Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 27 Nov 2011 (Sunday) 23:35
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

just bought used Canon 24-70. At 2.8, much sharper at 24 then 70?? help please

 
kboater
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
195 posts
Joined Nov 2011
     
Nov 28, 2011 22:50 as a reply to  @ post 13463647 |  #16

thanks everyone. I did read both of the lensrentals.com articles. they are great!

Good news. the guy i purchased the lens from had purchased a 5 year extended warranty through Ritz (where he had purchased it), and there was 1 year left on the warranty. I took it in there and they honored the extended warranty from the previous owner; im pretty happy about that.

I think the employee at Ritz said they would end up sending it to Canon, but Im not real clear. It sounded like maybe Ritz was sending it (guessing their own repair facility first) would look at it first, then send it to Canon if necessary...? Im not sure.

I also spoke to canon and I they said if I send the lens to them it would take them about 3 days, after they receive it, to give me an estimate and then about 5 days to fix it and send it back. so about 1.5 week process.

Ritz told me it would be a couple of weeks, so im guessing they send it to their own repair facility first and then to Canon if necessary, so a little longer then if I just sent it to canon myself....but this way it wont cost me anything.

Does anyone know how, or if this is how, the Ritz extended warranty process works? Im just hoping they just send it to Canon.

When I get it back, if fixed correctly, Im guessing I should see the same sharpness at f/2.8 70 as I currently see at f/2.8 24?

thanks, and I appreciate you guys answering all my questions




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Steveod
Senior Member
Avatar
766 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 9
Joined Apr 2009
Location: Tauranga,Bay of Plenty,New Zealand
     
Nov 28, 2011 23:26 |  #17

JoYork wrote in post #13463118 (external link)
Wouldn't you be better off with the 24-105 then?

No I need the brick and old 1D to hold me to the ground on windy days


Steveod:shock: 1D Classic,1Ds, 400D. EOS-1n, EOS-5 Minolta Autocord,Yashica-A,Yashica-mat 66 Yashica-mat 124G ,Rolleicord IV & VB ,Mamiya C3,Mamiya C33, and a heap of other gear I keep collecting and collecting,Hi I am Steve and I am a photoholic http://www.flickr.com/​photos/steveod2007/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheBurningCrown
Goldmember
Avatar
4,882 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Oct 2008
     
Nov 29, 2011 00:08 |  #18

kboater wrote in post #13466347 (external link)
Does anyone know how, or if this is how, the Ritz extended warranty process works? Im just hoping they just send it to Canon.

They send it to Canon. It just takes longer.

kboater wrote in post #13466347 (external link)
When I get it back, if fixed correctly, Im guessing I should see the same sharpness at f/2.8 70 as I currently see at f/2.8 24?

Possibly, but then you won't have the sharpness that you currently see at 24mm f/2.8 :lol:.

Seriously, though - it's highly unlikely that you will get a lens that is perfectly sharp at all focal lengths. I haven't seen samples, but I think it's a waste of time. Still - sending it into Canon while it's under warranty is not necessarily a bad thing.


-Dave
Gear List & Feedback
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kboater
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
195 posts
Joined Nov 2011
     
Dec 11, 2011 16:01 as a reply to  @ TheBurningCrown's post |  #19

Still waiting on the lens to get back. I do have 2 more questions for you guys.

1. after researching, it seems like half of the people put UV filters (mostly for protection...??) on their lens and half dont. So my question is on this forum, do most of you put a UV filter on? If so, are the more expensive (hoya, B+W) better then the cheaper ones (I have read that cheaper filters can degrade your IQ, which is kind of the point of having an L lens)? If you guys say yes, exactly which filter would you recommend for this 24-70L?

2. also, after reading a bunch, if looks like this lens may have come with a hood when new? I sure did not get one when i bought it used. So, again, if you recommend a hood, exactly which hood would you get? Do aftermarket (less expensive) hoods work as well as expensive canon hoods? (im assuming a cheaper hood is not going to degrade IQ like a cheap filter may do)...

