EF24-70 F2.8L MKII soft edges?

[LesC]

I guess you've got some elements out of alignment - "de-centered". Complicated lenses like the 24-70 don't take knocks well, and if you've given it a bang that's probably the cause of the problem, despite what Canon service have said.

I had a 5D that got dropped. Everything was OK except the camera started back focusing, which it hadn't done before. Canon service checked it and said it wasn't out of alignment. I find these problems happen when you have an issue which is great enough to be irritating, but only slight in technical terms.

I think you're right although I was never blown away by the lens' quality even before the knock; before (as indeed after) I've had really nice sharp results with it & occasionally disappointing ones but annoyingly inconsistent enough to pin down the reason. The lens was of course attached to the 6D when it got knocked but I feel the issue is certainly with the lens. I need to use it for a trip in a couple of weeks but after then may contact Canon one more time but I have little faith in their UK repair centre.

Ultimately I think I'll need to get rid & cut my losses. Then I need to decide whether to risk another 24-70 F2.8L MKII, try a 24-105 F4 MKII or perhaps see what reviews are like for the Sigma Art version soon to be released - I rather like the idea of F2.8 and IS...

 

[Larsskv]

It seems that your lens has some issues, but that is typical for most zoom lenses, and all of the 4 copies of the 24-70 f2.8LIi that I have had, have had some issues - and the copy I have now is much better than my last copy. I recommend this article from Roger Cicala at Lensrentals:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-zoom-lenses/

Long story short, zoom lenses are rarely (never) evely good across the frame, at every focal length.

 

[LesC]

It seems that your lens has some issues, but that is typical for most zoom lenses, and all of the 4 copies of the 24-70 f2.8LIi that I have had, have had some issues - and the copy I have now is much better than my last copy. I recommend this article from Roger Cicala at Lensrentals:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-zoom-lenses/

Long story short, zoom lenses are rarely (never) evely good across the frame, at every focal length.

Thanks Interesting article; maybe I'm expecting too much, who knows, but ironically it was also Roger Cicala who in his review of the 24-70 says"The Canon 24-70mm II is the best standard-range zoom ever made. By any manufacturer. Ever. It’s not close" and "If you need the absolute best, then this is what you need"

Trouble is, as you say there can be copy variation and so I find it's difficult to determine if a lens is a poor copy and if so where's the dividing line between poor & actually faulty? Even the comments on this thread suggest diffraction, technique or a fault as possible causes or perhaps as Canon would have it, it is 'within parameters' - I don't even know myself for certain and I guess that's what's frustrating. The fact that performance seems inconsistent doesn't help - I've veered between thinking it's definitely faulty or that it's my faulty technique somehow. BTW, how did you end up with 4 copies?

As most of us buy just the one copy of a lens it's difficult to work out how good or otherwise it is in comparison to others; I optimistically assumed that paying so much for a lens would almost guarantee all copies would be really good

Think for now I'll hold fire for a while, see how it goes and may look at the sigma when it comes out as I do fancy IS. I'm also looking at getting the 6D MKII when it comes out so might pick up the EF24-105 F4L MKII if it's bundled in as a kit lens with a decent saving.

 

[MJB]

I have not always been happy with my copy while using on my 5D Mk3, however when I got my 1DX Mk2 the image quality from this lens seemed much better.

My 5D works well with all my other lenses and have never been sure why this particular lens always seemed a bit soft on this camera.

Any suggestions?

 

[pwp]

I have not always been happy with my copy while using on my 5D Mk3, however when I got my 1DX Mk2 the image quality from this lens seemed much better.

My 5D works well with all my other lenses and have never been sure why this particular lens always seemed a bit soft on this camera.

Any suggestions?

AFMA variations?

-pw

 

[LesC]

This may be a silly question, but ... how do you know if AFMA may help/be needed? And can AFMA be adjusted for different focal lengths? I admit I've not used it before for fear of making things worse

When I got my 24-70 I checked focus by focusing on a point on a ruler at F2.8 and as that point appeared sharp assumed focus was ok. Even on my shoot that I experienced problems with (referred to earlier in this thread), I took some shots of bluebells close up at F2.8 that were sharp where I expected them to be.

 

[ishootbokeh]

I'm on my second copy and I'm still not happy even after having it on for a service. Corners way too soft at 70mm for a lens this expensive. My Sigma 35 art just blows it away for edge to edge sharpness. Pity as I love it as an event lens setup, centre sharpness is great but for large groups I have to be careful with people near the edge of the frame.

 

[LesC]

I'm on my second copy and I'm still not happy even after having it on for a service. Corners way too soft at 70mm for a lens this expensive. My Sigma 35 art just blows it away for edge to edge sharpness. Pity as I love it as an event lens setup, centre sharpness is great but for large groups I have to be careful with people near the edge of the frame.

My thoughts exactly; I don't make my money from my photography but all the same expect more from such an expensive lens.

Not sure whether to be relieved or disappointed that I'm not the only one

 

[ishootbokeh]

Not just you for sure. I've tried MFA for hours on end to find the sweet spot but I feel thats not the issue as its excellent in the middle just not great at the corners at 24mm and poor at 70mm.

Out of all my lenses for sharpness on any Canon body my 70-200 IS II just nails it every time, sharp to the corners, worth every penny. No MFA needed either, great to be 100% confident when it matters, joy to use.

Maybe a 5dmk4/6dmk2 and a possible 24-70 2.8 IS II would be the dream AF/sharpness combo!

