24-70ii @MFD quality concerns. Please help

[Duckman]

Hello,
I am new as a member to canon rumors though I've frequented the site for at least a year now.. Glad to be an official member with this great group of knowledgable and talented photographers! I was wondering if anyone who owns the canon 24-70 ii could post photos taken at MFD of something with some detail(maybe at different focal lengths even?)... I searched the site and couldn't find anything so my apologies if this was already covered. I am interested in this lens but I read on some site it has dismal resolution at MFD @2.8. Though that's hard to believe I nonetheless would love to see some real world photos... I find myself shooting wide open often enough at close distances that the result will carry heavy weight in my decision to buy or not. Thanks in advance

 

[Robert Welch]

Maybe someone else knows, but I'm unsure what MFD is referring to?

I've never seen any test that show anything less than stellar performance from this lens. But not sure what it was you are referring to.

 

[privatebydesign]

MFD=Minimum focus distance and is normally the shortest distance from the sensor to the subject the lens can attain focus, not the distance from the front of the lens to the subject, that is the working distance.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

One of the well documented features of the 24-70mm MK II is its poor performance at or near MFD. It was discussed when the lens came out, but that was a long time ago.
There is nothing you can do about it, if you were buying it for extremely sharp photos near MFD, you bought the wrong lens.

 

[chilledXpress]

I'm pretty sure this is why Canon made the f/4 version.

 

[No Mayo]

Hi Duckman, I am also curious how the 24-70 2.8L II performs around it's max magnification. I often foot zoom up on a detail during a wedding reception to get a shot quickly and then step back into shooting the flow of groups of dancers. An example would be the flower girls hand in her dad's hand. I want to shoot them at full length, then grab that detail shot without changing glass. I currently use a Canon 35 1.4, but I would like the variable focal length range of a 24-70. So I respectfully second the request to someone who might be kind enough to post a few examples.

I'm pretty sure this is why Canon made the f/4 version.

I agree, but a 4.0 max aperture is a deal breaker for me no matter how well it performs at MFD.

One of the well documented features of the 24-70mm MK II is its poor performance at or near MFD. It was discussed when the lens came out, but that was a long time ago.
There is nothing you can do about it, if you were buying it for extremely sharp photos near MFD, you bought the wrong lens.

I agree; it is not the 100 2.8L... but seeing "poor" instead of an example image leaves me wondering how bad it is. A shot of a cake topper will show me what I need to see, but anything posted will be appreciated by myself and dare I say the Duckman as well.

 

[YuengLinger]

Happy to say I received mine from B&H on Friday, and I love the lens. Did some informal tests first thing (one shot attached), and then took it to an event Saturday morning.

The attached shot was taken with the front-element about 16" away from the peppers, which is close to the MFD, at f/2.8, on a tripod. Not cropped, and the sharpening is the LR5 default.

I've looked at about 400 images taken with it, of details, of models, group shots, flowers...Any focal length and distance from subject, this is such a huge improvement over my 24-105mm and my 9 year old version 1 of the 24-70mm, that I know I made the right decision and will commit to it by cutting the UPC out of the box for the rebate later today.

As for the MFD, maybe Canon was slightly optimistic saying it could be 1.27 feet, but when I shoot events, I don't get that close. I'm happy with 20-24" working distance for detail shots, which so far is working great with this lens. If I did try to shoot closer, I know that any lens-shake is going to be magnified.

Ok, I guess if somebody wants to use this on a tripod at the absolute MFD, they might wish they had a true macro lens, but that is not why I bought my 24-70.

To my eyes, it provides very good sharpness starting at f/2.8, and I am super happy with the silky transition to the OOF areas and the bokeh itself.

I'm thinking that somehow the way this resolves onto newer sensors somehow matches the sensor array far better than the older 24-70 or even the very popular 24-105mm. Sure don't know the science, but it just plain works!

In the past, I bought lenses or other gear and then kept second guessing myself. I know about agonizing over a choice, and then agonizing again over the decision. With experience, and beginning to understand real-world vs theoretical/charts/neuroses, I'm slightly more easy going. This new 24-70, despite the cursedly high price, fits my style. Good tool, I'm sure.

 

[No Mayo]

Happy to say I received mine from B&H on Friday, and I love the lens. Did some informal tests first thing (one shot attached), and then took it to an event Saturday morning.

The attached shot was taken about with the front-element about 16" away from the peppers, which is close to the MFD, at f/2.8, on a tripod. Not cropped, and the sharpening is the LR5 default.

