(Sharper) alternatives to 24-70L

toxic wrote in post #10191256
Except you don't need a 100% return to get maximum sharpness. If a lens reaches peak resolution at f/8, it will peak at f/8 whether it's mounted on a 4MP or 40MP camera.

In any case, the variance in resolution from f/5.6 to f/11 on a 24-70 is negligible and likely not noticeable in actual use.

Well, but an aperture smaller than the DLA cannot give you the peak sharpness.
Unless the difference in the lens' sharpness is quite large.

But assume your lens has its peak sharpness at f8.0
Then shooting at anything above that can be be worse or be equal - agreed? - now if your sensor has a DLA of f9,3 shooting with anything above 9,3 would be worse - and the OP used f11, as he stated, in his test image - hence he couldn't in any way get the peak result.

Or am I missing something?
And the way I understand the OP he want to know how sharp it can get - as it doesn't seem sharp enough to him.

Naturalist wrote in post #10191271
Nadger, I'd like to see an uncropped sample image with data showing camera settings and, also, can you tell us if you had any filters over the lens?

Many claims of unsharp lenses are the result of improper technique or using low cost accessories.

The image the OP linked to is uncropped.

nadger wrote in post #10190952
Michael

Here's one test image. Shot tripod-mounted, mirror locked up, self-timer released, F11, RAW. Settings in DPP on default (sharpening setting 3). Focus point is on the gravel just left of the corner of the brickwork. 100% view it's not remotely sharp (anywhere) in my view.
Cheers

http://a5.vox.com …c9860b0137a5824​0bd860d-pi

I have the same experience as nadger. My copy of the 24-70L made the same kind of unsharp, no-focus-anywhere shots, and I sold it. What you see has nothing - nothing - to do with small aperture diffraction. Diffraction only affects the contrast level, not the focus of a picture.

Sharp wide angel lens for the 5DII: I got the 35L. It is a great lens, with a slightly better optical quality than the 24L. My favorite lens is the 85L. It is so sharp that you can cut yourself on it. Some samples on www.bentivi.dk

TRune wrote in post #10191333
I have the same experience as nadger. My copy of the 24-70L made the same kind of unsharp, no-focus-anywhere shots, and I sold it. What you see has nothing - nothing - to do with small aperture diffraction. Diffraction only affects the contrast level, not the focus of a picture.

Sharp wide angel lens for the 5DII: I got the 35L. It is a great lens, with a slightly better optical quality than the 24L. My favorite lens is the 85L. It is so sharp that you can cut yourself on it. Some samples on www.bentivi.dk

Distraction does effect the sharpness of a capture. Good explanation here http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/diffraction.​htm

jj_glos wrote in post #10191501
Distraction does effect the sharpness of a capture. Good explanation here http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/diffraction.​htm

lmfao! Ken Rockwell again!

well might as well post more poop by that guy:
http://www.kenrockwell​.com/nikon/24-70mm.htm

It's sharper than Canon so maybe you should just switch to Nikon

FuturamaJSP wrote in post #10192170
lmfao! Ken Rockwell again!

well might as well post more poop by that guy:
http://www.kenrockwell​.com/nikon/24-70mm.htm

It's sharper than Canon so maybe you should just switch to Nikon

You're not a fan then?

It's still a good article on diffraction though, putting aside any dislike of the author?

nadger wrote in post #10190597
Hi all, I'm new here, so HELLO.

I'm looking to upgrade from my 400D/rebel to a 5DII but to spread the cost, I bought the lens first - 24-70L. I was expecting to be blown away by its sharpness but I was very disappointed and returned it. I have another copy now but it's no better. So. I've lost faith in this option and and now considering going for primes instead. The 100mm Macro will be first on the list but I would appreciate your ideas on a a (very) sharp option for a wide angle. I'm not in the market for a £1K+ lens though, so would be prepared to go for a third-party lens - as long as it's sharp. I shoot stock, so images have to sharp at 100% view.

Many thanks
N

Send your 24-70L to Canon for a tune up. Once dialed in, it is an awesome lens.

DetlevCM wrote in post #10191275
Well, but an aperture smaller than the DLA cannot give you the peak sharpness.
Unless the difference in the lens' sharpness is quite large.

The DLA is just the aperture at which diffraction effects start to affect resolution. Instead of getting 100% from your lens/sensor combination, you get 99%.

If a lens peaks at f/11 (in real-world use), it will peak at f/11 regardless of the camera's DLA. Maybe you won't get its maximum theoretical resolution, but having a DLA of f/1 doesn't mean its peak resolution on that camera is at f/1 or f/4 or f/8. It's still f/11. If anything, higher megapixels will increase the f-stop where you get maximum resolution by "burning through" the diffraction. You can read the post I linked to earlier for details.

The 24-70 peaks at about f/5.6 or f/8. By f/11, its resolution has deteriorated somewhat, but its not like a night-and-day difference from f/5.6. If the OP is unsatisfied with the 24-70's performance at 50mm (where it is performing near optimally), then 1) there is something wrong with the lens or camera, or 2) the OP has unrealistic expectations.

ed rader wrote in post #10190893
annie leibovitz used the 24-70L to shoot queen elizabeth.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=_LAY3qWFC8Y

ed rader

Very nice to watch. Thanks, Ed!

ed rader wrote in post #10190893
annie leibovitz used the 24-70L to shoot queen elizabeth.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=_LAY3qWFC8Y

ed rader

C'mon, the Queen is pushing 85 years old, that last thing she wants is a sharp image

OP, take some photos of human subjects. I always use eylelashes as a test subject. You can determine a soft image instantly instead of using pebbles as a test subjects.

Annie is shooting small apertures so she could have used a 24-105L or any other capable lens. I bet majority of those photos were shot stopped down .

It is obviously a defective lens, camera or technique. There are plenty of sharp 24-70mm lenses out there and debating the sharpness, or not, of this lens is pointless. As suggested earlier, send it to Canon if you're sure it is the lens.

I use the 24-70 on my 7d and its sharp as f*.

Naturalist wrote in post #10191271
Nadger, I'd like to see an uncropped sample image with data showing camera settings and, also, can you tell us if you had any filters over the lens?

Many claims of unsharp lenses are the result of improper technique or using low cost accessories.

Naturalist, the image I linked to is uncropped and the data is viewable in DPP. No filters were used.

I've read a few forums now and it seems that quality control at Canon isn't what it should be and there are massive differences between copies of this lens. On that basis It's going right back to the supplier tomorrow.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts.
Nadge

35L