Canon EF 24-70 L MkII

Two weeks ago I received a brand new EF 24-70 L MkII from B&H. A problematic lens...

I documented my experience here:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1301124

under the heading 'EF 24-70 MkII: Erratic performance',

asking for other members' experience on front/back focus issues, so I could make up my mind whether to go for an exchange or refund.

I was amazed at the attitude of a significant portion of the responses. They reacted as if I injured a family member...

I got a lot of reaction blaming

My technique

That I didn't shoot 'enough' 'real world photos'

That I shot test photos

That I used a cheap unsophisticated rig to test, thereby annulling my conclusion (this was in the EF 24-70 MkII official thread, I was accused for using a 'sledgehammer' in essence, to evaluate a precision instrument).

Ok folks...

I decided that I wanted this lens to work for me, so I asked B&H for an exchange. They accepted my reasoning (without having to submit any proof, unless they read POTN and were expecting my return..) and shipped me another copy the moment they got my return.

I went out and shot 69 photos of anything that moved or didn't... All keepers except 1... my fault.. camera shake (my hands were trembling...).

Well how about tests? Was I too severe, was my testing methodology wrong, maybe I shouldn't keep sledgehammers around precision instruments?

Here is how the sledgehammer works when the instrument is precise!

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …22in_zpsfa7d340​e.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …22in_zps12fbb1e​8.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …22in_zps6532c85​6.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …22in_zpsad42cbe​1.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …36in_zps723928d​1.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …36in_zps4d29ca2​8.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …36in_zps6a56fab​7.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …36in_zps5bf4dbd​e.jpg.html

... and here is the 'real world' shot that shook me!...

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …1024_zpsf12a1d3​6.jpg.html

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …crop_zpsae083ff​e.jpg.html

I never test lenses but if you do and know you have a problem either have the lens replaced or return it and get something else.

Glad you stuck with it. I remember your first thread and its a shame it went the way it did.
Sometimes people cant see that someone knows how to use a camera and knows when a lens is bad (or not as it should be).
The fact that you can now take, and post spot on images (or at least much better) shows it wasn't down to your technique at all.
Ive noticed in a few threads that as soon as a poor image has been posted all hell breaks loose, and everything about that one images is picked apart, no matter if the OP has said its on a majority of shots.
Its a great lens, but some need to realise not all are built equal. Although at that price they should be.

I always test my lenses quite a bit when I receive them to see if there are any issues... Usually, wide angle lenses with decentering. My first 24-70 II for example was on the right side... Always soft regardless of aperture... I even sent to Canon and they tried to fix it, but no luck. I exchanged it when I got it back and the new one was flawless across the frame. So it was worth it.

Always trust your gut though, or you will never be happy with it!

Yes, you have to be happy with it otherwise you might not use it much, and then resent it.

Although ive got FoCal (that i dont really use) ive devised my own real world tests at work.

Ive been working in the same large office for almost 30 years, and each new lens turns up here.
I shoot the fire extinguisher from my desk, the year planner on the wall, with the numbers on the very edge of the frame, and the extractor fans as they have very small writing on the bearing covers.
As i know i can get almost perfect shots from all these targets any faulty lens will show up. I know its not scientific but if i cant get a decent shot of these then ill investigate further before returning a lens. I do this the moment i get the lens and it works for me. In fact i trust these tests more than i do FoCal.
So far all my lenses are still not using any MFA, although i wouldn't worry if they did need it. Im sure i might be able to squeeze a bit more sharpness out of them with MFA but im happy with what im seeing so far.

"Trust but verify..."

If it was good enough for Ronald Reagan, sure 's good enough for me!...

Oh yeah, trust my eyes and if i dont like what i see, then verify using a more scientific method.
The thing is these tests are taken hand held as thats how id been shooting most of the time. If i had to use LV and a tripod just to get a sharp shot with a certain lens, then the lens is no good to me, even if that test did prove it was working.

So far the only lens ive really had an issue with (over the past 8 years) has been the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 IS and Sigma 30mm f1/.4 And my tests above showed this moments after getting them.

Well, coming back with a small minority of keepers was not the best introduction for my first copy... Hence the testing.

I have a highrise downtown Houston that I use for quicky AF testing, because its windows will only show if the lens is sharp.

Comparing the first copy to my EF 70-200 found it wanting. Could see the windows, but barely so. Enter the second copy two weeks later... It wouldn't even AF on the building! I almost had a heart attack... Turns out that in the meantime, leaves from surrounding treas grew into the space making it impossible to AF. My 18-200 did very well thank you... I think it has to do with the better AF with an f2.8 lens which forces it to pick the leaves.

I went to the street, my wife carrying the 18-200 for comparison shots. Came back with all keepers, but one. Even this was my fault, too slow shutter speed.

Here is a comparison of the two... 100% crops

IMAGE LINK: http://s37.photobucket​.com …ison_zps508f3aa​c.jpg.html