24-70 2.8L mark II image quality

[Sven_22]

Was wondering if anyone out there could help me out a little bit: I am on my second copy of this lens, first one made a ticking sound when zooming in/out, so sent it back and got another. Being bored at home one day and hearing about how this lens trumps/is equal to some primes, I printed off one of those sharpness tests, pined it to the wall and went about comparing the lens to my 100mm 2.8L macro. settings were the same (shutter 1/80, @ f/2.8, camera was on a tripod, used remote shutter, and the IS was off on 100mm, I also used flash so ISO was 400 for both)
I did move the camera back with the 100mm mounted, keeping the chart roughly the same frame to frame, and I shot the 24-70 II @ 70mm. Now while the center of the photo is hard to tell apart, as you go to the any of the corners of the photos, the 100mm is clearly the champ in that regard. I was wondering if the 24-70 II is just not that great (contrary from what you hear) wide open and towards the corners, or if i have a defective one. I know one is a prime, different focal lengths etc etc, but i figured it would be a little close in image quality. If anyone one else had a copy of this lens, and would do the sharpness test that would be great, or if you have more experience with this lens, and this is or is not the norm too. I am just looking for some backing to see if I should send it back again, or keep it and stop having buyers remorse. Thanks in advance and I'll post some corner crops so you can see what I am rambling on about, the first should be the 24-70mm II and second the 100mm

 

[Marsu42]

Now while the center of the photo is hard to tell apart, as you go to the any of the corners of the photos, the 100mm is clearly the champ in that regard. I was wondering if the 24-70 II is just not that great (contrary from what you hear) wide open and towards the corners, or if i have a defective one.

Having a sub-par 24-70L2 copy doesn't qualify as defective, but simply as sub-par and being unlucky. Or you are lucky and your 24-70L2 is fine, but your 100L is excellent and above the crowd.

Looking at the tdp test charts, the 24-70L2 should be about equal with the 100L if not a bit better (though not the same focal length) ... http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=674&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

... but there's a noticeably variation, read this: http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/11/canon-24-70-mk-ii-variation

Having sampled only 2 copies doesn't mean you're bound to get a perfect one, so if you're unhappy you can keep trying. Imho for this price (standard zoom w/o IS, mind you) it has to have terrific iq.

Btw: Don't let yourself detained from inserting paragraphs in posts, it does improve the readability :->

 

[Khalai]

24-70 II struggles a bit at 70mm, f/2.8 in the corners. Also according to various reviews, this seems like a standart behaviour. Mind you, that at 70mm and f/2.8, almost nobody will care about corners as they will inevitably be out of DoF anyway.

If you're happy about your images, I wouldn't stress it out too much, I know I don't (happy 24-70 II here)

 

[Loswr]

My 24-70/2.8L II rivals my 35L, 85L II, and 100L for sharpness, although it has more distortion (but less vignetting).

Btw: Don't let yourself detained from inserting paragraphs in posts, it does improve the readability :->

So,


you


don't


like


a


wall


of


words


?

 

[Marsu42]

Let me reply with a just one single sentence (taken from a legal document) ...

