Jeff Varszegi
Veteran Member
Do you have an LCD panel or a CRT? I'm viewing them on an LCD, which tends to make these things more obvious. If it's hard to see you can blow up the pixels and see it pretty easily.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Bad copies of a 24-70
- Thread starter Jamie Pelrine
- Start date
Larry Lueck
Veteran Member
CRT. All real photographers use CRT's. 
This is my print sharpening...
This is my print sharpening...
To all,
My new 24-70 arrived yestrerday and a huge difference in at least being able to focus at f2.8 (even hand held). That said, now that things are in focus, there is the obvious difference of some softness at 2.8 vs. greater f/stops. Can someone who feels they have a great copy provide a few baseline images (perhaps of the Canon lens box) at f/2.8 and 24 - 70mm, perhaps repeat at f/5 just somyslef and other can see if some of the softness at 2.8 is just inherent to the wide angle and more open aperture. I would truly appreciate. First test shots outside are pretty amazing. Thank you.
Jay S.
Jay S.
Fuji 7000 / Canon 20D
http://jaysott.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/jay_s
My new 24-70 arrived yestrerday and a huge difference in at least being able to focus at f2.8 (even hand held). That said, now that things are in focus, there is the obvious difference of some softness at 2.8 vs. greater f/stops. Can someone who feels they have a great copy provide a few baseline images (perhaps of the Canon lens box) at f/2.8 and 24 - 70mm, perhaps repeat at f/5 just somyslef and other can see if some of the softness at 2.8 is just inherent to the wide angle and more open aperture. I would truly appreciate. First test shots outside are pretty amazing. Thank you.
Jay S.
--
Jay S.
Fuji 7000 / Canon 20D
http://jaysott.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/jay_s
Jeff Varszegi
Veteran Member
This is true of no less than ALL zoom lenses. You should look online for reviews and sample images instead of requesting "baseline" images here; it won't waste your time and others'.
Jeff,
With all due respect. I did review a large number of sites, but I don't have access to the same locations or images they shot. I'm aware of the softness of 2.8 lens, owning a 70-200 2.8 IS. What I was hoping for was a kind sole to perhaps post an image common to myself and many of the others who may have not been totally fortunate in getting a "great" one out of the box. Something common like the Canon box, should be fairly reproducible, use an indoor lighting source (probably more a of test), etc. I didn't think people offering or asking for some assistance especially in this tech forum is a waste of anyone's time. I respect your time, and if you didn't wish to shoot a couple of box images, that's great. I didn't see anything incredibly wrong in my asking for some assistance.
Jay S.
Jay S.
Fuji 7000 / Canon 20D
http://jaysott.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/jay_s
With all due respect. I did review a large number of sites, but I don't have access to the same locations or images they shot. I'm aware of the softness of 2.8 lens, owning a 70-200 2.8 IS. What I was hoping for was a kind sole to perhaps post an image common to myself and many of the others who may have not been totally fortunate in getting a "great" one out of the box. Something common like the Canon box, should be fairly reproducible, use an indoor lighting source (probably more a of test), etc. I didn't think people offering or asking for some assistance especially in this tech forum is a waste of anyone's time. I respect your time, and if you didn't wish to shoot a couple of box images, that's great. I didn't see anything incredibly wrong in my asking for some assistance.
Jay S.
--
Jay S.
Fuji 7000 / Canon 20D
http://jaysott.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/jay_s
realtrance
Well-known member
It's a tough one -- you want AF so you can capture the moment; but, if you can control f-stop and shutter and understand your DoF and pre-set the lens for where you want it to be focusing manually, when the decisive moment occurs -- you may actually be better off.
realtrance
Well-known member
Even if they're oversharpened a bit... this further emphasizes the fact that with this kind of technology, the post-processing is a critical component of the final image.
In fact, in the Canon/Europe CPS site, there's technical info in one of the articles that makes it clear that both the 5D and 1-series are designed with the assumption that post-processing will be a given with all important shots, whereas the other Canon DSLR cameras are designed more specifically to give you "sharp right out of the camera" (moire and all ).
I have to wonder whether it makes any sense for non-pros (like myself) to consider L lenses at all. I believe they are priced for a very specific type of market, where the knowledge is (or should be) sufficient about how to use and evaluate these tools, from a price/performance standpoint, that the kind of heartburn that shows up frequently here would be avoided.
