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 Jan 2013 (Sunday) 21:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Ef 24-70 MK11 Hating it

 
Gometang
Senior Member
266 posts
Joined Jan 2010
Location: SoCal
     
Jan 28, 2013 16:04 |  #31

Maybe she really has a big head.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
lens ­ pirate
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,643 posts
Likes: 30
Joined Aug 2008
     
Jan 28, 2013 16:04 as a reply to  @ post 15544609 |  #32

OK so here is what happened.

Its Sort of a tolerance stacking issue.

1. The models head is slightly large for her torso and she has a strong jaw line.
2. Her first set of poses shot with the lens did have her head slightly closer to the camera than her body
3. The 24-70 MK2 (LOL) does seem to me to make things near the edges seem a little bigger. Her head was close to the edge of the frame.
4. Maybe its me but the long end on this new lens seems to look different than the short end on the 70-200.

So I freaked out a bit. 2400 is a lot of money. Mostly I guess its a new lens thing. But SHE noticed it too! I like this chick so I am not going to put unflattering shots up here so you guys can speculate on why her heads looks big. LOL

And last having slept on it the problem does not seem as large as it did yesterday.


INSANE GEAR LIST
Sun flare.... the new selective color. JUST SAY NO

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TaDa
...as cool as Perry
Avatar
6,742 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: New York
     
Jan 28, 2013 16:10 |  #33

lens pirate wrote in post #15544692 (external link)
OK so here is what happened.

Its Sort of a tolerance stacking issue.

1. The models head is slightly large for her torso and she has a strong jaw line.
2. Her first set of poses shot with the lens did have her head slightly closer to the camera than her body
3. The 24-70 MK2 (LOL) does seem to me to make things near the edges seem a little bigger. Her head was close to the edge of the frame.
4. Maybe its me but the long end on this new lens seems to look different than the short end on the 70-200.

So I freaked out a bit. 2400 is a lot of money. Mostly I guess its a new lens thing. But SHE noticed it too! I like this chick so I am not going to put unflattering shots up here so you guys can speculate on why her heads looks big. LOL

And last having slept on it the problem does not seem as large as it did yesterday.

her head shrunk overnight? Miracle!

on a serious note, as mentioned, there is a bit more distortion on the brick v2 than there is on the 70-200, but nothing that would be earth shattering.


Name is Peter and here is my gear:
Canon 5D II, Canon 7D, Canon 40D
Glass - Zeiss 21 f/2.8 ZE, Canon 35 f/1.4L, Canon 40 f/2.8 STM, Canon 24-70 f/2.8
L, Canon 85 f/1.2L II, Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, Canon 500 f/4L IS
Speedlite 580ex II, 430ex - Gitzo GT-3541XLS w/ Arca B1

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Jan 28, 2013 16:13 |  #34

lens pirate wrote in post #15544692 (external link)
OK so here is what happened.

Its Sort of a tolerance stacking issue.

1. The models head is slightly large for her torso and she has a strong jaw line.
2. Her first set of poses shot with the lens did have her head slightly closer to the camera than her body
3. The 24-70 MK2 (LOL) does seem to me to make things near the edges seem a little bigger. Her head was close to the edge of the frame.
4. Maybe its me but the long end on this new lens seems to look different than the short end on the 70-200.

So I freaked out a bit. 2400 is a lot of money. Mostly I guess its a new lens thing. But SHE noticed it too! I like this chick so I am not going to put unflattering shots up here so you guys can speculate on why her heads looks big. LOL

And last having slept on it the problem does not seem as large as it did yesterday.

And I'm guessing that the framing & composition in the images from both zooms were not the same.

I know that the 24-70mm I is a bit wider at 70mm than the 70-200mm II, but I never did any serious comparison. Now I'm curious!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
murkeywaters
Member
Avatar
229 posts
Joined Feb 2009
     
Jan 28, 2013 16:20 as a reply to  @ TaDa's post |  #35

Has she got a nut allergy? and did you feed her peanuts...might explain the big head:D

You say she has a large jaw bone, have you tried the Crocodile Dundee test??

Your right 2400 is a lot of wonga and after spending that amount I think we all have preconceptions that this new lens/camera will be amazing and any slight fault seems a lot bigger than it actually is...just like the models head :D:D:D:D:D


The camera is just a storage box, it's the gLass in front that makes the image...

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,229 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 500
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Jan 28, 2013 16:20 as a reply to  @ frugivore's post |  #36

did she say: "does this lens make my head look big?" :D.


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,315 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6355
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jan 28, 2013 16:21 |  #37

Madwrench wrote in post #15543134 (external link)
Gotta defend Lens Pirate here. I've seen some of the studio work he's posted (it's good), and he's neither a troll nor a noob.

even professionals/experts make mistakes. At the end of the day, that 24-70 is just a tool, and a good one. Without providing samples, I'll just have to side on the reviews on the 70mm, which should be good, and TS is facing basic perspective distortion.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 23
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Jan 28, 2013 16:34 |  #38

The 24-70 II my favorite lens... Never thought I would say that about an "all-purpose" zoom. It is just so sharp and pleasant to use.


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
manderson
Member
202 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Dec 2012
Location: Abingdon, MD USA
     
Jan 28, 2013 16:48 |  #39

Invertalon wrote in post #15544830 (external link)
The 24-70 II my favorite lens... Never thought I would say that about an "all-purpose" zoom. It is just so sharp and pleasant to use.