Thanks!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aaxsherm
Member
203 posts
Joined Mar 2010
     
Dec 11, 2011 18:24 |  #20

kboater wrote in post #13528213 (external link)
Still waiting on the lens to get back. I do have 2 more questions for you guys.

1. after researching, it seems like half of the people put UV filters (mostly for protection...??) on their lens and half dont. So my question is on this forum, do most of you put a UV filter on? If so, are the more expensive (hoya, B+W) better then the cheaper ones (I have read that cheaper filters can degrade your IQ, which is kind of the point of having an L lens)? If you guys say yes, exactly which filter would you recommend for this 24-70L?

2. also, after reading a bunch, if looks like this lens may have come with a hood when new? I sure did not get one when i bought it used. So, again, if you recommend a hood, exactly which hood would you get? Do aftermarket (less expensive) hoods work as well as expensive canon hoods? (im assuming a cheaper hood is not going to degrade IQ like a cheap filter may do)...

Thanks!

1. You are a brave guy bringing up the subject of filters, it is a never ending debate on the forums. If you are going to use a filter, it is highly recommended you use a better quality glass such as used with Hoya or B+W. (When using a filter, I always use B+W...best fit, easiest to clean, etc...in my opinion.) Why would you buy an expensive lens and put potentially bad glass in front of it?

2. I use the hood on my 24-70 all the time. It has saved it from bumps as well as glare. The Canon version is about $50...I would recommend something like:
http://www.adorama.com​/LNHEW83F.html (external link)

Adorama and B&H online are typically where I would recommend people buy camera/photo items.

FYI....I had a problem with at least one of the collars on my 24-70. It was outside of the warranty period when I sent it in but Canon fixed it free of charge. (It was only 5 months out of warranty.) Has worked well since then. And kudo's to Canon for good customer service!


Andy
7D l 5D MKII l 10-22 l 24-70 L l 85 1.2 L II l 135 L l 70-200 F4 IS L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
S.Horton
worship my useful and insightful comments
Avatar
18,051 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 117
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Royersford, PA
     
Dec 11, 2011 18:53 |  #21

Your error was shooting the exact same size subject at different distances and focal lengths while expecting identical results.

But, if you saw a big blur and took it in for servicing, I hope it comes back before Xmas in better shape.

Great gift, by the way.


Sam - TF Says Ishmael
http://midnightblue.sm​ugmug.com (external link) 
Want your title changed?Dream On! (external link)

:cool:

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kboater
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
195 posts
Joined Nov 2011
     
Dec 11, 2011 21:13 |  #22

aaxsherm wrote in post #13528868 (external link)
1. You are a brave guy bringing up the subject of filters, it is a never ending debate on the forums. If you are going to use a filter, it is highly recommended you use a better quality glass such as used with Hoya or B+W. (When using a filter, I always use B+W...best fit, easiest to clean, etc...in my opinion.) Why would you buy an expensive lens and put potentially bad glass in front of it?

2. I use the hood on my 24-70 all the time. It has saved it from bumps as well as glare. The Canon version is about $50...I would recommend something like:
http://www.adorama.com​/LNHEW83F.html (external link)

Adorama and B&H online are typically where I would recommend people buy camera/photo items.

FYI....I had a problem with at least one of the collars on my 24-70. It was outside of the warranty period when I sent it in but Canon fixed it free of charge. (It was only 5 months out of warranty.) Has worked well since then. And kudo's to Canon for good customer service!

Thank you for the info!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TheBurningCrown
Goldmember
Avatar
4,882 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Oct 2008
     
Dec 11, 2011 22:42 |  #23

kboater wrote in post #13528213 (external link)
Still waiting on the lens to get back. I do have 2 more questions for you guys.

1. after researching, it seems like half of the people put UV filters (mostly for protection...??) on their lens and half dont. So my question is on this forum, do most of you put a UV filter on?

