Here are my test shots. Hopefully non members can access the post.

Post # 312

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1225646&page=7

deleted for now

deleted for now

Nuts! Bad luck. I haven't had a chance to evaluate mine yet. Went out too late yesterday for my chosen scenic subject (strong contra light). No decent weather in the forecast for here until Tuesday.

jcolwell wrote:
Nuts! Bad luck. I haven't had a chance to evaluate mine yet. Went out too late yesterday for my chosen scenic subject (strong contra light). No decent weather in the forecast for here until Tuesday.

What do you think of this (with samples):
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1153139/0#11003404

EDIT: i deleted most of that thread for now, until I get a better handle on it, hopefully it will prove to be much ado about nothing

Hmmm. Looks like there is an issue. As discussed on the linked thread, I suggest you trade it for another one if you can; otherwise, you should get pretty good service from Canon. Are you in CPS?

I've seen similar L/R differences from Alt lenses when using el cheapo adapters, especially for 24mm and wider lenses.

jcolwell wrote:
Hmmm. Looks like there is an issue. As discussed on the linked thread, I suggest you trade it for another one if you can; otherwise, you should get pretty good service from Canon. Are you in CPS?

I've seen similar L/R differences from Alt lenses when using el cheapo adapters, especially for 24mm and wider lenses.

It's too dark now to figure out what is going on, with such a complex scene there is a danger that a slight tilt looking through VF with camera right side up vs down can maybe alter how field curvature affects things? I need better lighting and a simpler scene.

Maybe the tamron and 24 1.4 have a different field curvature that makes them react differently to the flip upside down and slight angle of aim change.

I don't know, for now, I've marked the other thread as one to ignore for the time being.

jcolwell wrote:
Hmmm. Looks like there is an issue. As discussed on the linked thread, I suggest you trade it for another one if you can; otherwise, you should get pretty good service from Canon. Are you in CPS?

I've seen similar L/R differences from Alt lenses when using el cheapo adapters, especially for 24mm and wider lenses.

If anything it's almost more like the left side would seem closer focused since one shot caught a closer branch to the far left that looked crisp but camera flipped it looked a bit blurrier, but again such a complex scene, and it was getting so dark and just flipping camera upside changes vertical aim angle a bit and maybe that tosses things.

Hopefully it will prove fine tomorrow.

I got one quick last set of three shots in 24 1.4 II< 24-70 II and tamron 28-75, for whatever reason on this shot the 24-70 II seemed better on the left side while still looking good on the right. I wonder if the exact, exact, exact focusing spot doesn't matter a lot and it has a very sensitive field curvature at certain focusing distances for this complex scene, who knows.

I can show that that the 24-70 handles longitudinal CA under harsh burned out sky through trees the best, 100% crops, 24-70 II just fights off LoCA like nobodies business (at the very least at 24mm), like a super-tele almost:

24-70 II:

24 1.4L:

Invertalon wrote:
Not exactly sure on your details, but I appear to have a similar thing going on... My left hand side at 24mm is always amazingly sharp, the right though is hit and miss. It tends to be SHARP for foreground stuff, but loses its sharpness near infinity. The left hand side though is always consistently sharp unless for DOF reasons.

I may send my copy in Monday to CPS to let them do adjustments. I emailed them asking if they have the ability to correct such issue or if it is better to just swap it out with retailer. I hope they will do it instead though... My copy is unreal sharp end to end with no CA anywhere and just amazing IQ... Except for the far 1/8 right of the frame...

Odd, it did seem that one side almost had more DOF than the other and that one said liked to make things closer sharper and quickly lost sharpness with subject distance while the other side seemed more even when it came to that.

