conclude that the lens is defective. For example, a photo taken with an aperture of 2.8 @ 24mm; at a distance of 1 1/2 ft yields a DoF of 1 inch. Increasing the focal length from the same distance only narrows the DoF. Such a tiny depth of field would lead one to view the cake shot in totally different way, no?

[summerwind4]

not so

Have you taken a look at this link?
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Without knowing the focal length/aperture/distance you took the cake shot I wouldn't conclude that the lens is defective. For example, a photo taken with an aperture of 2.8 @ 24mm; at a distance of 1 1/2 ft yields a DoF of 1 inch. Increasing the focal length from the same distance only narrows the DoF. Such a tiny depth of field would lead one to view the cake shot in totally different way, no?

hey, no argument...............my 24-70 would be sharp at f/2.8 all the way out to f/16 at any zoom setting. when it focused on something, it was sharp at the focus point. the cake shot looks to be close enough that any range in the zoom at any aperture would have been sharper.
in this obvious range, bokeh is the only thing that would have been either sharper or blurrier.
now, as i only picked out the cake shot to comment on, i'll conclude that the flower shots are also quite soft, actually, they are all downsized pics so i would conclude again that all the shots are not what this lens is capable of.........

here is a flower shot that is clearly sharp..............and it was handheld, straight out of the 20D

http://www.pbase.com/summerwind4/image/44696035/large

[jimchapin468]

Summerwind did you take that picture -- If so very nice.

How many revisions did you have to go through to get a good lense? :evil: Jimmy

[summerwind4]

Summerwind did you take that picture -- If so very nice.

How many revisions did you have to go through to get a good lense? :evil: Jimmy

for the 24-70, i went through 3 copies to get a good one, and the one i finally kept was a cherry pick from a total of 3 more. the shop got tired of me coming back to exchange (although they agreed that the first 2 were duds) so they brought in 3 more.
i've since sold that one as i decided to buy the 20D and after getting it and the 17-85IS (which took those pictures) i was so pleased with the 17-85 that i sold the 17-40 and the 24-70.

[ayotnoms]

... the cake shot looks to be close enough that any range in the zoom at any aperture would have been sharper.

That's the point I was trying to make. The closeness of the picture dictates what is going to be in focus and what will fall outside the range of sharp focus. The cake shot is most likely -absent detailed information of how the photo was taken- the victim of a shallow depth of field, not a "bad copy".
... bokeh is the only thing that would have been either sharper or blurrier.

sharper bokeh?

OK, that just blew my mind :-) :-)

[summerwind4]

That's the point I was trying to make. The closeness of the picture dictates what is going to be in focus and what will fall outside the range of sharp focus. The cake shot is most likely -absent detailed information of how the photo was taken- the victim of a shallow depth of field, not a "bad copy".

sharper bokeh?

OK, that just blew my mind :-) :-)

OK, i can see you are going to make an issue of this, so yes, i used the wording in the wrong fashion..............the shot depending on aperture could have had more or less bokeh..there, happy now.

as for the cake, your explanation is a little insane."absent detailed info?"...........give me a break.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[summerwind4]

the cake shot should have looked something like this............and i doubt he was shooting within 1 foot distance.

http://www.pbase.com/summerwind4/image/40658026

[ayotnoms]

..there, happy now.
Why yes I am. Many thanks

as for the cake, your explanation is a little insane."absent detailed info?"...........give me a break.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
"detailed information" = "What was the distance between camera and subject?" "What was the aperture?" "What focal length was used?" So, that's what qualifies for insane? Well, I guess I should start packing for my stay at the laughing academy then. Without that kind of information, a person is likely to offer an uninformed opinion.

Oh well. Since the guy has already returned the "bad copy" we can review this again in a few days.

Cheers.:D

[ayotnoms]

First photo with a Canon 24-70mm, 70mm focal length, f/2.8 from 18" away.
The second shot same camera , same focal length, aperture f/22, and same distance. Many more of the petals are in focus with the f/22.

That's the only point I was trying to make. Badly, evidently....:-)

[Tom W]

the cake shot should have been sharp as a tack no matter what aperture you used

I'm sorry but that just isn't correct. Parts of the cake that were within the shallow plane of focus were sharp, but at 70 mm, f/2.8, and about a 2-foot shooting distance, the depth-of-field for acceptable focus on an 8X10 print is about 1/4 inch. If viewed at 100% on-screen, that plane appears even more shallow. Which means that very few parts of the surface of the cake were in the acceptable plane of focus.

Frankly, the cake in this case makes a bad subject on which to test lens sharpness and focus. It does, however, do a great job of demonstrating how shallow the depth of field at f/2.8 can be at close shooting distances.

Here's a couple of resources to study depth of field. First, the calculator:

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

and the simulator (which is pretty cool):

http://www.liquidsculpture.com/DOF/DOF.htm

Do keep in mind that both of these are based on the somewhat standard concept of a circle-of-confusion based on the proverbial 8X10 print viewed at around 8-12 inches. Larger images require a smaller circle of confusion in the calculation which will narrow the acceptable area of focus.

[summerwind4]

ayotnoms,

smile your on candid camera......@:-)
but seriously, i know what you were trying to say. your f/2.8 shot is where your 24-70 and mine differ quite a bit.............with my 24-70 @f/2.8, the whole flower would have been in sharp focus with a well blurred background.

the cake shot still has me puzzled, but since we are going to argue that because we don't know the distanc, focal length or the aperture as the reason that none of the image is in a sharp focus, i'll concede that this 24-70 must be a great copy and that he should not have sent it back............however, once i get Pbase (whom i just paid) to realize that i paid for 900MB's of space instead of 300 so i can upload more pictures, i'll post some shots from my 24-70.

