Bad copies of a 24-70

I think the "complainers are just more vocal" argument is a bit overstated. For example, it doesn't explain the OP's experience, where four brand-new copies of the 24-70 performed differently, and only one of the four was acceptable.

If I ever win the lottery (a really big lottery) I'm going to buy a shedload of lenses and find out the real scoop.

I have 14 days to return this one as well to the store, so I will be putting it to the test. But just the first half dozen hand held shots I took last night of my daughter(indoor, with a flash), blew away the original lens. I am hoping for a nice sunny day soon (haven't had much sun here in Toronto in the last month) so I can get outside and play with it.

You were talking about the 70-200 you had. Is it IS, or non IS? I am looking at that lens as my next investment and haven't decided if IS is worth the $800 extra.

Hi Jamie:

I'm guessing you're addressing me, since I mentioned the 70-200. My point was that neither of the three 70-200L lenses appears to suffer from the same quality control issues that plague the 24-70.

I happen to have the 2.8IS version. It's a must for what I do, which includes a lot of indoor event photography.

I had the non-IS version on loan from a generous relative for a year before I got the IS. Both are superb lenses. Lots of threads and reviews have compared them, so I won't go into detail. From what I've read, the 4.0 version at ~$600 is optically just as good. It really depends on your needs.

Cheers,

Wolfgang

Jamie Pelrine said:

I have 14 days to return this one as well to the store, so I will
be putting it to the test. But just the first half dozen hand held
shots I took last night of my daughter(indoor, with a flash), blew
away the original lens. I am hoping for a nice sunny day soon
(haven't had much sun here in Toronto in the last month) so I can
get outside and play with it.
You were talking about the 70-200 you had. Is it IS, or non IS? I
am looking at that lens as my next investment and haven't decided
if IS is worth the $800 extra.

Click to expand...

--
'Great meal. What pots did you use?' -- Petteri

Wolfgang Bluhm
http://www.wbluhm.com/

Jamie Pelrine said:

I have 14 days to return this one as well to the store, so I will
be putting it to the test. But just the first half dozen hand held
shots I took last night of my daughter(indoor, with a flash), blew
away the original lens. I am hoping for a nice sunny day soon
(haven't had much sun here in Toronto in the last month) so I can
get outside and play with it.
You were talking about the 70-200 you had. Is it IS, or non IS? I
am looking at that lens as my next investment and haven't decided
if IS is worth the $800 extra.

Click to expand...

--I have owned both the IS and non IS and imo the non IS is a tab sharper. I have no problem holding the non IS so it's not an issue. You will only need IS of shutter speeds of less than 125. What happened to me I see this $1700 lens sitting there and I could have another lens along with a 70-200 non IS so I sold it and I am happy with my choice.

In the http://www.fredmiranda.com forum they have a review thread that members give their reviews and the non is is rated slightly higher. I know many people favor the IS but to each their own.

Tanglefoot47
Tulalip Wa.

I must have also been one of the lucky ones, I purchased one from Calumet's Bensenville store in the Fall of '04 and it performed very well on my 10D, though my partucular 10D body has a slight back-focus bias for which compensation was sometimes necessary at f/2.8.

On my 5D, it has performed FLAWLESSLY. It has very similar color, congtrast and sharpness with it's companion, the 70-200/2.8 IS, and is only a bit soft away from center near 70mm @ f/2.8. I'm in love all over again.
--

'Life is pleasant, death is peaceful; it's the transition that's troublesome' - Isaac Asimov

I sent my 20D and 24-70L in for calibration, and now I'm getting great shots. On the paper that came back with the lens, it mentioned back focus and a ring that was replaced.

I think no matter how good the copy you get from the store, you'll always be wondering "what if" until you send it in for calibration.

That means you'll have to pay for shipping and insurance to send it to the service center, but once the lens comes back, you won't be thinking about it anymore. My latest shots of a horse jumping show are here.
http://www.nogodforme.com/pokey1205a.htm

I have another show next weekend. Now I can concentrate on the shots, knowing all I have to do is set my shutter speed to 1000 and everything should be in focus.

I was not as fortunate as you. I elected to purchase my 24-70 online so I didn't get to choose which one worked best for me.

Mine was very soft and I played with it for a week before contacting Canon. I sent it to their Irvine facility (which cost me $20 out of pocket) to have it checked out and it was sent back to me after two weeks. They stated that they checked the focus and calibration and they say it was adjusted within specs.

The shots I've taken since it was recalibrated are better than it what they were when I sent the lens to them but I don't think they are up the sharpnes as my 70-200. Maybe it is hand shake but I don't seem to have that problem with the heavier lens. Over the X-mas holidays, I took quite a few shots using a tripod and the pictures still aren't as sharp as I expect them to be (maybe I'm expecting too much).

I'm going to do some test comparison shots with my other 4 lenses this weekend if the weather is nice enough. Good thing the resale is good on these lenses. I may end up selling the lens and just settle for using the others that I have depending on what happens with the comparison.

My 24-70 was perfect the first time as well. These boards tend to draw attention to problem lenses which is of course one of the functions of these boards. This coupled with various skill level, experience and expectations may lead people to think that a greater problem exists where it really doesn't.

--
Randy

All,

Well I hope those that said it is more an anomoly rather than the rule are correct and the 24-70 replacement I get tomorrow is better than the first one I received. Certainly will have time over the weekend to test it and compare to some other lenses.

