Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM - The Brick

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10049642
Thanks...

This one is actually a TP-51C named "Betty Jane" and it belongs to the Collings Foundation located near Boston, Mass.

Wow, that really IS a verteran...and it does make the "brick" look good.
(Jay, it might even be older than ME...and it still works.) That's cool.

Ricardo222 wrote in post #10047060
I like the textures, too. And the colours and the composition. That's what afternoon walks are all about....messing about having fun. Any more?

Ricardo222 wrote in post #10049585
And this one is from OUR afternoon walk...well, evening really...and believe it or not there was only one minor levels adjustment as the exposure was 1/2 stop under....fairly common here at this time of year.

THanks Ricardo... Somehow your afternoon walk seems waaaaaay more interesting than mine. Lovely image...

I see so many amazing pics here from the 24-70 that I can only believe that you are the right people to ask about the quality of my copy. I'm not sure sometime I found my pics soft.

Thanks for your advice.

Sorry I have problem to add pics. Both pics were taken with my 40D using a tripod.

1st - taken at f5.0 - 30mm - 1/13sec
http://www.flickr.com …545569435/in/ph​otostream/

2nd taken at f8.0 - 45mm - 1/13sec
http://www.flickr.com …545570087/in/ph​otostream/

Gepetto wrote in post #10051504
I see so many amazing pics here from the 24-70 that I can only believe that you are the right people to ask about the quality of my copy. I'm not sure sometime I found my pics soft.

Thanks for your advice.

got any to show us? otherwise its kinda hard to tell. check your shutter speeds as camera shake happens, as i've learned since i got this lens.

Sorry I'm not able to add pics directly in the message.

"I see so many amazing pics here from the 24-70 that I can only believe that you are the right people to ask about the quality of my copy. I'm not sure sometime I found my pics soft.

Thanks for your advice.

Sorry I have problem to add pics. Both pics were taken with my 40D using a tripod."

1st - taken at f5.0 - 30mm - 1/13sec
http://www.flickr.com …/3327993...n/ph​otostream/

2nd taken at f8.0 - 45mm - 1/13sec
http://www.flickr.com …/3327993...n/ph​otostream/

Gepetto, check out this Sticky thread for some basic advice about focus problems:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=857871

Gepetto wrote in post #10051744
Sorry I'm not able to add pics directly in the message.

"I see so many amazing pics here from the 24-70 that I can only believe that you are the right people to ask about the quality of my copy. I'm not sure sometime I found my pics soft.

Thanks for your advice.

Sorry I have problem to add pics. Both pics were taken with my 40D using a tripod."

1st - taken at f5.0 - 30mm - 1/13sec
http://www.flickr.com …/3327993...n/ph​otostream/

2nd taken at f8.0 - 45mm - 1/13sec
http://www.flickr.com …/3327993...n/ph​otostream/

ya, and neither of those links work for me.

links don't work for me either.

I've learned since having this lens (not quite a week yet) is you have to watch the depth of field on this thing. I checked out a depth of field calculator, and depending on the focal length and aperature you select, the depth of field can get pretty thin.

for example, according to this calculator, if you shoot something at f/8 50mm and 3 feet away from the subject, your depth of field is only 0.32 feet (not quite 4 inches). if you take it down to f/4 with the same distance and focal length, it's now 0.16 feet (almost 2 inches).

the other day i shot something at f/2.8, 70mm, and 3 feet away, and wondered why it didn't look all that sharp. the depth of field was only 0.06 feet ( 0.72 inches).

Pward1980 wrote in post #10052840
links don't work for me either.

I've learned since having this lens (not quite a week yet) is you have to watch the depth of field on this thing. I checked out a depth of field calculator, and depending on the focal length and aperature you select, the depth of field can get pretty thin.

for example, according to this calculator, if you shoot something at f/8 50mm and 3 feet away from the subject, your depth of field is only 0.32 feet (not quite 4 inches). if you take it down to f/4 with the same distance and focal length, it's now 0.16 feet (almost 2 inches).

the other day i shot something at f/2.8, 70mm, and 3 feet away, and wondered why it didn't look all that sharp. the depth of field was only 0.06 feet ( 0.72 inches).

Excuse me for possibly being an ignoramous, but my understanding is that within reason lenses at identical focal lengths and apertures will have similar depth of focus whether it's a prime or a zoom.

The EF 24-70 L is a pretty good lens (though I believe there is the odd bad copy out there), but it ain't perfect. I would not expect to obtain a perfectly sharp capture at 70mm and f2.8. But there are times when I would rather grab a shot wide open when no alternative is offered.

If you HAVE to use it wide open or close to wide open, at the longer focal lengths focus will be critical...as it is on all longer focal lengths.
Anyone who is having consistant "softness" problems (phew!) and who has a camera that allows it, should check the micro-focus. But do so with care...I've heard of people getting paranoid about this and resorting to "over-testing"! When I changed from 5d to 5d2 I found that my lens improved a little on +5. I'ts not much of a change but I could see it in the work I was doing.

There's so much more than this to image sharpness that people have written books about it. In general though, good technique and a bit of care will see you through. One possible help may be to be aware of which AF point your camera is "seeing". I tend to just use the centre point a lot to establish my required focal point then change to manual. That works well in many confusing situations.

Kristy wrote in post #10050720
THanks Ricardo... Somehow your afternoon walk seems waaaaaay more interesting than mine. Lovely image...

Thank you Kristy. Here is the reason that I walk EVERY day, rain or shine. Harry (foreground) and Maggie.
Taken on the 24-70 at 70mm, demonstrating that is a great "snap-shot" lens as well as anything else.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

great shot Ricardo.

since having this lens, for about 2 months now, I've found that i need to work on my composure and technique. Sometimes a picture might look good on the lcd but when i view it on my computer screen i see that camera shake may have rendered the image useless. My main walk-around lens before this one was the 18-55 with IS, so ya i see the difference with the non-IS.

On another evening walk...a cafe over the water...

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Old photo that did not make the cut, but its back in the game again...

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Just a quick question to you guys. I got this lens at Craigslist locally and it`s a 2003 date code 24-70L with minor scratches that goes along where the 2.8L mark is on the zoom dial (Very small). Lens is in great shape.
Seller actually posted it in excellent condition. My only concern is he bought it brand new last 2003 and probably never sent it back to Canon for calibration and cleaning. The lens has a very tiny hair (Like 2 dots long) inside The lens takes sharp picture hair doesn`t affect the images taken. AF motor is flawless, very smooth compare to my brand new Sigma 50 f1.4

Should I send it Canon for cleaning and calibration? How much?

If I sell this, what is a good price for it? No lowballing price...

Here are the pictures of the actual lens.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'