24-70 copy a dud?

I don't know if it is me, my 40D or my new Brick. I haven't taken my 24-70 off of my camera since I bought it 8/31/09. That is kind of what I had in mind when I bought it. I've been noticing that none of the pictures really pop. Most are kind of dull. I wonder if I should send it back or send it to Canon. Or is it just me. I was using my 50 1.8 for my go to lens.

Here is an about average exposure. Any suggestions?

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

Its not the lens or any of the equipment for that matter...

what are your settings?
Is the photo you posted processed?
Are you shooting Raw or Jpeg?

Im 99% sure this is user error/ impossible expectations..

Here are a bunch from my daughter's wedding last weekend.
http://www2.snapfish.c​om …k/COBRAND_NAME=​bellsouth/
I always shoot raw. Some of the pictures are pretty good. I just thought I was good enough to have more good ones.

Its just you

to view those you have to join snapfish.. unless I am missing something... david.. you need to tell me if the shot you posted was processed or not... If you shoot raw you ALWAYS need to edit... there is not excuse not to...

I do some level of post work on most of them, at least click white balance and adjust exposure.

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

What aperature are you typically shooting at?

NO pop? I certainly isn't due to the "brick"

I dont see anything wrong with the pictures as far as color/sharpness. What are you unhappy with specifically? Do you typically get "better" results from your 50, or other lenses for that matter? It is not the lens which will make a photo "pop."
-Trevor

dcsmith40D wrote in post #8803329
I do some level of post work on most of them, at least click white balance and adjust exposure.

First, something is not right or natural about this shot. Looks like the sun or the main light source is the overhead. You tried to expose the shot, the shadow which is in front of you, using the flash. The issue is that the background isn't properly illuminated because your ISO was too low or too fast of the shutter speed. And the glow on top of his hair isn't going to make the shot to pop...

I had this lens and hated it. Without due processing, it was boring. Not sharp across the field in a brick wall scenario, which was my biggest complaint. At least at 2.8-4, I thought it was a dog. Might have been my copy, but I also had a 28-70 with similar qualities. (I'm sure some will say it was me, as they are saying here that its you. However, I love my other Canon lenses!) I gave up on the Canon mid-zooms and went to a converted Zeiss. Maybe the 24-105 is nicer, but I've seen posts here that make it sound like something is lacking also.

If you can't swap copies at your dealer, maybe rent one and compare. You can always send back to Canon for a tune, I suppose. I never bothered -- for the price of an L it should be all it can be out-of the box.

TooManyShots wrote in post #8803774
First, something is not right or natural about this shot. Looks like the sun or the main light source is the overhead. You tried to expose the shot, the shadow which is in front of you, using the flash. The issue is that the background isn't properly illuminated because your ISO was too low or too fast of the shutter speed. And the glow on top of his hair isn't going to make the shot to pop...

Damn dude I liked that one.

ISO 200

AV 4.5

TV 1/160