[Tom W]

ayotnoms,

smile your on candid camera......@:-)
but seriously, i know what you were trying to say. your f/2.8 shot is where your 24-70 and mine differ quite a bit.............with my 24-70 @f/2.8, the whole flower would have been in sharp focus with a well blurred background.

Either your 24-70 was a tilt/shift lens, or the laws of physics have changed.

the cake shot still has me puzzled, but since we are going to argue that because we don't know the distanc, focal length or the aperture as the reason that none of the image is in a sharp focus, i'll concede that this 24-70 must be a great copy and that he should not have sent it back............however, once i get Pbase (whom i just paid) to realize that i paid for 900MB's of space instead of 300 so i can upload more pictures, i'll post some shots from my 24-70.

I've seen a similar post recently on Fred's site. Very similar.....

[summerwind4]

Either your 24-70 was a tilt/shift lens, or the laws of physics have changed.



I've seen a similar post recently on Fred's site. Very similar.....

oh so now if there are extremely good results from a 24-70, that the laws of physics must have changed....which is it?
sounds like you have to be right about something regardless of someones results...........these type of posts are similar of DPR!!!

[ayotnoms]

the cake shot still has me puzzled, but since we are going to argue that because we don't know the distanc, focal length or the aperture as the reason that none of the image is in a sharp focus...

yeah, surely the guy was reading the thread. He could have said what all those details were and saved us alot of grief...but NOOOOO
LOL

[I Simonius]

for the 24-70, i went through 3 copies to get a good one, and the one i finally kept was a cherry pick from a total of 3 more. the shop got tired of me coming back to exchange (although they agreed that the first 2 were duds) so they brought in 3 more.
i've since sold that one as i decided to buy the 20D and after getting it and the 17-85IS (which took those pictures) i was so pleased with the 17-85 that i sold the 17-40 and the 24-70.

Hey - tell me more about the 17-85 could you?

[Tom W]

oh so now if there are extremely good results from a 24-70, that the laws of physics must have changed....which is it?
sounds like you have to be right about something regardless of someones results...........these type of posts are similar of DPR!!!

I'm sorry but slinging insults because somebody called you on your baloney isn't going to work with me. If you don't understand the concepts of depth-of-field, you probably ought to learn them before you run around spreading untrue garbage about a lens that apparently displeases you for some reason.

Some member of this forum sent what was probably a perfectly good working copy of a lens back to B&H because of your posts. You've wasted his time & money and placed a seed of doubt in plenty of other people's minds about their purchases and I'm not one to be silent about it.

You posted the same garbage on Fred's site until you were called on it - it's as though you have a personal vendetta against a lens or something. Your posting history speaks for itself.

[I Simonius]

I took some more images this weekend with my new Canon 24-70L -- WIll you take a look at these and let me know if they are sharp, soft, and etc. These images are 100% cropped. I used the 580 EX flash on some of the, Thanks for the critiques. Jimmy

http://www.pbase.com/jimchapin468/inbox

portraits look cracking. Excellent. Shows lens is OK on 'Normal ' subjects.
Duck's look like too slow shutter speded was used. The ducks body which moves more than its head is OOF but the head sin't, suggesting too slow shuttter speed
Flowers are OK but DOF is very tight at this proximity - as otheras have said

Overall lens look s OK. Technique will iron out any problems. e.g. try the ducks again with higgher shutter speed say 500th sec minimum ;)

[me100finn]

I'd say the shots are good! Depending on the end result of the image (for web, small print, or large print) you'll vary your post process sharpening. Just about any digital SLR image could benefit from some sharpening. I did notice one shot of the baby was at 1/60. You will not always be able to maintain that slower shutter speed as the baby gets older - you will get frustrated with blurred shots. Trust me - I am a mom of four and have been capturing their life for 13+ years now. Start getting comfortable with faster shutter speeds now - you'll capture those quick smiles that come and you'll be ready!

As for the lens, it looks like it is functioning quite nice for you. I am a new user of the lens myself and I am learning it has its sweet spot and works "over the top" with the right camera settings. Photography can always seem like work in progress - the factors involved in capturing an image are many - from equipment to preferences to techinque to environment to lighting....

[august23]

I'd say the shots are good! Depending on the end result of the image (for web, small print, or large print) you'll vary your post process sharpening. Just about any digital SLR image could benefit from some sharpening. I did notice one shot of the baby was at 1/60. You will not always be able to maintain that slower shutter speed as the baby gets older - you will get frustrated with blurred shots. Trust me - I am a mom of four and have been capturing their life for 13+ years now. Start getting comfortable with faster shutter speeds now - you'll capture those quick smiles that come and you'll be ready!

As for the lens, it looks like it is functioning quite nice for you. I am a new user of the lens myself and I am learning it has its sweet spot and works "over the top" with the right camera settings. Photography can always seem like work in progress - the factors involved in capturing an image are many - from equipment to preferences to techinque to environment to lighting....

This thread is approaching two years old, just thought you should know.:D

[me100finn]

Thanks for pointing that out. I did a thread search on the lens and just replied to what I was reading without regard to date (oversight on my part). But I did see that a two year old thread was revived on the 70-300L so.... oh well. Thanks.