I recently purchased a II and was pretty happy. Then I worked on an image to be published and I noticed that the tree branches on the left just didn't have any snap and went to 100 percent. They have the typical look, to me, of sharpness that is falling off. Center, all in the same plane of focus, nice and sharp, the edge right and left, well not so great. f5.6 or so.
So what are the real results with some of you comparing edges to center? What I got from CPS is that wide open edge to edge, it would be very good, sharp.
jamato8 wrote:
I recently purchased a II and was pretty happy. Then I worked on an image to be published and I noticed that the tree branches on the left just didn't have any snap and went to 100 percent. They have the typical look, to me, of sharpness that is falling off. Center, all in the same plane of focus, nice and sharp, the edge right and left, well not so great. f5.6 or so.
So what are the real results with some of you comparing edges to center? What I got from CPS is that wide open edge to edge, it would be very good, sharp. ...Show more →
What focal length? I find that they do better sub 40mm, especially 24-35mm. It is the same on both sides (I saw a lot of copy to copy variation about where the DOF is placed on each and each corner)? How deep or not you place focus in the scene can alter how well it does at the edges in a real world scene that has depth and is not a flat chart.
at f/5.6 on the mid to longer end the edges aren't so much of an improvement from other lenses for non-flat objects perhaps
Was f/5.6 enough DOF?
Can you post a small size version of the full image?
It was 7.1 at 33mm. I am just wondering how much the lens has met the general expectations at the edges. It seems to have a little more loss on the L than on the R side.
Of course I have others where the DOF fits less well and its gets a little dodgy even at f/8, moreso in the corners than the centered far edges which tend to hold up better in a lot more cases. The ones above had very friendly depths of objects compared to some shots. Can you ever get that sort of result even in ideal scenarios like that?
In the cases above, which were friendly to the lens, I honestly couldn't really tell the difference from my 24 1.4 II at all (other than the prime showing a little PF when branches were against clouds). Although similar old shots from 24-105 definitely looked worse.
jamato8 wrote:
It was 7.1 at 33mm. I am just wondering how much the lens has met the general expectations at the edges. It seems to have a little more loss on the L than on the R side.
Usually it's pretty good at the edges at 33mm f/7.1. But maybe the scene had objects at depths that were a really poor match the FC of the lens? Or the focus was placed at the wrong depth to ideally help all parts look sharp?
If you can post a downsized version we can see what the scene looked like.
the last on is a bit rough on lower left corner near and deep far in woods upper right (might be a slight tilt in lens putting lower left a bit farther back and upper right quadrant a bit closer, but it's hard to find a 24-70 II that is perfectly balanced, this copy is crazy sharp at f/2.8 center frame; if the lower left were even close in it could look a bit worse)
I have sent mine in, today. They sent a label. The images I have seen here are sharper at the edges than mine and I didn't pay 2 thousand or whatever I paid to get the results that I got with the previous 24-70 I.
At the edges, my 24-70/2.8L II is as sharp as my Contax Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8 and Vario-Sonnar 35-70/3.4. In the corners, it's still very good, but not quite as good as the CZ lenses.
jamato8 wrote:
I have sent mine in, today. They sent a label. The images I have seen here are sharper at the edges than mine and I didn't pay 2 thousand or whatever I paid to get the results that I got with the previous 24-70 I.
jamato8 wrote:
Well I am glad I sent mine it because it isn't near what I have seen or what has been reported.
It's really sucks when you pay this much for what is really a damn fine lens and find you get the dud. Still I'm sure they can rectify it and get it working as it should.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
It's really sucks when you pay this much for what is really a damn fine lens and find you get the dud. Still I'm sure they can rectify it and get it working as it should.
I hope they fix it and do a very fine job. I had to send my 24-70I in twice. They often do a good job but I also had a 5DII that needed to be sent in 3 times. I will keep my fingers crossed. :^)
