NEW Images with NEW Canon 24-70L -- Take a look --

I took some more images this weekend with my new Canon 24-70L -- WIll you take a look at these and let me know if they are sharp, soft, and etc. These images are 100% cropped. I used the 580 EX flash on some of the, Thanks for the critiques. Jimmy

http://www.pbase.com/j​imchapin468/inbox

Hello Jim:

The portraits look pretty good as far as far sharpness goes........the flower shots are pretty soft but it looks more like focussing error than a lens problem. DoF is very narrow and it somtimes helps to use a tripod when doing macro shots. The duck shot is definitely not in focus.......

Given that this lens costs new nearly what I paid for all my current lenses put together here in the Uk I would be VERY disappointed. But we all know this lens has its firm advocates and equally firm distractors ... maybe more than any other lens around.

schmoelzel mentions the term 'pretty good' and I think the best shots are pretty good ... but is that good enough for a £900 + lens? I'd expect my hair to curl for that money

Hard to say if it's a lens issue or not. It's not a Macro but I would expect better unless you just didn't take note of focus, which I doubt! Do you have shaky hands? The kids are also a bit one dimensional for me ... or rather the photo's are: I'm sure the kids are well rounded personalities The images just don't leap out at me.

Just my view and sorry if it's a downer. You did ask

i have always had a soft spot for the 24-70 because i know what i went through to get one that was perfect, and even then i don't feel it was what it should be for the price. what i would do with the one you own at this time is to either try another one, or send it and the body in for calibration as i do not see anything being sharp. the cake shot should have been sharp as a tack no matter what aperture you used, but it is rather soft, indicating a focus problem or the lens being outside the AF specs..............i don't compare apples to oranges, but you should be able to get sharper images from the 24-70

Did you use any sharpening on these images? I looked a the cake shot and it lacks a little 'bite' (pardon the pun). Are you on a tripod, because when you are so close up, millimetres can throw the focus.
Sorry to call your technique into question, but it needs to be removed from the equasion, so we can see if it is the lens or not. I trust they are wide open.

Graham

Jim, is is stricly necessary to send private messages about this subject ? It seems you have posted only about that 24-70 subject in the last 2 weeks or so. Why send private messages randomly like this ? I don't even own a 24-70!

not so

Have you taken a look at this link?
http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html

Without knowing the focal length/aperture/distan​ce you took the cake shot I wouldn't conclude that the lens is defective. For example, a photo taken with an aperture of 2.8 @ 24mm; at a distance of 1 1/2 ft yields a DoF of 1 inch. Increasing the focal length from the same distance only narrows the DoF. Such a tiny depth of field would lead one to view the cake shot in totally different way, no?

ayotnoms wrote:
not so

Have you taken a look at this link?
http://www.dofmaster.c​om/dofjs.html

Without knowing the focal length/aperture/distan​ce you took the cake shot I wouldn't conclude that the lens is defective. For example, a photo taken with an aperture of 2.8 @ 24mm; at a distance of 1 1/2 ft yields a DoF of 1 inch. Increasing the focal length from the same distance only narrows the DoF. Such a tiny depth of field would lead one to view the cake shot in totally different way, no?

hey, no argument..............​.my 24-70 would be sharp at f/2.8 all the way out to f/16 at any zoom setting. when it focused on something, it was sharp at the focus point. the cake shot looks to be close enough that any range in the zoom at any aperture would have been sharper.
in this obvious range, bokeh is the only thing that would have been either sharper or blurrier.
now, as i only picked out the cake shot to comment on, i'll conclude that the flower shots are also quite soft, actually, they are all downsized pics so i would conclude again that all the shots are not what this lens is capable of.........

here is a flower shot that is clearly sharp..............and it was handheld, straight out of the 20D

http://www.pbase.com …ind4/image/4469​6035/large

Summerwind did you take that picture -- If so very nice.

How many revisions did you have to go through to get a good lense? Jimmy

jimchapin468 wrote:
Summerwind did you take that picture -- If so very nice.

How many revisions did you have to go through to get a good lense? Jimmy

for the 24-70, i went through 3 copies to get a good one, and the one i finally kept was a cherry pick from a total of 3 more. the shop got tired of me coming back to exchange (although they agreed that the first 2 were duds) so they brought in 3 more.
i've since sold that one as i decided to buy the 20D and after getting it and the 17-85IS (which took those pictures) i was so pleased with the 17-85 that i sold the 17-40 and the 24-70.

That's the point I was trying to make. The closeness of the picture dictates what is going to be in focus and what will fall outside the range of sharp focus. The cake shot is most likely -absent detailed information of how the photo was taken- the victim of a shallow depth of field, not a "bad copy".

sharper bokeh?

OK, that just blew my mind

ayotnoms wrote:
That's the point I was trying to make. The closeness of the picture dictates what is going to be in focus and what will fall outside the range of sharp focus. The cake shot is most likely -absent detailed information of how the photo was taken- the victim of a shallow depth of field, not a "bad copy".

sharper bokeh?

OK, that just blew my mind

OK, i can see you are going to make an issue of this, so yes, i used the wording in the wrong fashion..............t​he shot depending on aperture could have had more or less bokeh..there, happy now.

as for the cake, your explanation is a little insane."absent detailed info?"...........give me a break.

the cake shot should have looked something like this............and i doubt he was shooting within 1 foot distance.

http://www.pbase.com/s​ummerwind4/image/40658​026

Why yes I am. Many thanks

summerwind4 wrote:
as for the cake, your explanation is a little insane."absent detailed info?"...........give me a break.

"detailed information" = "What was the distance between camera and subject?" "What was the aperture?" "What focal length was used?" So, that's what qualifies for insane? Well, I guess I should start packing for my stay at the laughing academy then. Without that kind of information, a person is likely to offer an uninformed opinion.

Oh well. Since the guy has already returned the "bad copy" we can review this again in a few days.

Cheers.

First photo with a Canon 24-70mm, 70mm focal length, f/2.8 from 18" away.
The second shot same camera , same focal length, aperture f/22, and same distance. Many more of the petals are in focus with the f/22.

That's the only point I was trying to make. Badly, evidently....

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

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