Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8 L Soft wide open

Matholwch

Matholwch

Messages
548
Name
Andreas
Edit My Images
No
So I've got a bit of history with 'the brick'. Previously I had borrowed a colleagues lens for the occasional wedding I did, before I used the earnings to buy the brick (already have a 24-105mm IS f4.0 L - which is great but needed better low light performing lens).
Initially I bought a second hand lens from Ffordes, for about £700. It arrived, and the manual ring was broken, so I sent it straight back (Ffordes did quibble stating it was fine when posted, when clearly it wasn't), and was given a choice between repair and refund. The price was still decent, so I opted for a repair. When it came back, I noticed that the barrel 'drooped' when zoomed to 24mm (barrel is extended), complained, and had it sent off again for a second repair being that it was still within their 6 month repair window. It took them three months to repair it...
When it came back, I found the image quality pretty poor in comparison to my colleague's sample. When I complained they said I could send it off again (bearing in mind at this point I had a month left on warranty), I didn't bother, and eventually sold on the lens at a loss of £200 - lesson learned.

So with the proceeds of another wedding, I purchased a brand new 24-70mm. Now again I'm looking at the quality of the lens, and I'm not happy with the sharpness at f2.8. Soft compared to my 24-105 at the same focal points. Its been sent back for calibration by Canon once (I didn't return the lens at the time, as I'd been in a waiting list for several months for the low stock item in the first place), its come back with some comments along the lines of some re-balancing, but hardly any difference in the quality of the image. Its been suggested that I should return the lens along with the camera for calibration (this will involve a cost, as my camera is out of warranty), which I'm happy to do.
However, following a conversation with my CPS rep I suspect that this exercise won't bear any fruit - his explanation being that its a mass-produces lens; and stating that it probably performs better than the 24-105 f4 when stopped down to f4, despite the whole purpose of buying the lens is to get a lens which performs well wide open (low light conditions).

What do you suggest I do? The lens is still under warranty, is there scope to demand a replacement by Canon? He has suggested that when I send the lens off for calibration with the body, that I should include sample photos with my colleague's lens to show the performance I'd expect from the lens, so that the technicians can aim at - baffling as surely what they need to aim at is as sharp a possible an image wide open.
 
Matholwch said:
He has suggested that when I send the lens off for calibration with the body, that I should include sample photos with my colleague's lens to show the performance I'd expect from the lens, so that the technicians can aim at - baffling as surely what they need to aim at is as sharp a possible an image wide open.
Click to expand...

Interested to see this too
 
I have always been very happy with my 24-70mm and would say its now probably my most used Lens shooting wide open is also pretty sharp (not prime sharp) but very close
here's the first image at hand shot wide open
64874135_o4NJE-XL.jpg


and for comparison my brother had the 24-105 F4 and neither of us thought it was as good as the brick... so I guess there must be some varied samples about, but could not be happier with mine a great Lens
my 2p
Chris
 
As I mentioned, I've used a good sample, and the quality on that is excellent. So its a bit disappointing to see that after forking out £880 Canon can't guarantee the quality of the lens.

Will post some examples of my 24-70 wide open.
 
Buttkicker said:
I have always been very happy with my 24-70mm and would say its now probably my most used Lens shooting wide open is also pretty sharp (not prime sharp) but very close
here's the first image at hand shot wide open

and for comparison my brother had the 24-105 F4 and neither of us thought it was as good as the brick... so I guess there must be some varied samples about, but could not be happier with mine a great Lens
my 2p
Chris
Click to expand...

Sorry Chris I'm struggling to see anything sharp in that shot :thinking: even at web size - where was your point of focus ?
 
Paul
maybe not the best of images to use as an example in this thread but I am really impressed with this Lens whereas I was not impressed at all with the 24-105mm

the 24-70mm is one of the most used Lenses amongst the wedding photogs and am very happy with it
Matholwch has clearly having issues getting one he is satisfied with
 
"Sharp" is a difficult term to use in a conversation. The definitions of "sharp" by different people can differ significantly, depending on their a-priori experience, eyesight, tolerance levels, print size, even subject matter and so on. I've seen so many soft, over-sharpened - apparently suer sharp - shots, I am almost sick.

Back to the subject now. Can you describe the softness, ideally with examples? Is it in the corners, is anything else sharp, is one side softer than the other, can you get it all sharp using liveview, etc. What body do you use?

Once we see some tests, there may be some good pointers. It doesn't mean it will fix the problem overnight, but at least it may point you the right way.

