Canon 24-70 L pictures

[jimchapin468]

Will you guys look at these and tell me if they look very sharp to you? It is the first 3 pictures in this gallery. The only crop 100% crop is the flower.

http://upload.pbase.com/edit_gallery/jimchapin468/inbox

Setting:
ISO 200
Focal 60
Aper 17
Approx. Shutter Speed 100


Thanks Jimmy

[remo]

Jim, yes they are sharp(but could be sharper). You have great lens and you have to grow with it. Take more pictures, play with aperture and time. Your fountain.jpg is at 58mm, f17, 1/60s. I think it's a little slow unless you have iron/steady hands. Why not use f8 and 1/250s? I'm not a pro, so I could be wrong.
At first my 24-70 produced 80% soft images. Now after 1000 shots it's 50-50.
I'm sure that it's you, not lens. So just be patient and results are going to be great.

[BlueTit]

I have the same problem, not knowing if what I am getting from the 24-70 is good or i I have a bad copy of the lens. Your photos look about the same as mine so either we both have bad copies or we both have good copies - but which is it, I have no idea. For a lens that gets such great reviews and costs a small fortune, I would be dissapointed if this turned out to be a good copy.

[jimchapin468]

Thanks for your response Remo -- I used a higher aperture so I could get more depth of field and more focus through the image. I will try what you are saying. Thanks Jimmy

[jimchapin468]

BlueT -- I am not sure either -- I think they are good copies we just have to learn how to use it __ I guess__. !!:lol:

[ed2day]

I'm seeing the same thing. I've taken some great shots and some underwhelming shots, so it seems to be a matter of consistnency. In your gallery (inlcuding your previous 24-70) I see some shots that look stunning and some that make you wonder. Why this lens is so much more demanding than any other I own I can't explain. Mine is acceptably sharp for me, but it certainly doesn't knock my socks off in that respect like, say, the 85 1.8. I'd say it's only slightly better than my 50 1.8. But I still say this lens has qualities beyond sharpness that elevate it above most lenses I've seen. Look at the lush colors and the perceived depth in the best photos from this lens. Is that worth the money?? That's what I'm trying to decide. But I'll give it some time.

[blackviolet]

i used to think that - questioning its sharpness. but comparing it to my 28-135IS, it becomes pretty clear how nice it is. it was even much better then my old 28-70L that i sold.

my only complaint is the hood. it's so big, that any bump has enough leverage to knock the hood off. that and the 'case' isn't as nice as the cases that bigger L's come with :rolleyes:

[kndreyn]

Just bought this lense myself and it seems to have a serious backfocus problem. http://www.papsphoto.com/24-70.jpg

Wonder how many I'll have to try before I get one that's acceptable. Problem is, I just sent my 70-200 L IS in for the IS repair problem too.

[jfrancho]

Will you guys look at these and tell me if they look very sharp to you? It is the first 3 pictures in this gallery. The only crop 100% crop is the flower.

http://upload.pbase.com/edit_gallery/jimchapin468/inbox

Setting:
ISO 200
Focal 60
Aper 17
Approx. Shutter Speed 100


Thanks JimmyI'd say that f/18 is overkill for this picture. You could open it up to f/11, and DOF would still extend from 25 feet to infinity, but you would lose about 6 feet of acceptable sharpness in the foreground. I don't think there is anything in the foreground that is that close. You do realize you will have to add some sharpening to any image made with that camera? I recommend a few passes with USM on the lightness channel.
I would be dissapointed if this turned out to be a good copy.You will be a better photographer if it is.
Just bought this lense myself and it seems to have a serious backfocus problem. http://www.papsphoto.com/24-70.jpg

Wonder how many I'll have to try before I get one that's acceptable. Problem is, I just sent my 70-200 L IS in for the IS repair problem too.I am not sure what your picture proves. I can take the same picture, and use it to advertise the sharpness of the lens. You need to define the parameters of your test, and give more details before anyone can confirm your casual observation. Otherwise your statement doesn't hold water.

[kndreyn]

Shot this wide open, focus point was on the 2 on the first battery. Shot the same shot with my 50mm 1.8 and 17-40 L and both of those lenses were sharp focused on the first battery. The 24-70 consistently shows back focus.


I am not sure what your picture proves. I can take the same picture, and use it to advertise the sharpness of the lens. You need to define the parameters of your test, and give more details before anyone can confirm your casual observation. Otherwise your statement doesn't hold water.

[jfrancho]

Shot this wide open, focus point was on the 2 on the first battery. Shot the same shot with my 50mm 1.8 and 17-40 L and both of those lenses were sharp focused on the first battery. The 24-70 consistently shows back focus.Still not enough data. At what focal range, and what distance to the subject?

[kndreyn]

I shot it at 35mm to compare to my 17-40 at 35mm, shot it at 50mm to compare to the 50mm 1.8 and shot at 70mm just for kicks. All three focal lengths on the 24-70 look pretty much like the picture posted. The subject is approximately 2 1/2 feet from the lense. I used mirror lockup and a remote shutter release.

Still not enough data. At what focal range, and what distance to the subject?

[jfrancho]

So is that a crop?

[kndreyn]

Yes, I showed the actual pixels in photoshop and made the crop from there.

I spent all afternoon taking pictures of my grand daughter with this lense and was very disappointed with the results.

So is that a crop?

[kndreyn]

jfrancho,

Here is a shot from today. The focus point was on her eyes.

http://www.papsphoto.com/LG3M4527.jpg

[jfrancho]

Yes, I showed the actual pixels in photoshop and made the crop from there.That makes more sense now, the information you gave me and the picture just didn't add up. I had to get about 4" to get the same frame as what you posted, and you would definately have a back focus problem since the lens' minimum range is 15". You are probably right in your suspicions, although I still question the method, since (on my camera, a 300D) the focus point covers two batteries at 35mm. It seems that something a little more rigorous would need to be performed, like shooting pics of your grandaughter, to get a real answer. I'm sorry if I seemed like a PITA, but you can't post a picture, and say there is problem without backing it up. If your convinced of the condition, and your methodology don't bother posting. Sorry to hear that your having such bad luck with your L's.

[jfrancho]

jfrancho,

Here is a shot from today. The focus point was on her eyes.

http://www.papsphoto.com/LG3M4527.jpgNow why didn't post that one! You'd have to be pretty bad to even get that photo if you tried. That stinks. I assume you had no opportunity to try before you buy.

[kndreyn]

No, none of the locals had this lense so I bought it from Bhphoto. I'm sure they'll take care of it though.

Now why didn't post that one! You'd have to be pretty bad to even get that photo if you tried. That stinks. I assume you had no opportunity to try before you buy.

[jfrancho]

Good luck, and post some pics made the new copy.

[kndreyn]

Thanks J... let's hope the next one is a keeper.



Good luck, and post some pics made the new copy.