But even weirder still, I now found a frame at 24mm where I actually have both sides crystal sharp for subjects near mid and far. Does the focus need to be placed at some ideal distance within a scene for it to not get weird field curvature effect very easily? But the thing is I kept focus locked when I was flipping camera upside down and such and with the 24 1.4 II I don't think I had any of this weirdness whether I placed focus near or deep into the scene or whether I flipped camera upside down or not. Maybe it's very touchy about certain angle combined with certain depths of focus into a scene and how it's field curvature acts

Why did this particular 24mm f/8 sample shot seem to turn out absolutely perfect

I mean this shot from it I don't really see anything to complain about, it's frankly hard to tell apart from the shot taken with the prime (other than it actually has less PF in the far upper left). And yet others it's so weird so many where the left side seems to be softer or have the focus shifted much closer to the cam and then flip it upside and it seemed to reverse. But again look at the full shot below, I mean that looks perfectly solid I think. Just a bit softer on the extreme bottom corner edges and extreme, extreme fraction of the farthest L and R edges compared to the 24mm 1.4 II.

shots are a touch grainy since lighting was awful and they were shot at high iso

Look at these two first from 24-70 II:
24-70 II 24mm f/8

And then 24 1.4 II:
24 1.4 II f/8

in this one frame from the 24-70 II I got it perform almost the same as the 24 1.4 II corner to corner 24mm f/8 and the 24-70 II even lacks the PF the 24 1.4 shot has in the upper left

but for many others it almost seemed like focal plane was warping way forward on the left I don't know as I said i was too rushed and harried today

but then why did i have an easy time of getting 24 1.4 II to behave today, zero shots with any issues of any sort at all? a different sort of field curvature for it that let it fit this scene more easily on average?

I'll be curious if your results hold up tomorrow.
I thought your flickr samples at 24mm seemed pretty even side to side though, no?
I was impressed with the two 24mm f/8 samples.

Interesting that even at f/8 the 24-70mm II vignettes still, more than the prime.
But also that it fights off PF even better.

skibum5 wrote:
but for many others it almost seemed like focal plane was warping way forward on the left

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

This year I (re)bought the 17-40L and it does the exact same thing.
And so did my other copy of the 17-40L, which I had back in 2005-2006.

Of course I did decentering tests on both and they turned out fine.

Enjoy your new lens.
Seems like you have a normal/good copy after all.

I also might buy the mighty 24-70L II one day.
Right now I'm of the mindset that I don't want to carry bazooka lenses with me.
This is subject to change, of course .

misterOphoto wrote:
Sample @ 24mm wide open:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmogden/8008232551/in/photostream


Ta for that, looks very nice.
Very nice contrast & sharpness wide open I must say.

jorkata wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
but for many others it almost seemed like focal plane was warping way forward on the left

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

This year I (re)bought the 17-40L and it does the exact same thing.
And so did my other copy of the 17-40L, which I had back in 2005-2006.

Of course I did decentering tests on both and they turned out fine.

Enjoy your new lens.
Seems like you have a normal/good copy after all.

I also might buy the mighty 24-70L II one day.
Right now I'm of the mindset that I don't want to carry bazooka lenses with me.
This is subject to change, of course .


That is exactly what it appears to be with mine... Like the plane on the right side bends in forward and not on the left. Cause with some images the right side is equally as sharp as the left. If it was decentered I would not think it would ever be as sharp or show signs of other flaws no? The CA, vignetting and all that is identical side to side top to bottom.

I wonder if it is just weird field curvature weirdness or something else.

Glad it is not just me experiencing this though!

Invertalon wrote:
jorkata wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
but for many others it almost seemed like focal plane was warping way forward on the left

Very interesting. Thanks for posting.

This year I (re)bought the 17-40L and it does the exact same thing.
And so did my other copy of the 17-40L, which I had back in 2005-2006.

Of course I did decentering tests on both and they turned out fine.

Enjoy your new lens.
Seems like you have a normal/good copy after all.

I also might buy the mighty 24-70L II one day.
Right now I'm of the mindset that I don't want to carry bazooka lenses with me.
This is subject to change, of course .


That is exactly what it appears to be with mine... Like the plane on the right side bends in forward and not on the left. Cause with some images the right side is equally as sharp as the left. If it was decentered I would not think it would ever be as sharp or show signs of other flaws no? The CA, vignetting and all that is identical side to side top to bottom.