A pro would approach their equipment with very different expectations from those I see here. It's a tool -- use it, if it's not working right, get it fixed.
Many "pro" items are very different in design and assumption than those intended for a consumer audience. An F1 racing car is not as comfy as a Subaru, for instance, but it accelerates a lot faster.
In fact, in the Canon/Europe CPS site, there's technical info in one of the articles that makes it clear that both the 5D and 1-series are designed with the assumption that post-processing will be a given with all important shots, whereas the other Canon DSLR cameras are designed more specifically to give you "sharp right out of the camera" (moire and all ).
I have to wonder whether it makes any sense for non-pros (like myself) to consider L lenses at all. I believe they are priced for a very specific type of market, where the knowledge is (or should be) sufficient about how to use and evaluate these tools, from a price/performance standpoint, that the kind of heartburn that shows up frequently here would be avoided.
A pro would approach their equipment with very different expectations from those I see here. It's a tool -- use it, if it's not working right, get it fixed.
Many "pro" items are very different in design and assumption than those intended for a consumer audience. An F1 racing car is not as comfy as a Subaru, for instance, but it accelerates a lot faster.
Kung Pao Panda
Veteran Member
Wow- QA sounds really bad. To have 5 bad copies in a row ,from one store, sheesh.
What was your test methodology? Hand held, on a tripod? ISO? Shutter speed and f stops? Focus? Camera?
Hope the one you finally took home is a good copy.
Good luck.
Mike Scrotum
Well-known member
This means:
- Canon is producing whole batches of faulty L lenses
- the construction of the 24-70mm/2.8 is faulty
- The QM problem is not related to the lens but to 20D body
- Jamie was unlucky enough to make 0,38% probability happen
- the tests of the 4 samples were not performed scientifically
- the good copy/bad copy discussion is driving more and more people crazy
Mike Scrotum
Well-known member
For the calculation I assumed Canon is producing their L-Class with a very bad quality management system. I assumed 10% of the produced 24-70mm/2.8 L are not built to specifications. 10% of the productions are “bad copies”.
I am sure Canon L lenses are at least 95% built to specs. Canon would not have gained this big market share in DSLR if they would produce that many faulty units. The costs for replacement Units, wage costs for calibration of those lenses and the damage to the brand name, would be to high.
I am sure Canon L lenses are at least 95% built to specs. Canon would not have gained this big market share in DSLR if they would produce that many faulty units. The costs for replacement Units, wage costs for calibration of those lenses and the damage to the brand name, would be to high.
Khun_K
Veteran Member
--
The Canon 24-70/2.8L is one of the best zoom made, some sample picture here;
http://www.pbase.com/khun_k/swimsuit
Khun_K
Maybe that Canon deletes negative posts?
Notice the common thread with all of those lenses? They're all 2.8 zooms. I guess those bad boys are just hard to get right.
Khun,
First, some very good shots. Congratulations. From the EXIF info, the four 24-70 shots were taken at f/5.6 or above as I recall.. I think most folks are talking about the issues down in the f/2.8 range. After all, you are paying a lot more to get down to that f/ratio for lower light situations and DOF control. I'd also be interesting in any Post processing done on these images with regard to sharpness. Again nice work.
Jay S.
Fuji 7000 / Canon 20D
http://jaysott.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/jay_s
First, some very good shots. Congratulations. From the EXIF info, the four 24-70 shots were taken at f/5.6 or above as I recall.. I think most folks are talking about the issues down in the f/2.8 range. After all, you are paying a lot more to get down to that f/ratio for lower light situations and DOF control. I'd also be interesting in any Post processing done on these images with regard to sharpness. Again nice work.
--
Jay S.
Fuji 7000 / Canon 20D
http://jaysott.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/jay_s
Khun_K
Veteran Member
well, a f/2.8 lens gives you the edge for a sharper focus that leads to overall beter focus control, it also render more appealing boken at the back ground that contribute better contrast on the subject, IMO anyway. My 24-70/2.8L is 3 years old and have been thru heavy showers, sea water splashes and the felt on the lens hood has been gone 50%, still the lens is delivering.
I did only very slight sharpering, the original capture was originally converted at 16bit but the actual image is too big to donwload or you can tell even more amazing detail. The software use is C1Pro, less punchy than the raw converter from Canon and render more smoother and shaper image than CS2, IMO. I will post more sample later.
--
Khun_K
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum