My copy was sharp in the center and soft at some of the edges as well. I ended up returning it because I felt it wasn't worth the price tag. Maybe down the road ill take another chance but I think I had an inconsistent copy.
For what I paid for the II, I want it sharper than my I in the center and edges. It isn't right now but the version I have of the 1, is very good but I wanted better edge sharpness, therefore the purchase so hopefully CPS will do the job.
supermario343 wrote:
My copy was sharp in the center and soft at some of the edges as well. I ended up returning it because I felt it wasn't worth the price tag. Maybe down the road ill take another chance but I think I had an inconsistent copy.
Sounds like decentering. Not really acceptable at this price point, but it does happen. My 24-105L was decentered.
I just bought a v.II in Kuala Lumpur. Really, as an impulse buy to use as a travel lens (urged on by my wife!). My copy is perfectly sharp, all over, at all apertures. Thank goodness!
Nevertheless, I'm still a bit undecided whether I like a maximum aperture of f2.8. I have been so used to using primes with apertures of f1.2 and 1.4, that being limited to 2.8 has been a bit deflating.
However, my wife has insisted that if we are to go traipsing through cities all day long, a camera and a bagful of heavy lenses will NOT do. I am hoping that I will have enough flexibility with this zoom to satisfy my obsessive need to control DOF. This is the bit she really doesn't understand, but I will give it a go and tow the line
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Sounds like decentering. Not really acceptable at this price point, but it does happen. My 24-105L was decentered.
I've handled four 24-70 II and taking the same exact shot with each/same settings/placing focus at same depth into the scene/everything the same, all four placed the DOF differently in the scene at the edges/corners.
I called CPS and asked that they please take a very good look at my lens because I don't want to send it back. I was told, they will check it against factory specs, but then that is how it was supposed to be to begin with. I got no reassurance that she really understood or cared. I don't need my hand held but after paying a little over 2 thousand dollars, I want a lens that is performing better than my 24-70 I, which I had to send in twice, but at this time, my I version is performing better at the edges than the II. I am glad that an image I sent in for publication really wasn't hurt by the softer edges but under other circumstances, it could have been an issue.
I had the 24-70 II directly from Canon before x'mas last year. Noticed within a few days later that images rendered at the side are kind of blur. Took it back to Canon and complained. They did some test using charts from Japan and assured me that the lens is very sharp and the blur could be due to my error and DOF. I did some test again using Live View and the corners looks very sharp indeed. Then I got my Sony Rx1 and stopped using the 24-70 for months.
Then weeks ago, I started using the 24-70II again and realised that the lens is indeed a lemon! Brought it back to Canon and insisted that that do something about it. All the while, they maintained that stand that there is nothing wrong with the lens. They have all the bullshit saying that I've too high expectation, subject on the side is different focal distance from the subject in the centre, lens is supposed to have some kind of blur for the use of creativity, Nevertheless, they decided to replace my lens after all.
A few points to note from my incident:
1. Canon service staff refuses to admit it is the lens fault, although they are going to send my faulty lens back to Japan.
2. The so call test chart from Japan they use for lens testing are crap! Never belief them when they said they did their test and assure u that the lens is sharp.
3. Canon QC is bad and there are bad copies in the market.
4. Staff remain to be polite and helpful. They replace my 5 months old lens with a new lens after all.
5. What u see from Live View is different from the final image. Don't use live view to check sharpness!
What is it about the 24-70 zoom design that causes all these inconsistencies in QC? Although I thought my 24-70mkI was pretty solid I've read tons of posts about people going through multiple copies to get a decent one. Seems like the mkII is beginning to sound the same.
I'm sure there are inconsistencies in Canon's other lenses but it seems especially pronounced with this FL range.
weekh wrote:
3. Canon QC is bad and there are bad copies in the market.
4. Staff remain to be polite and helpful. They replace my 5 months old lens with a new lens after all.
You did get one bad apple out who knows how many. That happens regardless of brand and Canon ended up replacing your lens anyway even after 5 months. What you left out was to mention how the replacement lens performs. Why stop there; well, how does it perform?
ggreene wrote:
What is it about the 24-70 zoom design that causes all these inconsistencies in QC? Although I thought my 24-70mkI was pretty solid I've read tons of posts about people going through multiple copies to get a decent one. Seems like the mkII is beginning to sound the same.
I'm sure there are inconsistencies in Canon's other lenses but it seems especially pronounced with this FL range.
It's certainly a trickier range since it goes from wide to tele all in one lens. Something like 70-200 and such are all tele and 16-35 is all wide.
Some designs also push optical boundaries and are very sensitive the tiniest difference in construction while other designs produce very modest, if any, differences in IQ for the same difference in construction.
I wonder if this was not why the many months delay. Then again all the new lenses seems delayed and you keep hearing about manufacturing issues at the new lens plants.
That said, it's so good that even one that isn't perfect is clearly better than other 24-70s unless you get an extra bad one (although it does seem like enough people are getting them that bad that you do hear quite a lot of people going through to a second copy or more).
Another thing is that is it CRAZY expensive and the only way to remotely justify it compared to other options is if it delivers like crazy so people are not going to want to accept something that starts going to far off and probably give it more of a test than many lenses.
