sharp -24-70 en even better 17-40

I have used my canon 24-70 L for almost a year now- still struggeling getting spot on shoots. Inside - with flash - ( EX 420) superb. Outside - daylight - any fstop- mostly soft pics.
Bought a 17-40 too get a wider angle - wow- sharp all the time.
I remember when i bought the 24-70 someone in here said something like " -- it takes time to learn that lense - but IF u do its a winner ".
Well . has anybody experienced the same ? 24-70 not as sharp as u thought it would be ?

The only thing that comes immediately to mind is that it may have a problem with inaccurate autofocus.
Slight nearfocus for example will cause softness that is tricky to diagnose without a specific test

I have both lenses and I had the same issue. The 24-70 is now on my 20D most of the time because it is so versatile and I love the quality of the pictures I get, but the 17-40 is always a winner for me outdoors. I almost always have it for landscapes with the circular polarizing filter. It's the best lens for the money out there for that. But indoors, even with the 580, it's not as capable as the 24-70, IMO. I was one of the having the learning curve with the 24-70. But once I figured out that I had to find the focus point in a certain way, it's been a great lens.

Nilsen wrote in post #2070481
I have used my canon 24-70 L for almost a year now- still struggeling getting spot on shoots. Inside - with flash - ( EX 420) superb. Outside - daylight - any fstop- mostly soft pics.
Bought a 17-40 too get a wider angle - wow- sharp all the time.
I remember when i bought the 24-70 someone in here said something like " -- it takes time to learn that lense - but IF u do its a winner ".
Well . has anybody experienced the same ? 24-70 not as sharp as u thought it would be ?

sounds like you listened to .............well, you know who i mean .

i think the whole learning curve idea is rubbish. my 24-70L is sharp indoors or outdoors. so is my 17-40L.

i would recommend you send your 24-70L to canon if you are having a problem with softness.

ed rader

Just a quick question, how's the 16-35 compare to a 17-40?
Which would be better.
I have the 24-70 but am thinking about the 16-35.

Dusty wrote in post #2070687
Just a quick question, how's the 16-35 compare to a 17-40?
Which would be better.
I have the 24-70 but am thinking about the 16-35.

yea im wondering the same thing...

SuzyView wrote in post #2070669
I have both lenses and I had the same issue. The 24-70 is now on my 20D most of the time because it is so versatile and I love the quality of the pictures I get, but the 17-40 is always a winner for me outdoors. I almost always have it for landscapes with the circular polarizing filter. It's the best lens for the money out there for that. But indoors, even with the 580, it's not as capable as the 24-70, IMO. I was one of the having the learning curve with the 24-70. But once I figured out that I had to find the focus point in a certain way, it's been a great lens.

he's saying that his 24-70L is soft at all apertures outdoors. is that the same problem you had/have?

what do you mean by "find the focus point in a certain way"?

thanx,

ed rader

I agree with Ed about the learning curve. You set your camera to the settings you want to use (M, aV, tV, whatever) and focus and shoot. Not a huge curve there. What is a focus point? If I select the center AF point and try repeatedly to get the lens to focus using that point and it doesn't, then the lens is at fault.
I'm lost there with the learning curve - figuring out how to use your lens - focus point deal...
IMHO, the only learning curve lies with understanding DOF at 2.8 if you're unfamiliar with that.
Long story short, if your 17-40 focus' better and sharper at equal apertures than the 24-70, send the 24-70 in!

My 24-70L is quite sharp most all the time. With a flash, it's prime sharp. It's just insane. Flash photography is truly where the 24-70L excels.

thanx all for your respons - i am well aware of the Dof at 2,8 and so on.. ;.))
glad too hear that the 24-70 should be as sharp as the 17-40.
so i guess sime have the same problem - some dont - so i will start getting it checked out at at canon .

I will let u know how it turns out .

thanx again

Just to clarify, my 24-70 is wonderful. I have to hold my camera very steady. I was not used to the large lens, it's size and weight. Now I have no trouble with it at all. Just have to make sure the camera is steady before and after the shot. I saw my son holding the camera very steady when he used it because I told him I'd kill him if he dropped it and all his pictures came out superb. So, it was me. I focus, then shoot and have completely changed the way I hold my 20D with any lens. It's made a huge difference in my technique. I also use a monopod or tripod more now.

Dusty wrote in post #2070687
Just a quick question, how's the 16-35 compare to a 17-40?
Which would be better.
I have the 24-70 but am thinking about the 16-35.

If you needm the extra stop, go for it. The reviews have it more or less a wash with the 17-40 for IQ, contrast etc., and almost everyone LOVES their 17-40s...me included!

JNunn wrote in post #2071493
If you needm the extra stop, go for it. The reviews have it more or less a wash with the 17-40 for IQ, contrast etc., and almost everyone LOVES their 17-40s...me included!

17-40L is an excellent lens

I have 16-35 and 24-70. I love both. But please, there is something that makes 24-70 a unique, great lens. It is the general IQ impression.
24-70 is tack sharp and color-saturated from 2.8 on. If it is not the case with your lens, let Canon check it. Lenses produced before 2006 had some quality control issues.
16-35 is also sharp at 2.8, but the image is a little foggy. Regardless from this it is an excellent WA zoom.
If you want to compare, what a difference in IQ should be betwen 17-40 and 24-70 check the tests done by Johannes Huwe:
http://www.pbase.com/l​emonbase/review_canon_​24mm

SuzyView wrote in post #2071298
Just to clarify, my 24-70 is wonderful. I have to hold my camera very steady. I was not used to the large lens, it's size and weight. Now I have no trouble with it at all. Just have to make sure the camera is steady before and after the shot. I saw my son holding the camera very steady when he used it because I told him I'd kill him if he dropped it and all his pictures came out superb. So, it was me. I focus, then shoot and have completely changed the way I hold my 20D with any lens. It's made a huge difference in my technique. I also use a monopod or tripod more now.

yep, the 24-70L is a brute. like any other lens it needs to be held steady.

ed rader