EF 24-70 MkII: Erratic performance

pwm2 wrote in post #15955624
So then you might tell what is wrong in this thread.

The only thing I have seen wrong is that the lens seem to be wrong. And a number of people seem to be busy defending the lens, not able to accept that sometimes a lens can be broken.

It's pathetic if people with problematic lenses will have to get them replaced in silence just to not get jumped.

What i also find strange is that people accept there are, or can be faulty copies (no lens is going to be 100%) yet attack those that have one.
Im not pointing any fingers in this thread but ive seen it happen.

dave_bass5 wrote in post #15955643
What i also find strange is that people accept there are, or can be faulty copies (no lens is going to be 100%) yet attack those that have one.
Im not pointing any fingers in this thread but ive seen it happen.

Some people fail to separate lens from person, so any critique of a lens (or camera) they own, must be aimed at them personally. And they then feel that they must protect their personal honor - or the honor of the lens. It always fails badly, but some people just aren't open-minded enough.

pwm2 wrote in post #15955645
Some people fail to separate lens from person, so any critique of a lens (or camera) they own, must be aimed at them personally. And they then feel that they must protect their personal honor - or the honor of the lens. It always fails badly, but some people just aren't open-minded enough.

"Criticize my ride, you criticize ME, holmes!"

Not too surprising about sensitivity and honor and ego associated with material possession. Unfortunate...but not surprising.

Folks, all we have here is a (rather expensive) piece of equipment which did not perform to expectation.

We don't know whether it's the fault of manufacturing, (like somebody sneezed while aligning a lens group or something... don't even know whether it's possible to affect the lens) whether it slipped QC, whether somebody dropped it unloading the truck, stocking it, loading it on the plane etc etc.

There is no sense in blaming anybody with so little information.

The system is such, that protects the consumer until the item performs to satisfaction (thank you B&H).

All I wanted was an answer to a simple question. Is this performance/problem common?

For the very simple reason, do I risk to go through it again, or just ask for a refund and go another route (there is the Canon EF 24-70 f4 IS, a slew of primes I can buy to cover the range, even a Tamron 24-70 VC).

The lens is back for an exchange, so my question got answered in a practical manner (and an emotional one I may add,... I want this lens!...).

So, chill out... the departed EF 24-70 is not your little sister and I am not you biker (common law) brother in law who abandoned her pregnant.... OK?...

Let's stop it here...

LOL Gerry.

I've been reading the thread with interest but no comments until now. Your last post put a smile on my face.

Thank you.

Not questioning your methods, given your real job background and all, I completely trust your findings. Being I just bought the same lens and am now questioning my copy, I'm 80% sure it's fine. Got some soft images, but was indoor, artificial lighting, low light, so I'm discounting the environment. I did download the same image you used and did some quick tests indoors and every image was sharp in the area of focus. So that gave me some relief.
One question though. Are you using single point focusing? I only ask as to replicate the same testing your doing. My apologies if covered, just didn't see it mentioned, doesn't mean it wasn't, thanks.

MakisM1 wrote in post #15955473
This in LiveView is front focusing. The one in my previous post, also at 35 mm but 36 in. with VF AF is backfocusing. Both cases by a lot...

If the test was good, the LV focus square was completely inside the target (the chess board, so it doesn't accidentally focuses on something else) and you had enough light, then it is very likely something is wrong. Your camera should rarely mis in these conditions. I would also replace the lens.

Yes, in the last test matrix, I used One-shot AF, center point focus.

Don't get too worried, mine rang the bell with seriously OOF photos in broad daylight. Photos in low light, CFL light (fluorescent) etc can be suspect.

One item that I did not mention, because it just dawned on me, the zoom collar was unusually stiff, much more so than my other 3 zooms. At the time I chalked it up to the brand new lens. When I started writing about the possibilities of being mishandled, it came up to mind. So, this may be an indication that something went wrong with this poor boy...

If you shoot the lens normally throughout the range outdoors with no visible problems, I wouldn't worry about it.

MakisM1 wrote in post #15956779
Yes, in the last test matrix, I used One-shot AF, center point focus.

Don't get too worried, mine rang the bell with seriously OOF photos in broad daylight. Photos in low light, CFL light (fluorescent) etc can be suspect.

One item that I did not mention, because it just dawned on me, the zoom collar was unusually stiff, much more so than my other 3 zooms. At the time I chalked it up to the brand new lens. When I started writing about the possibilities of being mishandled, it came up to mind.

If you shoot the lens normally throughout the range outdoors with no visible problems, I wouldn't worry about it.

Mine too. I have a 70-200 MKI IS 2.8 and a kit 17-85, the 24-70 is the stiffest zoom ring I own. Never gave it much thought.

My V1 gets a lot "stiffer" on camera. Might have something to do with the pumping nature and the weather sealing in the 1d.

Post #1122

https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=15957653#po​st15957653

Thank you for your condescending commentary... The lens is gone back now and the point is moot.