Trying to love my 24-70mm but...

I have not done a focus test yet. What is a standard procedure for that? Thank you.

post some pics

I was never fully happy with the sharpness of the 24-70 MK I either. Always felt like a compromise every time I used it. Not that its not a great lens, but sharpness is not its forte. Of course sharpness isn't the only criteria to evaluate a lens upon, but from a comparative standpoint, there are a lot of sharper lenses out there.

daystar wrote in post #15798970
I'm assuming you keep your shutter button pressed half-way after you get focused @ 70mm and then zoom out? I'll try that. I've had the lens probably a year now but haven't had much use with it as I have been so stupidly busy that I can barely manage to remember I actually have a photography interest! lol I'll test your suggestions for sure! Thank you!

I use back button focusing. I zoom to 70, pick something with contrast, like the eyes, and press the focus button. Then zoom out to whatever view I want, recompose, and hit the shutter.

dbld49 wrote in post #15801705
I use back button focusing. I zoom to 70, pick something with contrast, like the eyes, and press the focus button. Then zoom out to whatever view I want, recompose, and hit the shutter.

For what those cost should you go to all that trouble?

Elfstop wrote in post #15801735
For what those cost should you go to all that trouble?

It works fine for me. Plus it nails focus nearly all the time, so I don't consider it troubling. I can do it pretty quick.

dbld49 wrote in post #15801705
I use back button focusing. I zoom to 70, pick something with contrast, like the eyes, and press the focus button. Then zoom out to whatever view I want, recompose, and hit the shutter.

I'm surprised that works, considering the lens isn't parfocal

DreDaze wrote in post #15802026
I'm surprised that works, considering the lens isn't parfocal

I was just thinking the same thing. It isn't parfocal, but it's not too far off, plus going wide will hide the focus error I'd imagine.

Granted, I can't relate to all of these "I hate my 24-70" threads. I bought mine new back in 09 and it's still stupid sharp. I'm actually worried that it will come back from Canon less sharp than it is now, as I have to send it in for repair.

daystar wrote in post #15798985
And I had my hopes up...thank you for clarifying.

you mean thanks for crushing your fantasies !

mandon wrote in post #15799419
the same with me...i am starting to hate my 24 70, for the price i paid for it...its not just worth it....heck on bright day my kitlens takes better picture than the brick and it has been to canon for calibration twice....

the back asswards zoom design of the brick contributed to it's focus issues and need for massive, bag hogging bucket hood. of course a few years back here many were calling it a "superior" design.

I had two copies of the brick. the first copy was pretty good the second was excellent.

ed rader wrote in post #15802136
the back asswards zoom design of the brick contributed to it's focus issues and need for massive, bag hogging bucket hood. of course a few years back here many were calling it a "superior" design.

I had two copies of the brick. the first copy was pretty good the second was excellent.

I kinda miss the bucket hood. PITA to store in a bag, but it looks badass when mounted on the lens.

There seems to be a wide variety of sharpness issues with this lens. Mine is sharp as a tack and I'm always amazed when I use it.

i suppose every person has their own standard for what constitutes a proper image. All of my lenses are L and I'm at a point where sharpness doesn't have the final say in what constitutes a beautiful photograph. When I want sharpness I am usually looking at the eyes and maybe hair and clothing texture. Many years ago when I shot with a Rebel+kit lens I purchased the 24-70 and believed it to be a substantial upgrade. Sharpness and contrast were among the first features to catch my eye. I shot with that lens for 4 years and constantly found myself in awe of the clarity and sharpness at all apertures. My problem with the lens ultimately boiled down to what I felt was a unsatisfactory focal length. When the 24-70 was announced I was quite hesitant to believe that further sharpness could be obtained from this lens. Sample images revealed it was possible and I clearly had different expectations from what a standard zoom could deliver.

I often wonder why sharpness enthusiasts don't simply purchase more Zeiss glass. It seems to me that this is a feature best utilized for landscape anyways. As far as portraits go (my primary and only subject matter for 13 years now) I don't see [Ultimate] sharpness as being critical because most of my clients really print at around 5x7 to 8x10 and sometimes 11x14 and 16x20 - point being that in the more rare cases of enlargements like 16x20 or even 24x30 you can sharpen in software if you're not completely satisfied with the output.

Hopefully your lens is well calibrated and in good working order. I know I've had to put all of my lenses through 1 or more calibrations for optimal performance. If you do feel that it's been pushed to full optimization and your images are still unsatisfactory, at least there are the options of better glass out there. As I said, my copy always shined at producing crisp, defined images. This lens certainly has great potential as its legacy will prove, but unfortunately that potential isn't always delivered straight out of the box as many others have discovered as well.

ed rader wrote in post #15802136
the back asswards zoom design of the brick contributed to it's focus issues and need for massive, bag hogging bucket hood. of course a few years back here many were calling it a "superior" design.

I had two copies of the brick. the first copy was pretty good the second was excellent.

I still think it's a superior design because I'm a klutz always knocking it against doorways and chairs.

I've owned three copies of the V1, and none were particularly sharp. They were all mediocre at best.