24-70mm Blurry Images Horror Stories

Seems silly, but did you put the 24-70 on your 50D and take some shots?

Your first post seems a bit "conspiricy theory" like. Shhhhhhh... you have uncovered Canon's dirty little secrect! The 24-70 f2.8L is a total piece of trash.

I hope not, mine hasn't gotten to me yet. I have to believe that you just got a bad copy. In my research I found almost no bad reviews of this lens. And the ones I did come across were so poorly written with such obvious technique problems that I had to wonder if the person using and reporting about the lens really knew what they were doing. Way too many good reviews to let a few bad reviews to make this into a bad lens.

I truely hope you get it fixed or flat out replaced, and soon. Good luck!

wow you have a great camera store!!!! take it back and then do some test shots with a different lens.

Walk away from this lens for peace of mind.

My brother has a "UW" code 24-70L and I have a "UV". His copy is sharper wideopen. After I sent my copy to canon they shipped it back and said it was "within spec". I'm disgusted knowing my bros copy is steller compared to mine. Mine is good but I know theres better copies.

No, I haven't tested the lens with my 50D, and I did it on purpose. Even if the lens would have performed better with that body, it wouldn't have helped me at all. I want my telephoto to stay in my 50D. It has performed awesomely there and I don't want to mess around with stuff I already get figured out.
I have so much not figured out yet that I rather leave the "wins" alone...

Plus, I would've done it if I had found the lack of sharpness with my cheap lens as well, God forbid.

Thank you for your comment.

Why don't you try the 24-70L on your 50D first? Maybe it's the combination of 40D +17-85 lens that is bad. Thus, when you use the combination together, they perform well. For example, if your 40D body is front-focusing by +20 and your 17-85 lens also is front-focusing by +20, when you use the combo together, the combo works perfectly. It doesn't hurt to try the 24-70L on 50D. It's not like your telephoto lens is gonna become less awesome if you unmount it from 50D and then mount it back on again later.

Can you post a sample image? Of all the "24-70 SOFT" posts, I've yet to see a truly SOFT image that was not from camera shake, back/front focus or poor technique, etc etc. I'm still searching for the elusive SOFT IMAGE, maybe you can help me locate it.

I owned a 24-70 that back focused on the wide end but was extremely sharp on the 70mm end and had tremendous color. I ended up selling it cause micro adjusting one end threw the other end off. So off to primes I went.

justaf IREMAN

I disagree with you; nevertheless, I will find the time, load the files and post the photos.

I believe that in the nowadays wonderful days of digital photography and awesome DSLR's, how bad do you really have to be shaking it to get it blurred? Plus, if many point the 24-70mm as a "walk around lens", then camera shaking should be solved with a simple switch of speed, exposure and AF-Drive settings.

No "walk around lens" should need a tripod to get it right.

No "walk around-1300 dollars-L series lens" should get me against a door frame to get it right.

The lens came back from the repair center with an ugly rap sheet of electrical and back focusing problems...but they said they had fixed it. It's not back focusing anymore, but its not really sharp at all. I'll prove it.

I agree with another post here that recommends taking it back to the store and testing on-site before you leave. Set up a "mobile" testing rig and set up right in the store and pixel peep to your heart's content! If you plan the shots out prior to I am sure it will go fast (i.e. 24mm at 2.8, 24mm at 4, 24mm at 5.6, etc) - seems like they are understanding, and probably do not want to lose a $1300 sale.

I would not keep that lens and keep trying for repairs. You have lost faith in it and it will never be right for you.

Best of luck...

Thank you javig999,...common sense "tells" me same. I apreciate it.

Juan,
I have one of those bricks and it works perfect maybe you just got a bad copy...BTW, post one example so we can see exactly what are you talking about.

Good luck...

I hope you find a solution. I really wish you luck with it. (Not being sarcastic) I've been trying to get a good one for years and went through many of them. I finally gave up and bought a Nikon 28-70. Oh well. I'm still kinda on the lookout for a good one though. If it's like any of the half dozen or so I had, it focuses well at 70mm and pretty lousy at 24mm. As it's a parfocal lens, I focused at 70mm and zoomed out to what I wanted. It works, but not a great solution. It made me miss a lot of shots.

If you bought a Tamron 28-75 2.8 right now people would be telling you to get a refund and buy an L.

But seeing as how you bought the L why not get a refund and get the Sigma 24-70 EX HSM, assuming you don't need weather sealing on all other grounds its as good or better in most respects, oh people complain about the 82mm filter thread, but hey its sharper and has less flare.

A chinese review translated by google
http://translate.googl​e.com …34847.html&sl=z​h-CN&tl=en

A quote from that review of the 24-70 L vs 24-70 EX vs 24-105 L
"In short, this time, And this is not a minor victory in a small victory, but in many respects, a comprehensive win, the local advantage is also very prominent."

Another test while we are at it
"Can we find any fault in the Sigma? Perhaps it’s not a fault but it’s worth notice that the Sigma is slightly worse than the Nikkor and the Zeiss. The second lens is a class of its own because the results of over 40 lpmm were optained even at maximum aperture. Nikkor was a tad worse than Zeiss but still better than Sigma. The Sigma was definitely better than the oldest of them all, the Canon 24-70 mm, for a change. Even if we take into account the fact, that the Canon was tested on a sensor the least densely packed with pixels, so we would have to increase its MTF 50 values by 10%, the results are still worse at all focal lengths. Do not forget that the Sigma is the cheapest, the smallest and the lightest lens of all compared here so it deserves a round of applause. Looking at the real images you can hardly notice any difference between this lens and the Nikkor or the Zeiss – if you do notice it, it will be only at maximum aperture."

http://lenstip.com …_DG_HSM_Introdu​ction.html

I would suggest to send both camera and lens to Canon Factory. Call them first and very likely they will cover the shipping since you just got it back.

I would be interested in seeing some photos. The 24-70mm is one of the lenses I'm considering.

What were the conditions / exif of the test shots? If you're doing them in darker conditions, then the 17-85, with it's lighter construction and IS, might well outperform the 24-70. In order to ensure that you're eliminating all possible variables, it is best to do test shots in a controlled environment with a tripod and in good light.