 

[LesC]

Interesting to see what the Sigma Art 24-70 F2.8 with IS is like - due out soon I believe...

 

[ishootbokeh]

Interesting to see what the Sigma Art 24-70 F2.8 with IS is like - due out soon I believe...

Going to be very interesting indeed. I've been very impressed with Sigma art series lenses after a little MFA, great performance and good on your pocket too!

 

[Larsskv]

It seems that your lens has some issues, but that is typical for most zoom lenses, and all of the 4 copies of the 24-70 f2.8LIi that I have had, have had some issues - and the copy I have now is much better than my last copy. I recommend this article from Roger Cicala at Lensrentals:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/02/things-you-didnt-want-to-know-about-zoom-lenses/

Long story short, zoom lenses are rarely (never) evely good across the frame, at every focal length.

Thanks Interesting article; maybe I'm expecting too much, who knows, but ironically it was also Roger Cicala who in his review of the 24-70 says"The Canon 24-70mm II is the best standard-range zoom ever made. By any manufacturer. Ever. It’s not close" and "If you need the absolute best, then this is what you need"

Trouble is, as you say there can be copy variation and so I find it's difficult to determine if a lens is a poor copy and if so where's the dividing line between poor & actually faulty? Even the comments on this thread suggest diffraction, technique or a fault as possible causes or perhaps as Canon would have it, it is 'within parameters' - I don't even know myself for certain and I guess that's what's frustrating. The fact that performance seems inconsistent doesn't help - I've veered between thinking it's definitely faulty or that it's my faulty technique somehow. BTW, how did you end up with 4 copies?

Copy nr 1 damaged when my tripod tipped over.
Copy nr 2 sold to finance my 35LII + I also had the quite excellent 24-70 f4 L IS
Copy nr 3 was bought used and was really bad in the upper right corner. Sold it to buy the 50L.
Copy nr 4 bought new at a really good (Norwegian) price on sale. This was the first of my copies that could compete with the 24-70 f4 L IS in terms of corner sharpness. Sold the f4, and is a happy owner of this fourth copy. Still corners are never perfect with this last copy, especially on my 5Ds. My 16-35 f2.8 LIII is much better on comparable focal lengths and apertures.

I think all my copies of the 24-70 f2.8 LII in general have been really good at f2.8 and for photos with a blurry background, but it has been hard to find a copy that performs well for landscapes (because of lack of corner sharpness).

 

[LesC]

Thanks; interesting - so you rate the EF24-70 F4L highly then?

 

[Larsskv]

Thanks; interesting - so you rate the EF24-70 F4L highly then?

The 24-70 f4 L IS is really good, and as good as a good copy of the f2.8 L II for landscapes, and is quite light and small. The 24-70 f2.8L II is a tiny bit sharper in center, has a little more contrast and clarity, and has nicer bokeh. I think the f2.8LII is the better all purpose zoom, but the f4 L IS provides very good value for money.

 

[MJB]

I have tried AFMA and could still not get the results I was hoping for, reluctant to send it to Canon as it works well with the 1DX Mk2.

 

[R1-7D]

I don't think you'll be able to properly tell if this is a decentering issue unless you shoot something that's all on the same focal plane, such as a brick wall.

Just looking at your original image, all the blue flowers in the foreground are sharp across the image, and they appear to be pretty much on the same plane. It is hard to tell with the trees in the background.

 

[LesC]

I don't think you'll be able to properly tell if this is a decentering issue unless you shoot something that's all on the same focal plane, such as a brick wall.

Just looking at your original image, all the blue flowers in the foreground are sharp across the image, and they appear to be pretty much on the same plane. It is hard to tell with the trees in the background.

Appreciate what you're saying but the two star chart shots (in focus & defocused) seem to suggest it's not decentering. However the 3rd image of the star chart shot at F8, if you view full size appears to be less sharp on the right side, to my eyes at least??

 

[R1-7D]

I don't think you'll be able to properly tell if this is a decentering issue unless you shoot something that's all on the same focal plane, such as a brick wall.

Just looking at your original image, all the blue flowers in the foreground are sharp across the image, and they appear to be pretty much on the same plane. It is hard to tell with the trees in the background.

Appreciate what you're saying but the two star chart shots (in focus & defocused) seem to suggest it's not decentering. However the 3rd image of the star chart shot at F8, if you view full size appears to be less sharp on the right side, to my eyes at least??

The left side of the third chart appears marginally sharper. There's some color or temperature differences, however, as well as differences in contrast between the left and right side of the image. This can play with the viewer's perception of sharpness.

Have you run the lens through Reikan FoCal's Aperture Sharpness test? Perhaps your lens's sharpness falls off drastically at f/8. I know on my copy it's sharpest at f/3.2 and stays even until f/6.3, and then starts going down. If you're seeing this phenomenon at f/8, there's a chance that you're just noticing a very slight decentering of the element more so at that narrower aperture than at wider apertures.

 

[LesC]

[/quote]

The left side of the third chart appears marginally sharper. There's some color or temperature differences, however, as well as differences in contrast between the left and right side of the image. This can play with the viewer's perception of sharpness.

[/quote]

Good point; colour/temperature difference were I think due to my printer's dodgy B&W printing & the lack of contrast on the right side may be due to light from a window on the right...

Haven't got Reikan FoCal but now might be a good time to invest in it I was looking in to it but seems it may have some issues with the EOS 6D ? See here: http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/2013/02/focal-and-canon-6d-support-update/