Regarding the comment someone made about "being sure" by sending it in to the factory. I agree, but the original should be fairly close to begin with I would think on a brand new lens.
Will let folks know the results...
--
Jay S.
Fuji 7000 / Canon 20D
http://jaysott.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/jay_s

I'm glad you brought this up. I can't understand how there could be so many bad copies of "L" lenses (which are not cheap).
--
((( Just Shoot It )))

--it was used but only 8 months old. I guess I got lucky to because this lens is awesome.

Tanglefoot47
Tulalip Wa.

... not all of them are in focus!

http://www.nogodforme.com/images2005/SunCoast120405056.jpg

Also, on many of the shots your DOF is very wide. I didn't check the EXIF to see just how wide.

True, a few are not in focus, that happens. If you read posts about people talking actions shots, the first one is usually a little off as the AF kicks in. That's why you hear about people "burning" a shot. I don't remember the exact details of that picture, it was early iin the event and I was only taking singles at that point. I may have been at 640, which would still be a little slow. As the show went on, I decided to use Tv 1000, which seemed to work the best, and I was snapping off 5 in a row.

As for the DOF, I try to zoom in and fill the frame. It was a bight sunny day. The daughter will be in another show on Janaury 14th, so I plan on using Tv of 1000 from the start and l'll let the camera pick the best aperature. That way I can concentrate on getting the shots. The conditions change quickly as the sun goes behind clouds.

David Dobrowski said:

I'm glad you brought this up. I can't understand how there could be
so many bad copies of "L" lenses (which are not cheap).

Click to expand...

I fail to see how there are so many that believe an "L" designation makes a lens somehow magical?! The L lenses may be Canon's top level but compare an L to the run of the mill Nikon or Leica glass and it isn't all that some on here hype it to be. The price tag on a lens has very little to do with the optical quality of that lens. I wish that price alone would be a guide in choosing glass, but it's not/
mark

http://www.markpix.com

The particular shot here looks like the focus point ended up being the clouds in the sky, with everything in the foreground out of focus -- would that be possible? Can you view the shot with info as to where the focus points were when taken?

If that were the case it would be operator error, not the equipment.

Good observation. My wife was shooting with her 20D and my 24-70 yesterday and I found a couple of images like this (happened to be hunter-jumpers as well). However, closer inspection revealed that there was in fact one object in crystal clear focus; a twig in one case and a leaf just to the right of a horse in another. She was shooting 5fps as the horses came over the jumps, so I believe that the AF may have focused on the wrong thing and she just didn't notice in the "heat of the moment".
--
BBQBluesStringer

I personally don't think it's unrealistic to expect better quality product from a premium product line, although the L designation doesn't automatically make the lens magical, but I would expect at the very least the $1000+ L lens will focus properly just out of the box, I am not even talking about the color, contrast, bokeh, speed & bla bla bla, I certainly understand the definition of "sharp" is different from person to person, so the argument there is understandable, but lots people here are just asking for a AF lens to do what they supposed to do, so I don't think that's too much to ask for, at least I want mine to focus right from F2.8-F22, again, I am not talking about the sharpness, just focus itself.

Another thing that bothers me is so many people think the one reported lens/body problems here are just bunch of idiots who have no idea how to use their equipments, OK, maybe a few of them are, but I still don't belive all of them are. untill you get a "bad copy" yourself, sometimes it's hard to imagine it. I am the victim myself, (I had to send my Sigma 24-70) back for calibration to work on my 20D, but all my Ls and Non-Ls works perfectly with my film SLR and 20D and 5D, up until now, I don't believe Sigma got quality issue as I used one before (the 18-125) and was perfect fine. now I change my tone based on my personal experience and say I won't buy Sigma again and will stick with Canon, who knows when I will tell myself stay away fron Canon and stick with XYZ, so all I am trying to say is if your equipment works as they supposed to and you are happy with what you have, congratulations, enjoy them, but please don't discredit those who reported problems here, those problem does exist, just didn't happen to you, the lucky you.

Have a good day.
Dan

Great posts.

You have to remember, horse jumping pictures are probably the most technically demanding shots you can imagine other than motorcycle shots. The horse is moving at 20 mph. I'm hand holding the camera, and following the horse thru the shots. As I look thru the view finder and hold the shutter half way down, I can see the AF trying to pick up a focus point. Many times, it's blurred until the horse comes into view. I'm using AI-Fosuc. Often times, the first shot is focused on the jump because the horse has not moved into the frame yet. I know this first shot will be "burned" and accept it. The AF is focusing on the closest point, the jump. Once the horse fills the frame, the AF kicks in and all the shots come out perfect.

I can't wait to shoot next week at Tv 1000. I have more confidence knowing the equipment is perfect. It's up to me now to frame the perfect shots. That's what I'm looking for. I don't want to worry about focus or aperature. I just want to take the shots and know they will be perfect.

Sometime last year there was someone from Salt Lake City who said he went through 5 Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L that was 'bad' copies. It was posted in this forum. Interesting I go to the Canon Digital Photography Forums http://photography-on-the.net/forum/index.php and not a single EF 24-70 f/2.8L has made any complaints about their copy. In fact, there was a thread in which everyone who owned the lens are happy with it. What does that tell you?
--
'You see, but you do not observe' Arthur Conan Doyle