24-70 2.8 Softness at F2.8?

I've loved my 24-70 2.8 for the 3 years I've owned it. However, I have always noticed that it is a bit soft at 2.8 - 4.0 end. It sharpens up nicely after that.

After getting some negative feedback from reliable sources about the results I'm getting from my 24-70 2.8, I did a series of lens tests. Here are some of the results...

Is this normal?

Am I finally 'pixel peeping' too much?

2.8:

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

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

Yeah mine's a little fluffy wide open too...just add a little more USM, or send 'er in for calibration.

First, what normal person puts the detergent in before putting the clothes in?

Second, many if not most lenses are a bit soft wide open. What is acceptable can be a bit subjective, but if you really have a problem have Canon check it out, as was said above, but be aware that they adjust things within their specs, and what you get back may possibly be less sharp at the wide apertures than what you sent in.

ive thought mine is a little on the soft side wide open... seems that when i want wide open i reach for the 50 1.4 anways....

i dont know if its the same here in aus as over there in the states where you just send stuff back and get new ones.... seems over here you get what your given and just shut the hell up hehe

i have found the same thing with mine on a 5D, youre not alone.

mine is pretty sharp wide open, then again I don't really find your first pic to be soft.

mine is pretty good wide open too.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FOTOTIME

My 24-70mm looks the same wide open as the example you've posted. Frankly, I would be "satisfied enough" with the results you are seeing. Don't worry about it.

Thanks everybody for the replies. I feel a bit better. HOWEVER, that being said, I'm not happy that I have a 2.8 lens that does not provide tack sharp images wide open.

I've checked out http://the-digital-picture.com/, and it looks to me that the next best zoom option is the 16-35 2.8. I carefully checked out the 17-55 2.8 and found it to be soft, and I'm really concerned about the dust issue I've been reading about.

Any OPINIONS about what you'd replace your 24-70 2.8 with? I'm leaning on the 16-35 2.8 II. Thanks!!!

I get the same results at 24 but it gets much better towards 70 at 2.8

very few zooms do not sharpen up 1 or 2 stops down from wide open, so I don't know what would satisfy. Come to think of it, not too many primes are as sharp wide open as they are stopped down either.

[QUOTE=santabarbarapix​;5089239]Thanks everybody for the replies. I feel a bit better. HOWEVER, that being said, I'm not happy that I have a 2.8 lens that does not provide tack sharp images wide open.

I've checked out http://the-digital-picture.com/, and it looks to me that the next best zoom option is the 16-35 2.8. I carefully checked out the 17-55 2.8 and found it to be soft, and I'm really concerned about the dust issue I've been reading about.

Any OPINIONS about what you'd replace your 24-70 2.8 with? I'm leaning on the 16-35 2.8 II. Thanks!!![/quote]

no way the 16-35L II is as sharp wide open as the 24-70L. you either need to check your expectations or send your lens to canon.

ed rader

Yes but the 16-35 will be somewhere in the middle of its range @ 24mm and hence be sharper. I am thinking of getting the 16-35 2.8L as my next lens, everything ive seen so far about it is positive! Im not buying it due to the softness problem with my 24-70 2.8 though!

santabarbarapix wrote in post #5082826
Is this normal?

Yes.

santabarbarapix wrote in post #5082826
Am I finally 'pixel peeping' too much?

Yes.

santabarbarapix wrote in post #5089239
I'm not happy that I have a 2.8 lens that does not provide tack sharp images wide open.

You're using the wrong system. And I don't mean you should switch to Nikon.