AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving this copy.

[K-amps]

I just AFMA'ed my 24-70ii the third time (i.e. Each time fine tuning both tele and Wide till I nailed both). +5 on the Wide and +6 on Tele with my 5d3.

The Issue I have is, the sharpness at 24mm has a lot to be desired... 70mm is fine I guess, but I had higher hopes for a $2300 lens... is this it or do i have a dud on my hands?

Pls see 100% crops of 24mm and 70mm below and let me know what you think... if all seems ok, I can send shots of the corners which are even more disappointing...

EDIT: Added MF shot
Third shot is MF @ 24mm

[elflord]

I just AFMA'ed my 24-70ii the third time (i.e. Each time fine tuning both tele and Wide till I nailed both). +5 on the Wide and +6 on Tele with my 5d3.

Is the test chart shot manually focused ?

It's not clear whether you're complaining about the optical performance of the lens or the AF accuracy.

[K-amps]

Added MF a a third shot. Looks better than AF24mm but still not as good as AF 70mm

[Viggo]

The only method I've found to give results is Focal. I've adjusted manually and never been happy, one situation great, the next horrible. Focal gives much better consistently great results. You can also get graphs so you can compare with other people's copies also.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

What settings were you using?  It looks like high ISO when you should use low ISO and lots of light.  Manual settings of AFMA are difficult.  Lining up everything has to be accurate.
Try a image with the camera on a tripod, square to the chart with bright light, and Live view and Live focus.  If the image is sharp, then you need a better AFMA.
FoCal will not only adjust AFMA, but it can test for consistent autofocus, which points to a lens issue.  It will also help align the lens to the target so that you get consistent values.  Its worth the price.

[K-amps]

Thanks Viggo and mk.Spokane (by the way how is the hand now?)

What version do you recommend? (I am a hobbyist... if the pro version gives me better AFM, I will go with it).

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Thanks Viggo and mk.Spokane (by the way how is the hand now?)

What version do you recommend? (I am a hobbyist... if the pro version gives me better AFM, I will go with it).

I pre-ordered the Pro version last December for a big discount and am very happy with it.  I get access to beta versions, which is nice if you have a new camera model, because you get support quicker.
However the AFMA results will be just as accurate with any version.  You can always upgrade for just the difference in price, so you do not lose if you get the basic version and decide to upgrade.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

You can't [EDIT: I originally typed CAN by mistake instead of CAN'T] just take one or two shots of a test chart and expect to see the perfect sharpness. I always do at least six 10x liveview manual trials and often try for ten. Just the tiniest, tiniest hair of focusing difference can make test results go all over the place. It's tricky.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

You can just take one or two shots of a test chart and expect to see the perfect sharpness. I always do at least six 10x liveview manual trials and often try for ten. Just the tiniest, tiniest hair of focusing difference can make test results go all over the place. It's tricky.

Thats whats nice about foCal, you do not get all those variations that happen due to many uncontrolled factors.
Here is a 24-105mmL with at least two shots taken at each AFMA setting.  Notice that they usually are close or on top of each other.  It would be virtually impossible to see the differences in the shots taken at the same AFMA, and being off by + / -  3 points is insignigicant.  You need to be off by 5 points with this lens at 105mm to see the difference in sharpness.   Obviously, some lenses are less forgiving, a 85mm f/1.2 might have a sharper peak.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

You can just take one or two shots of a test chart and expect to see the perfect sharpness. I always do at least six 10x liveview manual trials and often try for ten. Just the tiniest, tiniest hair of focusing difference can make test results go all over the place. It's tricky.

Thats whats nice about foCal, you do not get all those variations that happen due to many uncontrolled factors.
Here is a 24-105mmL with at least two shots taken at each AFMA setting.  Notice that they usually are close or on top of each other.  It would be virtually impossible to see the differences in the shots taken at the same AFMA, and being off by + / -  3 points is insignigicant.  You need to be off by 5 points with this lens at 105mm to see the difference in sharpness.   Obviously, some lenses are less forgiving, a 85mm f/1.2 might have a sharper peak.

I have to disagree, even the TINIEST hair difference and the crispness of a test chart WILL differ and you can easily flip flop around comparative performance between two lenses. Even doing 10x LV MF with a magnifier on top you absolutely will see differences test shot to shot and need to pick the best out of a bunch when you are doing fine comparisons.