I've had mine for one week and deciding if I need to exchange it. Got my 5D3 around Christmas and as soon as I started shooting with my 70-200 f/4L I was completely amazed at the sharpness. No one can convince me that viewing photos at 100% and expecting them to be tack sharp is pixel peeping. Every photo with the 70-200 f/4L is tack sharp at 100%. I can't say this is true with the 24-70 f/2.8 II, they just don't look as sharp to me. I'll be setting up the tripod and doing more testing this weekend. Any suggestions on testing for sharpness with the 24-70 f/2.8 II will be welcome.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 23
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Jan 28, 2013 16:59 |  #40

My guess it is just microadjustment, somehow. See if it is back or front focusing.

I find my 24-70 II simply incredible. AF is instant, accurate and sharp as can be end to end on the zoom range wide open. The 24-70 II and 70-200 II are a powerhouse combo, no doubt. Now if Canon can just release a better UWA zoom to match the optical performance of these two lenses, I would be set...

But I would suggest mounting the lens on a tripod and doing some shots focusing ONLY with live-view... See how those look. That will remove any microadjustment errors. If they still look "off", post some examples here so we can take a look. But mine is just as sharp (if not sharper) than my 70-200 II. They are that close.


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
manderson
Member
202 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Dec 2012
Location: Abingdon, MD USA
     
Jan 28, 2013 17:15 |  #41

Invertalon wrote in post #15544927 (external link)
My guess it is just microadjustment, somehow. See if it is back or front focusing.

I find my 24-70 II simply incredible. AF is instant, accurate and sharp as can be end to end on the zoom range wide open. The 24-70 II and 70-200 II are a powerhouse combo, no doubt. Now if Canon can just release a better UWA zoom to match the optical performance of these two lenses, I would be set...

But I would suggest mounting the lens on a tripod and doing some shots focusing ONLY with live-view... See how those look. That will remove any microadjustment errors. If they still look "off", post some examples here so we can take a look. But mine is just as sharp (if not sharper) than my 70-200 II. They are that close.

Thanks. I usually set up the tripod and use the external shutter release, leave ISO at 100, then take pics through all focal lengths and aperture ranges. I'll see what I come up with and start a new topic if necessary.

FWIW, I have already spoken with CPS about this. They told me I should not use the micro adjustment feature, and if it is not acceptably sharp out of the box, I should exchange it. I have never been a real fan of micro adjustment, and in my conversation with CPS I asked them to set me straight. I told them my opinion is that micro adjustment is merely a "quick fix". Interestingly enough, CPS said I was precisely correct. They said if a lens requires micro adjustment beyond +/- 4 or 5, it should be sent in for a lens calibration. Obviously, micro adjustment is desirable on an out-of-warranty lens, rather than paying CPS $200. But for any brand new or in warranty lens, I will not consider micro adjustment an option.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
manderson
Member
202 posts
Likes: 24
Joined Dec 2012
Location: Abingdon, MD USA
     
Jan 28, 2013 17:23 |  #42

Invertalon wrote in post #15544927 (external link)
But I would suggest mounting the lens on a tripod and doing some shots focusing ONLY with live-view... See how those look. That will remove any microadjustment errors.

Can you, or anyone, explain this in more detail? Focus in live view, zoom in on the subject in live view to inspect sharpness? How does this "remove any microadjustment errors"? I'm sure this is a noob question.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,315 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6355
Joined Sep 2007
     
Jan 28, 2013 17:33 |  #43

manderson wrote in post #15545029 (external link)
Can you, or anyone, explain this in more detail? Focus in live view, zoom in on the subject in live view to inspect sharpness? How does this "remove any microadjustment errors"? I'm sure this is a noob question.

phase detect vs manual focus.

phase detect is done by the camera and it will choose the focus adjustment for what it perceives to be sharpest? Adjustment not necessarily the best.

live view, you judge based on your eyes with the help of 5 or 10x viewing and manual adjust.

Simplest way to test is to print out some text from your laser printer, or a newspaper, then take photos of it using center point and a tripod. One using the autofocus, and one using live view. Compare to see what's sharper.... if both the same, then focus is good.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bearmann
Goldmember
Avatar
1,226 posts
Likes: 57
Joined Feb 2008
Location: I live behind Graceland in a tool shed. I often meet the man early in the morning at Krispy Kreme.
     
Jan 28, 2013 18:06 |  #44

I suspect you are getting your models from that secret place where Loretta Lux finds her models.


Barry

http://b-r-s-photo.zenfolio.com (external link) (remove the dashes)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wombatHorror
Goldmember
1,937 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: NJ
     
Jan 28, 2013 18:57 |  #45

lens pirate wrote in post #15544692 (external link)
OK so here is what happened.

4. Maybe its me but the long end on this new lens seems to look different than the short end on the 70-200.

As I said the 70-200/300 lenses have barrel distortion at 70mm so her body in the center gets made larger than it should relative to her head at the edge (which works well for someone with a large head placed close to the camera).

Standard zooms 24/28-70/105 tend to have pincussion at 70mm so her body in the center gets made a bit smaller than it should be and then putting her head at the edge and closer it accentuates the whole problem.

The 70-200 was letting you get way with shooting her in a perhaps not quite ideal way and the 24-70 II over-emphasized that you were shooting her in this fashion (big head means it is better to not put the head camera front and especially not to push it to far edges of frames, although I guess with barrel distorting lenses you were getting away with it).

A good lens profile should make it even between the two lenses.




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

6,864 views & 0 likes for this thread
Ef 24-70 MK11 Hating it
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 Anas Cherur
971 guests, 357 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.