Even my current copy gets a touch soft for very near field objects at the lower left as it seems to push DOF back a touch lower left and forward a touch upper right I think, but otherwise it is totally supreb and does the best at f/2.8 of any I've seen. And even with that bit of tilt it does a lot better than three 24-105 I tried. If there is nothing way far back on the upper right or way close in on the lower left it gives 24mm f/8 with corner to corner sharpness and less CA and LoCA than even a 24 1.4 II prime. f/2.8 near center frame produces wonder micro-contrast and virtually no PF, which can't be said about most other f/2.8 zooms. (It is sharper at 70mm f/2.8 center frame than a 70-200 f/4 IS is at 70mm f/4 (granted the weakest spot on that lens) or a 70-300L at 70mm f/4 (which does well there better than all the 70-200 but the 2.8 IS II).)
I did go a little mad looking at all sorts of copies when each copy shooting a scene with complex DOF would put different spots in best focus. I'm not sure which was doing things most ideally. And gave up with that. I would try to avoid one where one side is clearly totally pushed back compared to the other side (like one I saw or Invertalon's first, etc.). Even those could be coaxed in many cases to do better than 24-105 for scenes where the DOF didn't fit it's tilt at well and radically better for scenes where it did.
I think even Fred swapped out his first copy (but is super pleased with the second from what I gather).
ggreene wrote:
What is it about the 24-70 zoom design that causes all these inconsistencies in QC? Although I thought my 24-70mkI was pretty solid I've read tons of posts about people going through multiple copies to get a decent one. Seems like the mkII is beginning to sound the same.
I'm sure there are inconsistencies in Canon's other lenses but it seems especially pronounced with this FL range.
Nothing.
I've noticed that people will complain about an obvious flaw on a lens, and never posts obvious faulty photos. I think the internet exacerbated all the issues. I also think most complainers (those that say they return 7 copies of something to get a 'good' one) are part of the problem. They use the argument of spending $,$$$ on something and they want the cream of the crop, whereas in reality, the difference between copy to copy is pretty nil. Even the lensrental guy who has 50? + copies of a specific lens can't say that he had a lemon.
I've probably bought new about 10 lenses (most L) and many more used ones and I never had a 'bad' copy of something, and never once returned a lens. Hell, I think I started to drink the koolaid, when I thought my new 70-200 II had focus issues, but it was just what I was asking out of it coupled with a new body.
I've noticed that people will complain about an obvious flaw on a lens, and never posts obvious faulty photos. I think the internet exacerbated all the issues. I also think most complainers (those that say they return 7 copies of something to get a 'good' one) are part of the problem. They use the argument of spending $,$$$ on something and they want the cream of the crop, whereas in reality, the difference between copy to copy is pretty nil. Even the lensrental guy who has 50? + copies of a specific lens can't say that he had a lemon.
I've probably bought new about 10 lenses (most L) and many more used ones and I never had a 'bad' copy of something, and never once returned a lens. Hell, I think I started to drink the koolaid, when I thought my new 70-200 II had focus issues, but it was just what I was asking out of it coupled with a new body. ...Show more →
OTOH one copy I looked at does 70mm f/2.8 better than 70-300L 70mm f/4 and much better than 70-200 f/4 70mm f/ and anotehr did it a trace worse thanthe 70-200 f/4 70mm. And some do not tilt DOF placement a little but a lot. I mean look at Invertalon's not like a T&S lens but....
i'm sure there are actual flawed copies out there - much like any manufactured product, there's going to be some defective ones.
My gripe is for those folks that buy/return multiple copies for what they think is a 'stellar sample' My opinion is that unless you're in a controlled lab environment -- and able to control every single variable in a lens test, you're really fooling yourself in thinking your cat/chart shots are going to suffice as a lens test.
stan23 wrote:
i'm sure there are actual flawed copies out there - much like any manufactured product, there's going to be some defective ones.
My gripe is for those folks that buy/return multiple copies for what they think is a 'stellar sample' My opinion is that unless you're in a controlled lab environment -- and able to control every single variable in a lens test, you're really fooling yourself in thinking your cat/chart shots are going to suffice as a lens test.
stan23 wrote:
Maybe.. I've been shooting EOS since '93, and EOS digital since 2001. In years pass, you'd be surprised to find many 'dud' copy lens threads.
most copies aren't that bad for most designs
there were a lot fo 17-40 that were wonky at one point, almost always the same side was bad, i returned my first one and the second one was clearly more uniform and much better
otoh i've seen maybe 8 50mm 1.4s and they all seemed pretty similar optically
for most lenses it's not worth bother/trouble/expense of picking through, I never bother, a quick test shows if it seems like it is in the ballpark it should be though, but it pays to be carefully and go through a mess in a few cases
there were some surprising differences in what parts of the frame were in focus and not in focus shooting various 24-70 II, same exact scene, same exact focus point, at the end of the day most could still be made to do better than other 24-70 type lenses but there are some that place the DOF a bit too differently side to entire side and there are some that are only a trace better than the old design at f/2.8 and some that are hugely better with most maybe two-thirds of the way towards the better side (oddly the one that seemed the very worst at f/2.8 seemed to have the most even corner to corner to side to side placement of DOF, although it was honestly hard to tell for sure which lens was doing what it was meant to do in terms of where it put DOF)
anyway you can take it up with Fred and Invertalon from now as to whether or not they should have just kept their first copies or not, I've said too much
stan23 wrote:
Maybe.. I've been shooting EOS since '93, and EOS digital since 2001. In years pass, you'd be surprised to find many 'dud' copy lens threads.
In the film days so many people looked at 3x5" prints from Shoprite 98% of the time though.
Even that said I do recall wondering why my slides from 35-70mm never had quite the insane bite as from the 50mm FD on the old body.
