24-70mm Blurry Images Horror Stories

diputs wrote in post #9505865
I am an idiot, and my pictures suck, but I know there a very small chance of getting a tack sharp image handheld at 70mm with the 24-70 at 1/20 on a 1.6x camera.

It's just physics.

Yup.

The Canon 24-70 f/2.8L is a fantastic lens and is incredibly sharp as long as you stop down past f/3.2. Wide open it's a bit soft.

Yes, as with any lens there can be bad copies. There can also be cases where both the lens and camera are just within factory acceptable tolerance, but when you combine the two together you get a bad result. Also, the 24-70 is a bit of a beast for some to use. It takes some time for some people to get used to the weight.

Summary of problems:

- Bad copies of the lens (I'm betting very few)
- Camera's AF out of calibration (likely as probable as a bad copy of the lens)
- Camera and lens both marginally within tolerance creating a bad combination
- Used to using IS and shooting with too low a shutter-speed
- Unsteady technique due to the weight
- User having poor technique and not used to shooting with fast glass (thin DOF). Example: swaying back and forth slightly before completing the shot.
- Too high an expectation of sharpness with the lens wide open. The Canon MTF charts indicate the lens should be slightly soft at f/2.8, so I don't understand why some folks feel a miracle is going to happen for them

IMO anyone that has tried multiple copies of this lens and gets soft images when stopped down a bit (f/4 or f/5.6) either has a problem with the calibration of their camera or has poor technique. Could also be that they expect the zoom to be as sharp as a Zeiss prime, which isn't going to happen.

Hers's a nice little prime lens that's the same price as the 24-70 f/2.8L and is reported to be super sharp. I suppose it's garbage though since it doesn't have IS ... or even the ability to auto-focus! Pictures using it will probably be really blurry. j/k

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ephoto_85mm_f_1​_4_ZE.html

From personal attacks to lessons on photography and English grammar...this has really gotten out of hand.

And just to make matters worse, somebody suggest that a prime, fixed lens will put a smile on my face, as long as I learn to use everything manually, that is.

Wow.

I just wanted a "standard' L- series lens, ya'll. Like some will say,...a lens that lives in my cam for "almost" every "photojournalist" work.

Not a tack, sharp prime for special assignments,... just some decent sharpness based on the standards set by the camera program, so I could move on.

I failed to upload the report that Canon sent me. I keep mentioning that but folks don't seem to care.

I own another beast, the 70-200mm. Of course, IS is a plus...but the over all quality of the images are top, top...

Juan,
Even if you compare 70-200 F2.8IS with the "new" 70-200 F4.0 IS you will see that F4.0 is sharper than the 2.8 but the F4 doesn't have the bokeh of the F2.8. It is newer technology. Now, take that 70-200 that you have turn off the IS and then shoot at 200mm with a speed of 1/20 and see the results. It will not be tack sharp. You must follow the rule of thumb the speed must match the lenght if you want to have "sharp" pics. My hands are not that steady so I have to shoot at a higher speed. I'm sorry that you feel the way you feel but the test that you showed us are not good because it maybe your hands not the glass. I think that 24-105 F4 IS will be a better fit for you. Most of the comments may sound harsh but they are correct MOST of the time it is user error but then again you might have a bad copy... but you need to test it correctly to determine is its a bad copy or user error.

Good luck...
KC

Juan,
After reading almost 100 posts for you thread, I deserve to know what's the real problem.
So please stop complaining, be a bit more pragmatic, and follow this procedure:

1. Get a tripod.

2. Tilt the camera 45 degrees, so that it points to the center of a perfectly flat page of newspaper.
You will have:

[]= /

where "[]" is the body, "=" is the lens and "/" is the tilted page

3. Set your camera timer to 10 seconds.

4. Enable center point focusing ONLY.

5. Set camera to aperture priority.

6. Set lens wide open to f/2.8

7. Focus on the text line in the center of the sheet of newspaper.

8. Press the shutter button.

9. Wait for the timer to release the shutter. In case of sudden earthquake, goto step 7

10. Post the photo you get, MUST include EXIF data, along with a 100% center crop.

Then we'll finally know and tell you what's the main problem almost for sure.
Thanks !

Juan Huerta wrote in post #9502457
Well, it's all hand-held,...I am telling you man...I am no PRO, just really getting into this business, but my little, tiny visual experience tells me that THERE IS NO WAY ON EARTH I am paying 1300 dollars to get that image when my plastic, cheap kit lens get that other one...HAND HELD!!!!!!

.

you cant hold a 24-70 at on 70 end at 1/20th of a sec and expect it to be sharp unless you were some kind of ex-sniper or something. probably the cause of your soft images at the moment. all seems to be user errors.

your cheap lens can get the shot because it has IS. the 24-70 does not. the reason why the 24-70 is 1300 as compared to the $300 17-85 is because of the build, sealing, materials, and the constant 2.8 and glass coatings. should test it outside in bright light or use a tripod. if you can get sharp images then, its all user error. $1300 lens wont fix user error.

Again, for the thousands time. Canon tested this lens and said there were AF and electrical problems. OK?

On the other hand, I like your test. Good test. I am not being sarcastic, it's really a good one,..at least theoretically.

Also, not sarcastically, I figure I'd have to run a test for every single suggestion here or otherwise I'd be called names by the bunch of children with expensive cameras who just happened to come across my thread.

Too bad I already got rid of that 24-70mm copy. But I will get another one,...I will let you know. And yes, I won't cheat, I will upload the EXIF data. Thanks for reading and taking the time to help. Let's see.

Then this lens sucks for photojournalism. Period.

Juan Huerta wrote in post #9506576
...Too bad I already got rid of that 24-70mm copy. But I will get another one,...I will let you know. And yes, I won't cheat, I will upload the EXIF data. Thanks for reading and taking the time to help. Let's see.

Almost 100 replies and he tells us this.

So everybody, what he's basically saying is that we've all WASTED OUR TIME trying to be helpful.

This is now all whaa, whaa, whaa - or should that be Jua, Jua, Jua.

I love mine. But, if I were hand-holding photos at 1/20, I would expect them to be blurry -- I'm just not that steady. And, apparently, neither are you.

Juan Huerta wrote in post #9506597
Then this lens sucks for photojournalism. Period.

What part of 1/20th sec is generally too slow for hand held with this lens don't you understand?

And who shoots photo journalism at 1/20th sec anyway?

troutbreath wrote in post #9506673
I love mine. But, if I were hand-holding photos at 1/20, I would expect them to be blurry -- I'm just not that steady. And, apparently, neither are you.

Yes, but he refuses to believe/accept that.

Juan Huerta wrote in post #9506597
Then this lens sucks for photojournalism. Period.

booja wrote in post #9506551
the reason why the 24-70 is 1300 as compared to the $300 17-85 is because of the build, sealing, materials, and the constant 2.8 and glass coatings.

Riiiiiight....

I love my 24-70L

Juan Huerta wrote in post #9506597
Then this lens sucks for photojournalism. Period.

A pearl of wisdom if ever there was one. When wondering how a lens will work for photojournalism, always consult a wedding photographer who purchased a defective version of the lens in question and proceeded to take handheld pictures of a wicker basket.

THAT is how it should be done!