24-70mm Blurry Images Horror Stories

OK. No pics so nothing happened!

Hey all, i just got my new canon 24-70 lens today and I'm kinda scared if i'll end like Juan. Is there any way or should I say what is the best way for me to test my focus on the lens? Can someone point me to a website or show me how? The lens have a date code of UY01 (which is basically manufactured this month) so hopefully i'll be one of the lucky ones to get a sharp copy. thanks. much appreciated.

Doesn't micro adjust on the camera help this issue?

Chet wrote in post #9500861
Doesn't micro adjust on the camera help this issue?

MA helps with front/back focus issues, the problem is when you MA on one end the other end is also affected. Best thing to do is MA on the long end which yields a shallower DOF, then the wide end's front/back focus is not that noticeable since the DOF is not as shallow.

I think the problem with the soft/blurry images are due to AF, shutter speed, high ISO, poor technique and so on. This is why there's numerous request for a sample image so some of those things can be ruled out.

7Dshutterboy wrote in post #9500809
Hey all, i just got my new canon 24-70 lens today and I'm kinda scared if i'll end like Juan. Is there any way or should I say what is the best way for me to test my focus on the lens? Can someone point me to a website or show me how? The lens have a date code of UY01 (which is basically manufactured this month) so hopefully i'll be one of the lucky ones to get a sharp copy. thanks. much appreciated.

I only test when I think there is a problem, after using it shooting "real" stuff.

I suggest you do the same.

bohdank wrote in post #9500932
I only test when I think there is a problem, after using it shooting "real" stuff.

I suggest you do the same.

++++1 on this.

Juan Huerta wrote in post #9498264
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 disagree with you on a few of these points. It doesn't matter what kind of lens it is, if you don't have proper technique your photos will not turn out well. To say that DSLR's this day in age are awesome (which in most respects they are) does not rule out the importance of proper handholding technique.

So say that a walk around lens doesn't need a tripod is not a function of the lens, its a function of your technique and ability. If you can't focus or hold a camera correctly, then maybe you do need a tripod.

Steadying yourself against solid objects such as doorframes or trees may be a necessity depending on the situation, I'm not sure why the cost of the lens would have any bearing on that.

Your lens may in fact be very bad, but saying that an expensive lens is supposed to automatically improve your skills is simply false.

For the record, my 24-70mm is tack sharp at 50-70mm, gets a bit less so at 24-50mm, but still perfectly workable.

OK, I took sometime to come up with some sort of "standardized" test for both lenses on my 40D body. For that, I decided not to monkey around and let the camera decide under the "some light" conditions of my kitchen. Here you are. By the way, thank you to all the ones adding their two cents into this. Lloyd, I checked your stuff out and you are one awesome wedding photographer; I also appreciate your input.

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

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

Nate P. wrote in post #9501052
Your lens may in fact be very bad, but saying that an expensive lens is supposed to automatically improve your skills is simply false.

Gee, I looked into the stuff I have posted here and don't remember saying that I wanted the L-series to improve my skills. I am just concerned about the lack of sharpness on such expensive lens, right out of the box, that's all.

And for the records, I was right. The Factory Repair Service report states that after running their tests they DID find out the lens was in really bad shape, optically and electrically speaking.

They did fix the back-focusing problem, but it seems to me like:

1- Again, a 1300 dollars lens, so-called "for everything" lens should not throw me againts the wall or confine me to a tripod to get a freaking clear shot. C'MON! I DO, I DO know that from time to time I MIGHT NEED TO USE THE WALL OR THE TRIPOD..I DO, I DO I DO KNOW THAT...

2- I DO, I DO, I DO know that going all the way manual and learning from the masters to develop my own skills will be the ultimate thing to do to get good photographs...

But still, these 24-70mm shots STINK.

if you got a good copy of it and has made you rich taking the sharpest shots in the history of photography I AM SO HAPPY FOR YOU! Some people's got it, some others don't.

For the rest of you guys, tahnk you for your input and reasoning...it has really helped.

It's past midnite now ya'll...got a get some rest and keep on dreaming of a good "great-for-everyday-photography" L series lens for my 40D.

Nite.

Juan,

Looking at the photos I see a problem. Your comparing f/2.8 photos to f/5.6. Its obvious the f/5.6 will be significantly sharper. Your testing technique is not really comparing apples to apples.

I would start off by taking pictures of a human subject. Start with head shots so that you can start comparing eyelash detail. I often do this quick test because you can differentiate clarity of the eylelashes.

My brothers copy was sharper wideopen compared to my copy.

If your doing any testing at a camera store bring a friend and do quick headshots and pixel peep with your 50D.

your test is also quite flawed. youre letting the camera decide for you what is best and it chose 2.8 on the L lens and 5.6 on the cheap lens. comparisons in sharpness should always be compared using as much consistency as possible. same FL, same aperture, same shutter speed same iso same camera and so on. that is the only way to test the sharpness of a lens.

why let the camera decide what to use then complain that its not sharp. there are ways to make it sharp, you just havent done it yet

Juan Huerta wrote in post #9498264
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.

what is your definition of a "walk around lens"? a lens in which you can walk around and take pics without the need to use a support device to get clear pics? for most i think a good "walk around lens" is a lens that has good useable focal length for general use. alot say it is the 17-40, 24-70, and 24-105. it goes pretty wide and has good zoom. useable for close quarters or if youre kind of far.

if you think a good walk around lens is not needing a support device to get clear pics then you you might be unhappy for a long time. what happens if you were to "walk around" into a dark place or a spot that is heavily covered and dark. do you walk around at night? im sure you do. you cant control light unless you carry around flashes and soft boxes and umbrellas and light stands no matter where you go.

cameras are pretty advance. the 1300 L lens you buy is to help you in these given situations with light control. i bet if you walk into a dark room with no support device the 24-70 will get a better shot given it can go to 2.8 and your 17-85 cannot. but the 17-85 has a support device of its own... IS. all this is given to you to aid you and use your knowledge in taking photos to help you. same goes for tripods and "walls"

there is never a lens or camera that will do "everything" thats why they offer so many different lenses and camera bodies. thats why they make tripods and lights and stands. if there is a lens that you can use to walk around and "do everything" that would be one expensive lens and camera.

put me inline for the new camera that does 1,000,000 iso with no noise, 100 AF points on a FF. 20 fps, and a 16-500 1.2. now i can walk around and do everything

APPLES TO APPLES...sharp to crappy.
Full manual test

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

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

AlanU wrote in post #9502256
Juan,

Looking at the photos I see a problem. Your comparing f/2.8 photos to f/5.6. Its obvious the f/5.6 will be significantly sharper. Your testing technique is not really comparing apples to apples.

The 17-85mm shots are of course going to be at f/5.6 because they were taken at the long end of the lens. The OP, I am sure, bought the 24-70mm to shoot at f/2.8. Besides that, since the lens is a f/3.5-5.6 lens, wouldn't the shot be considered to be "wide open" and the "sweet spot" for that lens being f/8 to f/11?

Juan, that really is unacceptable IQ.

I agree with persephone...if you purchased a lens to use at 2.8, you want to use it there. My last canon 24-70 was way better than that but I had another copy that I wasn't happy with.

Now that test there shows a real comparison. And yes the cheap lens is quite sharper. Did you use a tripod? Hand holding at 70mm at 1/20 with no IS is not that stable