In the event that the Purchaser defaults in the payment of any instalment of purchase price, taxes, insurance, interest, or the annual charge described elsewhere herein, or shall default in the performance of any other obligations set forth in this Contract, the Seller may: at his option: (a) Declare immediately due and payable the entire unpaid balance of purchase price, with accrued interest, taxes, and annual charge, and demand full payment thereof, and enforce conveyance of the land by termination of the contract or according to the terms hereof, in which case the Purchaser shall also be liable to the Seller for reasonable attorney's fees for services rendered by any attorney on behalf of the Seller, or (b) sell said land and premises or any part thereof at public auction, in such manner, at such time and place, upon such terms and conditions, and upon such public notice as the Seller may deem best for the interest of all concerned, consisting of advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in the county or city in which the security property is located at least once a week for Three (3) successive weeks or for such period as applicable law may require and, in case of default of any purchaser, to re-sell with such postponement of sale or resale and upon such public notice thereof as the Seller may determine, and upon compliance by the Purchaser with the terms of sale, and upon judicial approval as may be required by law, convey said land and premises in fee simple to and at the cost of the Purchaser, who shall not be liable to see to the application of the purchase money; and from the proceeds of the sale: First to pay all proper costs and charges, including but not limited to court costs, advertising expenses, auctioneer's allowance, the expenses, if any required to correct any irregularity in the title, premium for Seller's bond, auditor's fee, attorney's fee, and all other expenses of sale occurred in and about the protection and execution of this contract, and all moneys advanced for taxes, assessments, insurance, and with interest thereon as provided herein, and all taxes due upon said land and premises at time of sale, and to retain as compensation a commission of five percent (5%) on the amount of said sale or sales; SECOND, to pay the whole amount then remaining unpaid of the principal of said contract, and interest thereon to date of payment, whether the same shall be due or not, it being understood and agreed that upon such sale before maturity of the contract the balance thereof shall be immediately due and payable; THIRD, to pay liens of record against the security property according to their priority of lien and to the extent that funds remaining in the hands of the Seller are available; and LAST, to pay the remainder of said proceeds, if any, to the vendor, his heirs, personals representatives, successors or assigns upon the delivery and surrender to the vendee of possession of the land and premises, less costs and excess of obtaining possession.

 

[bholliman]

I just did a quick test shooting large jpegs with my 100L and 24-70 2.8II at 70mm, f/2.8 on a tripod. Very close, both pretty sharp in the corners. I might give the 100L a slight advantage, but its close.

 

[ellas]

Hello,
I find my lens (24-70 mkii) a bit soft when I am close to the subject (closer than 0.7 meter) and shooting 70 mm at 2.8. It´s a huge difference if I compare it against stoping down to F4. At f4 it´s very sharp.
If I compare f2.8 and f4 at longer distances than 0.7 all images are razorsharp. Can´t see any difference. This issue with the sharpness are only at 70mm. Anyone else who got this issue?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Do the setup again with Live Autofocus and see if its better. I am assuming that you used standard autofocus, I did not see you mention it.

If live autofocus (Not Quick) fixes the issue, you need to do a AFMA. If not, return it again.

 

[Xyclopx]

I am just looking for some backing to see if I should send it back again, or keep it and stop having buyers remorse. Thanks in advance and I'll post some corner crops so you can see what I am rambling on about, the first should be the 24-70mm II and second the 100mm

hi. i have both lenses, and i do pixel-peek at least to a 1:1 ratio every single image i work on. my 24-70 is extremely sharp at all apertures. the extreme corners are a tad softer, but still in the "very sharp" category. i have owned two, and both are very similar in performance. the corners certainly do not look like yours, no matter the focal length or fstop. however, i will note that the 24mm end is a little bit sharper than the 70mm end. also, my 100L is somewhat close in IQ--i never really compared them specifically, but both are sharp enough that the corners are always crystal clear, not low constrasty like yours.

i have had some decentered lenses before and sometimes the results do resemble yours. also, i recently sent in my body for repairs since after a trip to yosemite i all of a sudden noticed the sides looking like yours. i did trip on a hike and i think the camera might have hit something, knocking the sensor out of adjustment.

my personal opinion: i'd return it.

now............ this is all assuming you focused the shots correctly. i have screwed up some tests cause i screwed up the focus. i personally find that LV contrast detect @ 10x zoomed, on a tripod, gives the most consistent results. and i would also make sure you zoom in on the actual corner you're looking at, cause it's almost certain the plane of the test target is not perfectly parallel to your sensor, unless you have some method of calibrating the plane.