My impressions of the lens aren't as bad as yours but certainly it is one of the lenses that burst the bubble of "the perfect L-lens". Probably it is an excellent wedding lens, with perfectly adequate IQ for getting "sharp" prints. Landscapes are much more demanding for sharpness, and the lens is just too complicated to be tack sharp from corner to corner from 24 to 70mm at wider apertures. 24-105mm probably has a simpler design, better weight balance and IS - and feels actually sharper, particularly hand held. My results with 24-70 massively improve with flash wide open - that extra speed and stability makes the shot sharper. For landscapes I feel it somewhat is weaker than 24-105mm, and by the looks no service is going to change it.

If you really don't get on with one, you could stay with 24-105 and get some primes or Tamron 28-75 for the darker venues...
 
My thoughts based on my current frustration with Nikon. All zoom lenses are crap. There. That's it. Doesn't matter how much you spend.

I have a 24-70 f/2.8 here that isn't anywhere near as sharp at any focal length or aperture as my old Canon 50mm f/1.8 II was at even f/2.8.
 
The23rdman said:
My thoughts based on my current frustration with Nikon. All zoom lenses are crap. There. That's it. Doesn't matter how much you spend.

I have a 24-70 f/2.8 here that isn't anywhere near as sharp at any focal length or aperture as my old Canon 50mm f/1.8 II was at even f/2.8.
Click to expand...

You should try 70-200mm. You would find it hard to tell it apart from a prime.

But yes, 24-70mm is far too complicated design with many compromises. But 50mm 1.2L is far worse optically. So there you go. I would avoid generalisations.
 
daugirdas said:
You should try 70-200mm. You would find it hard to tell it apart from a prime.

But yes, 24-70mm is far too complicated design with many compromises. But 50mm 1.2L is far worse optically. So there you go. I would avoid generalisations.
Click to expand...

Okay, fair enough, the 70-200 is very sharp - used it. I guess you're right though that the 24-70 is harder to get right so will be a little limited. Perhaps I'll go back to primes.
 
Buttkicker said:
I have always been very happy with my 24-70mm and would say its now probably my most used Lens shooting wide open is also pretty sharp (not prime sharp) but very close
here's the first image at hand shot wide open
64874135_o4NJE-XL.jpg


and for comparison my brother had the 24-105 F4 and neither of us thought it was as good as the brick... so I guess there must be some varied samples about, but could not be happier with mine a great Lens
my 2p
Chris
Click to expand...

Sorry that looks really soft - is it to due with the image hosting site? On a side note, the sharpness of 70mm wide open at macro distances is far from true 100mm macro lens, but great for shooting wedding rings and flower bouquets. It is a wedding lens :shrug:
 
I've had a 24-70 for a few months now, its sharpness still amazes me, but then it's my first L series lens. Is this sharpness issue at f/2.8 variable or generally affect all of them? It must have some incredibly complex engineering inside as 24mm focal length is the longest barrel extension, opposite to normal?
 
MY colleague has brought in his sample of the 24-70mm today, so I'll post some examples side by side tonight.
Was playing quite a bit with my sample last night, and found that it wasn't too bad at 70mm f2.8, but required MA when shooting subject matter which was close by.
However I found it difficult to find anything sharp at 24mm at f2.8.

I'll post some examples tonight.
 
Matholwch said:
However I found it difficult to find anything sharp at 24mm at f2.8.

I'll post some examples tonight.
Click to expand...

Not surprising, probably totally out of focus, in addition to a badly curved focal plane at wide setting. Of all the cameras I've ever used only 1DIII get focus mostly right at under 28mm. Camera firmware may play here a big role. mkiii-s and perhaps related models seem to do much better. That doesn't mean it is acceptable performance, and I am not very happy how 1Dsii behaves with the lens at all.
 
daugirdas said:
Not surprising, probably totally out of focus, in addition to a badly curved focal plane at wide setting. Of all the cameras I've ever used only 1DIII get focus mostly right at under 28mm. Camera firmware may play here a big role. mkiii-s and perhaps related models seem to do much better. That doesn't mean it is acceptable performance, and I am not very happy how 1Dsii behaves with the lens at all.
Click to expand...

This is even when I've zoomed in at 70mm, focused, recomposed the frame at 24mm, and exposed. All soft - pretty atrocious.
 
Matholwch said:
This is even when I've zoomed in at 70mm, focused, recomposed the frame at 24mm, and exposed. All soft - pretty atrocious.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes that won't work either. The lens is not parfocal. Use liveview for testing purposes. Then you will clearly know what it could do in the very best case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top