Even on your chart maybe the first try is the 930 and the next try is the 815, if you didn't know they were both the same copy tested you could mistakenly think one copy is way better than the 'other'. YOu need a bunch of trials to hit the 930 score with reasonable chance.

And say a 300 2.8 IS + 1.4x TC on a 7D, even a difference of 1 on MFA can make a noticeable difference in hit rate, DOF at that high MP count and such a long lens is small.

[Axilrod]

24mm should be super sharp, it's resolution scores were off the charts and the general consensus was that 24mm was the sharpest spot.  I compared it to the 24LII and while the 24 had less distortion the 24-70II was noticeably sharper.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

24mm should be super sharp, it's resolution scores were off the charts and the general consensus was that 24mm was the sharpest spot.  I compared it to the 24LII and while the 24 had less distortion the 24-70II was noticeably sharper.

24 1.4 II is crazy sharp (on photozone didn't it get truly insane numbers there center frame? I forget but I think so, my 24 1.4 II is nuts in the center, it drove 5D2 video to constant moire way more than even my 70-200 f/4 IS or almost anything else), but it seemed hard to tell apart from 24-70 II, both crazy sharp at 24mm IMO, the prime maybe a bit more consistent at corners though.

[Kernuak]

24mm should be super sharp, it's resolution scores were off the charts and the general consensus was that 24mm was the sharpest spot.  I compared it to the 24LII and while the 24 had less distortion the 24-70II was noticeably sharper.

24 1.4 II is crazy sharp (on photozone didn't get truly insane numbers there center frame? I forget but I think so, my 24 1.4 II is nuts in the center, it drove 5D2 video to constant moire way more than even my 70-200 f/4 IS or almost anything else), but it seemed hard to tell apart from 24-70 II, both crazy sharp at 24mm IMO, the prime maybe a bit more consistent at corners though.

The Photozone review of the 24 L MkII is a bit misleading, as they mark it down due to the soft corners when wider than f/2. However, if you look at their charts, it shows how good it is at f/2.8 and narrower, even in comparison to the Zeiss 21mm and the 24mm TS/E L MkII. If the 24-70 MkII is as sharp as the prime, then it should be razor sharp.

Edited, because of this stupid touchpad .

[Mt Spokane Photography]

You can just take one or two shots of a test chart and expect to see the perfect sharpness. I always do at least six 10x liveview manual trials and often try for ten. Just the tiniest, tiniest hair of focusing difference can make test results go all over the place. It's tricky.

Thats whats nice about foCal, you do not get all those variations that happen due to many uncontrolled factors.
Here is a 24-105mmL with at least two shots taken at each AFMA setting.  Notice that they usually are close or on top of each other.  It would be virtually impossible to see the differences in the shots taken at the same AFMA, and being off by + / -  3 points is insignigicant.  You need to be off by 5 points with this lens at 105mm to see the difference in sharpness.   Obviously, some lenses are less forgiving, a 85mm f/1.2 might have a sharper peak.

I have to disagree, even the TINIEST hair difference and the crispness of a test chart WILL differ and you can easily flip flop around comparative performance between two lenses. Even doing 10x LV MF with a magnifier on top you absolutely will see differences test shot to shot and need to pick the best out of a bunch when you are doing fine comparisons.

Even on your chart maybe the first try is the 930 and the next try is the 815, if you didn't know they were both the same copy tested you could mistakenly think one copy is way better than the 'other'. YOu need a bunch of trials to hit the 930 score with reasonable chance.

And say a 300 2.8 IS + 1.4x TC on a 7D, even a difference of 1 on MFA can make a noticeable difference in hit rate, DOF at that high MP count and such a long lens is small.

While it true that someone can see a tiny difference at the AFMA settings, FoCal saves the1:1  images used for the evaluation at the different points, and the difference in sharpness isn't significant to me.
In fact, just using the images, its entirely possible to select the wrong one as being the sharpest.  Some people can, but the differences are very subtle.
 

 

 

[K-amps]

Ok gents, Bought focal and set it all up. Before Focal I was +5/+6 for w/t

test 1 W with focal said set w=0
test 2 T said set T= -1
test 3 W said set W = -1 (down 1 form last test)
test 4 T said set T = +4 (up 5 from last test)

Should I keep going in endless loops of T +W tests? I know the W setting affects the T setting so when should I call it quits?