24-70 - bad copy???

They were shot on a tripod - handholding at 45o is a little difficult and the text was printed on the same Canon printer I print on at the highest quality. All I shoot is RAW and the Sharpness was set to 0.

My tamron appears sharper than that....I hope this is just user error....Hope you get it figured out. Still under warranty I presume?

Yep it's still under warranty, I received it August 6th. I think I'm going to pack it up and send it to Canon Service for recalibration.

Yeah I thinks your copy is no good. I had a 17-40L and it appears sharper @ F4 than yours. Even my 18-55 looks better. Cheers!

Without seeing the full f/2.8 test shot, and without any better examples, sending the lens in for calibration can't be a bad thing.

The 24-70 is generally a very sharp lens.

24-70 doesnt have IS as you 100-400, so accept the fact.

I gave up on the 24-70. I tried 2 copies from B & H and sent them both back. I ended up with a 50 1.2L and I am very happy

damn, and people say sigma have qc issues. my 18-50 is super sharp

umm so glad i choose the 17-55f2.8 IS over this lens!

MinhThien wrote in post #6582248
umm so glad i choose the 17-55f2.8 IS over this lens!

that one isnt free from its problems either... I think people just need to realize its not canon over third party... Its all lens manufacturers whom have issues. Its how they deal with the issues that matters.

turbodude wrote in post #6582278
that one isnt free from its problems either... I think people just need to realize its not canon over third party... Its all lens manufacturers whom have issues. Its how they deal with the issues that matters.

Oh yeah i know about those issue the 1755 is having(dust, IS) but i tested the IS and its really works!

Those focus chart lines start out at the bottom left and go up to the top right, they are not level so who knows if the test was done right.

It could just be a focus issue so turn on live view and manual focus on something and see is it better when you manual focus, if it is then you need to send it in, or preferably get it exchanged.

My "crappy" 17-85 does a better job AF-ing on text, wide open at f/5.6, 85mm. Sorry you got a dud....

Am i missing something? These are both 100% crops, yes? The first one was taken at 1/50 hardly a lighting fast shutter speed- so i put that down to camera shake, the second looks ok to me- was the sharpening in the camera or on the computer?
Also can we see the full images please- not just the crops, it might help get a better understanding of your situation.

The focus chart images were shot in RAW using a tripod. However the OP stated that ZERO sharpening was applied when creating the test jpegs.

Because of the AA filter in front of the sensor you need to apply sharpening to all images produced by Canon DSLR's. Some cameras need it more than others, it all depends on the strength of the AA filter.

Wakahuna: What does it look like if you apply USM at 300, 0.3, 0 in PS to your focus test images? Do you get the result similar to what I linked to (slightly soft at f/2.8 but very sharp at f/5.6). If you do then there is nothing wrong with your lens, however if you are still getting soft images at f/5.6 with USM applied then you have to dig deeper into this and maybe send your lens to Canon. You should also see progressively sharper images stepping from f/2.8 to f/5.6 with about the biggest improvement from f/2.8 to f/3.2. After you stop down to f/4 improvement is hard to see.