I wonder if it is just weird field curvature weirdness or something else.

Glad it is not just me experiencing this though!

As for the weird L vs R and DOF stuff, still not sure but it seems like it had some sort of field curvature that acts radically different from lenses such as 24 1.4 II, tamron 28-75, canon 50mm 1.4, etc. Very unusual.

It seems to love you to place the focus fairly deep back into the scene even at f/6.3, f/8 24mm or 50mm etc. otherwise right where you focused will be sharp but left for sure and possibly right too will be much OOF, i can focus on the same tree with a 50mm 1.4 at f/6.3 and it puts all that tree's leaves and all others sharp edge to edge, do same with the 24-70 II at 50mm only the leaves right near focus point are sharp the rest are all blurry and OOF, if I focus it just behind the tree then it seems to make it sharp edges and center. (BTW this has NOTHING to do with MFA or any of those sorts of issues at all).

I have one shot where i tried to do 24mm at f/3.5 and with the way I focused it it was 100% crisp to the deep upper left corner at f/3.5 which is impressive. The very odd DOF and field curvature may make it a lens that will take great care and some skill to deliver what you want though perhaps not being able to see easily just point and focus but having to search for proper extra deep depth to focus it at much more carefully than with most lenses even at f/8 and f/10 never mind when wider open You may be able to make it perform very well for a zoom but it might take complicated effort perhaps.

It seems to have extraordinary resistance to PF/LoCA even at f/2.8 I see absolutely zero.

Dark outside suddenly so there is only poor dim lighting inside say H1 it is but on a book case seems like it from certain distances it focuses a fairly flat plane though and even say 35mm f/3.2 looks maybe sharp corner to corner. But it does seem to have some weird FC and DOF vs focus distance placement things compared to most lens designs or maybe it's just some copies, not sure yet.

http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/528-canon2470f28ff?start=1

see where they talk about field curvature for the 24-70 I? And they say it pushes DOF region to the back at the edges? Well the 24-70 II seems to have corrected that 100%.... and more. Now it's like the exact opposite, with the focus pulled forward at the edges. For all I know this is even a flat design and maybe we are just so used to working with curved designs to the back, but, real world, in some ways the back design seems perhaps easier to use naturally actually.

tentative so far about all of this and what the story is

I do have one shot 24mm f/3.5 and an extreme corner still renders fine twigs and leaves utterly crisply so it can do extremes very crisply and perfectly, if the focus is place just so to match it's DOF field to the exact scene.

First of all, what kind of training does one need to be able to interpret the charts and graphs with all the squiggly lines?
Those are absolutely useless to me.

Anyways, I've had the lens for a couple weeks now and I absolutely love it. My non-squiggly chart trained eyes tell me that the sharpness is off the hook and it's AF abilities are top notch. I'm putting it on as high as pedestal as the 70-200 2.8L IS II. Just try and take this lens out of my hands....I dare you! (won't happen)
Since I have a 5D3, not having IS isn't as big of a concern as what it might have been with any other camera.

Pixel1970 wrote:
First of all, what kind of training does one need to be able to interpret the charts and graphs with all the squiggly lines?
Those are absolutely useless to me.

Anyways, I've had the lens for a couple weeks now and I absolutely love it. My non-squiggly chart trained eyes tell me that the sharpness is off the hook and it's AF abilities are top notch. I'm putting it on as high as pedestal as the 70-200 2.8L IS II. Just try and take this lens out of my hands....I dare you! (won't happen)
Since I have a 5D3, not having IS isn't as big of a concern as what it might have been with any other camera.


I'm going to agree with you this lens is right up there with my 70-200L II and I love it!!

I got mine today and shooting it around the house this evening I'm also impressed with the AF speed and accuracy. It seems super sharp too but I'll know more when I take it out in the field tomorrow. It also balances well on the 5D3.