completely unimpressed with 24-70

I hate reading this thread. I've been considering buying this lens and stuff like this makes me not want to.

I had a bad copy of a 24-70 before too. It was soft, just as you mentioned. I was incredibly disappointed having dropped so much money on a lens that wasn't nearly as sharp as I thought it'd be. I sold it pretty quickly.

Determined to give this lens another shot, I picked up another copy later on down the road (my current copy) and boy, I am in love with this lens. Sharp at f/2.8, and completely different from my first impression of my first copy. Then I saw what everyone was seeing from this lens; it's a masterpiece.

I have the same impression you had. With lots of PP sharpening, it works well but I found my old XT kit lens was sharper out of the camera. I know if I replaced it with another one or maybe one more I would been thrilled with it. But I decided to go in a different direction rather than try to get another copy.

MinhThien wrote in post #7321113
One of the reason I went with 35L!

Yes a prime is wicked but you dont have the versatility of a phenominal zoom.

I stop down my "brick" to f/3.2 to f/3.5 and get wonderful "pop". My f/2.8 is very useable and acceptably sharp.

I will not rave about this lens to justify the $$ I spent. However the colours, fast focus, accuracy without hunting, build is part of the bundle you'd expect for an "L".

My copy is sharp but I've seen sharper wideopen. Would I sell it? I doubt I'd ever let this lens go though. Its a great combo with a crop or FF for my uses.

The "rented" lens is more than likely not cared for compared to personal property. A company renting a lens would more than likely rent out as much as possible $$$ before getting lenses calibrated.

Yeah, my copy is sharp at f/2.8 but I find the DOF is waaaay more shallow than f/2.8 was when I used it on my 40D, so I need to be careful. lol

S.Horton wrote in post #7321298
I think this speaks for itself:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=173736

If you can't get a sharp result, then something's wrong.

40DAndy wrote in post #7321354
I hate reading this thread. I've been considering buying this lens and stuff like this makes me not want to.

...I don't think you read all of this thread, then. See the link, get the glass, it is a fantastic, permanent addition to your kit.

madhatter04 wrote in post #7321538
Yeah, my copy is sharp at f/2.8 but I find the DOF is waaaay more shallow than f/2.8 was when I used it on my 40D, so I need to be careful. lol

I hear ya. This is why I use f/3.2 to f/3.5 to get very short DOF.

I took many photos at f/4 at a little 2yr olds Bday party and the photos came out incredible with extremely high keeper rate. At f/3.5 I get a very high keeper rate with excellent "pop" but I gotta be careful with keeping the subject(s) in focus especially a little group shot.

I think f/4 has the same effects as f/2.8 on a crop.

This is what scared me away from getting the 24-70mm and why I got the 28-70mm instead. I think I made the right decision as I got a very clean copy that is sharp. I've compared it with a friend of mine who has the 24-70mm and mine is sharper, his likes to backfocus which wouldn't be a problem if I had one of those bodies that had the microadjustment but I don't.

I just rented the 24-70 today.....tried it out and now I want to buy one. It's incredibly sharp.....focus is super fast....It's heavy, but wow, the image quality is awesome.

ive rented tons of glass from lensrentals.com and i have found that most of there stuf is top notch and VERY well cared for.. this isnt the first 2-70 i saw like this though..

ill post some pics tomorrow.

AlanU wrote in post #7321508
Yes a prime is wicked but you dont have the versatility of a phenominal zoom.

I stop down my "brick" to f/3.2 to f/3.5 and get wonderful "pop". My f/2.8 is very useable and acceptably sharp.

I will not rave about this lens to justify the $$ I spent. However the colours, fast focus, accuracy without hunting, build is part of the bundle you'd expect for an "L".

My copy is sharp but I've seen sharper wideopen. Would I sell it? I doubt I'd ever let this lens go though. Its a great combo with a crop or FF for my uses.

The "rented" lens is more than likely not cared for compared to personal property. A company renting a lens would more than likely rent out as much as possible $$$ before getting lenses calibrated.

scot079 wrote in post #7321148
Both copies I had needed +15 AF microadjustment. Seeing his gearlist, he can't adjust AF. I believe him...no pics needed.

On which end of the zoom range .. Wide or Tight?

I think the moral of this thread is "don't judge a lens by its rental"

Mine is sweet. Buy it. It'll stay on your camera.
If I ever switched systems,
I would keep "The Brick" in a box in my closet just to know it's there.
_______________

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #7321619
On which end of the zoom range .. Wide or Tight?

Funny you should ask...after about an hour of zooming in, testing and then adjusting the AF...I found out that @ about 35mm and wider, that adjustment was now off. So +15 was sort of in the middle, not perfect but I didn't want to change the AF microadjust every time I zoomed.

scot079 wrote in post #7321820
Funny you should ask...after about an hour of zooming in, testing and then adjusting the AF...I found out that @ about 35mm and wider, that adjustment was now off. So +15 was sort of in the middle, not perfect but I didn't want to change the AF microadjust every time I zoomed.

This is also why I chose the 35L