2. also, after reading a bunch, if looks like this lens may have come with a hood when new? I sure did not get one when i bought it used. So, again, if you recommend a hood, exactly which hood would you get?

1. Search and you will find far too many topics on this very issue. My ideology is to nearly never use a UV filter. But if you're going to use a UV filter, use a very high end one. UV filters will always (no exceptions end of story) degrade the image quality. The question is whether or not that degradation will be noticeable/not acceptable to you. For me it isn't (having shot with UV filters for quite awhile), for other folks it is. At the end of the day, the camera still takes pictures.

2. I always use a hood with all of my lenses. The hoods protect the lens elements and prevent flare, and the only downside is making the lens bigger (well, and making it more difficult to screw on filters without taking them off, but eh). I would get the OEM hood.


-Dave
Gear List & Feedback
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bananapie
Senior Member
Avatar
522 posts
Joined Jun 2011
Location: Seattle, Biloxi, Waco
     
Dec 12, 2011 03:49 |  #24

BEFORE you waste time and money returning this lens because you are scared it is defective (like hundreds of predecessors scared by this forum) I encourage you to take a series of shots of a STATIC image where you control everything in the scene--like a cereal box under GOOD lighting.

Set the camera up on a tripod or immobile surface (like a bean bag). Put the timer on. Put the camera on AV mode, and set the f number to 2.8, and the focal length at 70mm (ISO at 200 if you can get the lighting good enough). If her camera has live view, then use that and manual focus on a part of the cereal box. Then snap the shot.

Upload that here, and we can take a look and see if it is something to be concerned about. =D




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kboater
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
195 posts
Joined Nov 2011
     
Dec 22, 2011 09:39 |  #25

Bananapie wrote in post #13530833 (external link)
BEFORE you waste time and money returning this lens because you are scared it is defective (like hundreds of predecessors scared by this forum) I encourage you to take a series of shots of a STATIC image where you control everything in the scene--like a cereal box under GOOD lighting.

Set the camera up on a tripod or immobile surface (like a bean bag). Put the timer on. Put the camera on AV mode, and set the f number to 2.8, and the focal length at 70mm (ISO at 200 if you can get the lighting good enough). If her camera has live view, then use that and manual focus on a part of the cereal box. Then snap the shot.

Upload that here, and we can take a look and see if it is something to be concerned about. =D

i have not uploaded the photos here, and the lens is still out; i have not gotten it back yet.

if you look at my original post, I did a similar test. used a tripod, remote, focused on a business card using live view




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jwp721
Senior Member
771 posts
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Raleigh, NC
     
Dec 22, 2011 09:54 |  #26

kboater wrote in post #13584413 (external link)
i have not uploaded the photos here, and the lens is still out; i have not gotten it back yet.

if you look at my original post, I did a similar test. used a tripod, remote, focused on a business card using live view

To answer your question about why it took longer for repair with Ritz... my guess is that they send out their packages a little slower than you would have. In other words your urgency is not the same as theirs. The good thing though is since it was stil under warranty you should have nothing to pay when you get it back.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rockygarcia
Senior Member
390 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Orange County, CA
     
Dec 22, 2011 12:19 |  #27

Steveod wrote in post #13461733 (external link)
My 24-70 is also soft at 70mm 2.8 by f4.0 it is very good and f5.6 is very sharp ,@ 60mm it is good and by f4 is very good ,this shows up on Photozones test on this lens and appears normal. I normally use this lens at f5.6 where possible where it gives its sharpest results and I don't have to worry about a fine depth of field

Ditto for mine.


1DX | 17-40 F4L | 24-70 2.8L | 50 1.8 | 85 1.8 | 200 2.8L for sale | 70-200 2.8 IS IIL | 300 F4L | 100-400L | Kenko Pro 300 1.4x DGX | 2x Canon Tele III | 430EXII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,545 views & 0 likes for this thread
just bought used Canon 24-70. At 2.8, much sharper at 24 then 70?? help please
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is mjp321kia
1021 guests, 285 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.