Canon 24-70mm Lens -- just Mailed Back to BH Photo

[jimchapin468]

Well after 2 weeks of hell and trying to decide if this lens was defected I decided to send it back and get another one. After having everyone view my photos I decide it was time to send it back.

Anyone else ever had to send there 24-70L f/2.8 Lense back?

I will keep you posted of the results when I get the new one hopefully by Friday.

Jimmy

[tim]

I assume you did a proper focus test first, with tripod, mirror lockup, cable release, and a proper test chart (http://www.canon-dslr.com/Canon_Jan05/Canon_SLR_Focus_Test.htm)? Without doing those you can't say the lens is defective.

[summerwind4]

Well after 2 weeks of hell and trying to decide if this lens was defected I decided to send it back and get another one. After having everyone view my photos I decide it was time to send it back.

Anyone else ever had to send there 24-70L f/2.8 Lense back?

I will keep you posted of the results when I get the new one hopefully by Friday.

Jimmy

for anyone who wants to know, YES, and Bott's camera of Fresno CA knows all to well how many dud 24-70's that come to play in this search.
we did all the test chart shots, even had one that looked good, but in real life use was a pure dud.
inconvienant as it may be, try again until you get a good one.

[Tom W]

Well after 2 weeks of hell and trying to decide if this lens was defected I decided to send it back and get another one. After having everyone view my photos I decide it was time to send it back.

Anyone else ever had to send there 24-70L f/2.8 Lense back?

I will keep you posted of the results when I get the new one hopefully by Friday.

Jimmy

FWIW, and a little after the fact, I didn't see all of your images, but I looked at a few. I really didn't see any compelling reason to return the lens.

I believe that a shallow depth-of-field is the most prominent issue in your thinking that your lens isn't up to par.

[blinking8s]

i hate that lens...i find it very picky

id opt out for the tamron in heartbeat...weird to hear me say that, but when it comes to this focal range, i just havent been impressed with the canon at all

[ayotnoms]

FWIW, and a little after the fact, I didn't see all of your images, but I looked at a few. I really didn't see any compelling reason to return the lens.

I believe that a shallow depth-of-field is the most prominent issue in your thinking that your lens isn't up to par.
...what he said.

[Bob_A]

for anyone who wants to know, YES, and Bott's camera of Fresno CA knows all to well how many dud 24-70's that come to play in this search.
we did all the test chart shots, even had one that looked good, but in real life use was a pure dud.
inconvienant as it may be, try again until you get a good one.

Man, I feel lucky. I've had plenty of OOF shots with my 24-70L, and looking at them closely they were all my fault. When the camera is steady and the focus point is correct they're all very sharp.

[ghocking]

I agree with Bob, I think most of the problems with the 24-70 are the user. I complained about the weight when I first got mine, and stated that I would have liked IS fitted (and still would), but I have had to get used to it and find out how to use it.

It is a fine lens.

[Salleke]

...but I have had to get used to it and find out how to use it.

It is a fine lens.

What do you mean wiht getting used to it? How can someone (Me...:o ) get used to a lens? What can we newbee's do or don't do to get used and learn to use a lens at it's best? Sorry for the maybe dumb questions, but how can we learn if we don't ask?... :oops:

[shiato storm]

i hear some are excellent and some leave a little to be desired. unfortunately as is the case with many mass produced products this one is aimed at professionals and when prescision kit doesn't quite mark up to scratch then - as you say you've found - its a real disappointment, don't be put off by this experience and try to have an open mind. think of it another way, if you made 1000 lightbulbs you would expect several do be duff, of course you'd hope a £1000 lens ($1400?) lens to be much better but occasionally some do slip through. I know this is little comfort to your experience but I doubt if you got another one you would suffer the same findings, at least you'd be extraordinarily unlucky to come across them twice!
It is a very good lens, and does have its slight drawbacks (weights so damn much!!) but given that its a popular lens and by the sheer numbers of people that apparently have one its clearly not a donkey. so, get your replaced and see how the new one shapes up, if you're still not satisified then it is perhaps how the lens behaves that you are not quite used to...I know mine gives outstanding results each time I use it...

[jimchapin468]

Hey! With my life I will get one that is worse than I had before. I sure hope not. IF so I will send it back as well. I am just no a pro photographer and all the pics I posted most everyone said they were to soft. So that is really all I had to go one and my gut feeling. I felt I was just not getting out of the lens what I should. We will see when I receive another one on Friday.

Jimmy

[LightRules]

I spent most my time at DPR, and what you'll find is that there are complaints about EVERY lens, whether justified or not. I tend to think the QC issue isn't as wide-spread as users make it out to be. But with that said, there is a QC issue with the 24-70L; it's mostly with severe CA wide open, and also with general softness wide open. Both my copies had enough CA to be annoying and softness at f2.8. My current Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DG Macro put both my 24-70Ls to shame wide open. But given a good copy of the L, it is one heck of a lens. See my sig.