 

[Xyclopx]

I am just looking for some backing to see if I should send it back again, or keep it and stop having buyers remorse. Thanks in advance and I'll post some corner crops so you can see what I am rambling on about, the first should be the 24-70mm II and second the 100mm

hi. i have both lenses, and i do pixel-peek at least to a 1:1 ratio every single image i work on. my 24-70 is extremely sharp at all apertures. the extreme corners are a tad softer, but still in the "very sharp" category. i have owned two, and both are very similar in performance. the corners certainly do not look like yours, no matter the focal length or fstop. however, i will note that the 24mm end is a little bit sharper than the 70mm end. also, my 100L is somewhat close in IQ--i never really compared them specifically, but both are sharp enough that the corners are always crystal clear, not low constrasty like yours.

i have had some decentered lenses before and sometimes the results do resemble yours. also, i recently sent in my body for repairs since after a trip to yosemite i all of a sudden noticed the sides looking like yours. i did trip on a hike and i think the camera might have hit something, knocking the sensor out of adjustment.

my personal opinion: i'd return it.

now............ this is all assuming you focused the shots correctly. i have screwed up some tests cause i screwed up the focus. i personally find that LV contrast detect @ 10x zoomed, on a tripod, gives the most consistent results. and i would also make sure you zoom in on the actual corner you're looking at, cause it's almost certain the plane of the test target is not perfectly parallel to your sensor, unless you have some method of calibrating parallelism.

 

[YuengLinger]

Too lazy to do chart shots, but mine is reliably very sharp at any aperture, and no slouch in the corners...

EXCEPT NEAR OR AT 70MM AND MIN FOCAL DISTANCE.

Some vague memory (as they all are now I'm a parent of a one year old and expecting another baby) of hearing about this issue in reviews while deciding whether to buy.

Really, just too wonderful a lens in all other aspects. It is in no way a macro lens, but if I get back just a bit from MFD, it is fine even for detail shots. For portraits, landscapes, events in general, just marvelous.

 

[privatebydesign]

I have just spent some time testing a MkII against my MkI (this is the third one I have used) and to be honest, I just don't see that much difference on 21MP FF images. On a blind test of which do I prefer at any focal length and aperture I can't reliably tell which is from which even at 100%. Sometimes the MkII is nicer, sometimes the MkI, I'm not upgrading; unless they do come out with this 24-70 f2.8 IS..........

 

[LesC]

I'm on my 2nd 24-70 F2.8L II and I'm not altogether happy with corner sharpness particularly on the left hand side. I'm sure at around the 50mm mark even at F8 the top left corner is not so sharp. Of course it's difficult to tell if youv'e got the camera perfectly square to your target to eliminate the effects of parallax bt even so, at F8 surely all should be sharp unless you're really close? Some exampleas attached. In view of the stunning reviews this lens gets, I may ask Canon for their views.

 

[LesC]

And an example at distance:

 

[YuengLinger]

LesC, if you are sure the problem is not with your camera, send the lens to Canon with a clear description of the problem. The worst that can happen is they will tell you, "It's within spec." Otherwise, they'd adjust it and it will come back much better.

If you have even a doubt about your camera body, send that in with the lens. Likely you've satisfied yourself using other lenses that the problem is with the 24-70mm.

 

[triggermike]

Looking at the tdp test charts, the 24-70L2 should be about equal with the 100L if not a bit better (though not the same focal length) ... http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=674&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

Looking at that the-digital-picture comparison clearly shows a noticeable difference in the corners very much like the OP's initial post?

 

[Arty]

I wouldn't expect a zoom, even one as expensive as this one, to perform as well as a fine macro lens at close distances, wide open. That is why macro lenses are manufactured. They are optimized for flat field performance (often stopped down, not wide open), in some instances (perhaps the Canon 50 F2.5) and close distances.
I would be concerned about a zoom lens if it didn't produce wanted results at normal shooting distances, like a meter or so to infinity. If one side of the image is not sharp, but the other side is, that is a problem, as would be inconsistent AF.
Will the lens produce sharp portraits? If it prompts photos that make you happy, I wouldn't worry about it not performing like a macro lens, since it isn't one.

 

[TGCorneliussen]

its a great lens...not had any problems with it