I've looked at about 400 images taken with it, of details, of models, group shots, flowers...Any focal length and distance from subject, this is such a huge improvement over my 24-105mm and my 9 year old version 1 of the 24-70mm, that I know I made the right decision and will commit to it by cutting the UPC out of the box for the rebate later today.

As for the MFD, maybe Canon was slightly optimistic saying it could be 1.27 feet, but when I shoot events, I don't get that close. I'm happy with 20-24" working distance for detail shots, which so far is working great with this lens. If I did try to shoot closer, I know that any lens-shake is going to be magnified.

Ok, I guess if somebody wants to use this on a tripod at the absolute MFD, they might wish they had a true macro lens, but that is not why I bought my 24-70.

To my eyes, it provides very good sharpness starting at f/2.8, and I am super happy with the silky transition to the OOF areas and the bokeh itself.

I'm thinking that somehow the way this resolves onto newer sensors somehow matches the sensor array far better than the older 24-70 or even the very popular 24-105mm. Sure don't know the science, but it just plain works!

In the past, I bought lenses or other gear and then kept second guessing myself. I know about agonizing over a choice, and then agonizing again over the decision. With experience, and beginning to understand real-world vs theoretical/charts/neuroses, I'm slightly more easy going. This new 24-70, despite the cursedly high price, fits my style. Good tool, I'm sure.

Big Thanks!!!

 

[Duckman]

Maybe someone else knows, but I'm unsure what MFD is referring to?

I've never seen any test that show anything less than stellar performance from this lens. But not sure what it was you are referring to.

I was referring to its minimum focusing distance... Perhaps I should have not abbreviated that initially.

MFD=Minimum focus distance and is normally the shortest distance from the sensor to the subject the lens can attain focus, not the distance from the front of the lens to the subject, that is the working distance.

Yes, thank you... For my needs the working distance isn't a concern, only image quality used wide open(at MFD) primarily to maximize subject isolation at events or even on a hike to capture "details."

One of the well documented features of the 24-70mm MK II is its poor performance at or near MFD. It was discussed when the lens came out, but that was a long time ago.
There is nothing you can do about it, if you were buying it for extremely sharp photos near MFD, you bought the wrong lens.

I didn't realize it was well documented some time ago... I only recently got the funds and began my research into it. Even so, all I could find was opinions of its sharp or soft (which are rather subjective terms) and one photo of graph paper which didn't really give me a sense of what to expect from a real world images. I don't need them to be extremely sharp like my macro, just usable photos. Before dropping 2k on it I just wanted to be sure it functioned well from MFD-infinity like all my other lenses do.

I'm pretty sure this is why Canon made the f/4 version.

Thanks, I'm not at all interested in this lens... I have the 24-105 already and mostly looking to upgrade it to faster glass...I'd sooner carry an extension tube for if/when i might want more magnification... I also have a dedicated set up for more serious macro stuff.

Hi Duckman, I am also curious how the 24-70 2.8L II performs around it's max magnification. I often foot zoom up on a detail during a wedding reception to get a shot quickly and then step back into shooting the flow of groups of dancers. An example would be the flower girls hand in her dad's hand. I want to shoot them at full length, then grab that detail shot without changing glass. I currently use a Canon 35 1.4, but I would like the variable focal length range of a 24-70. So I respectfully second the request to someone who might be kind enough to post a few examples.

I'm pretty sure this is why Canon made the f/4 version.

I agree, but a 4.0 max aperture is a deal breaker for me no matter how well it performs at MFD.

One of the well documented features of the 24-70mm MK II is its poor performance at or near MFD. It was discussed when the lens came out, but that was a long time ago.
There is nothing you can do about it, if you were buying it for extremely sharp photos near MFD, you bought the wrong lens.

I agree; it is not the 100 2.8L... but seeing "poor" instead of an example image leaves me wondering how bad it is. A shot of a cake topper will show me what I need to see, but anything posted will be appreciated by myself and dare I say the Duckman as well.

Exactly!

Happy to say I received mine from B&H on Friday, and I love the lens. Did some informal tests first thing (one shot attached), and then took it to an event Saturday morning.

The attached shot was taken with the front-element about 16" away from the peppers, which is close to the MFD, at f/2.8, on a tripod. Not cropped, and the sharpening is the LR5 default.

I've looked at about 400 images taken with it, of details, of models, group shots, flowers...Any focal length and distance from subject, this is such a huge improvement over my 24-105mm and my 9 year old version 1 of the 24-70mm, that I know I made the right decision and will commit to it by cutting the UPC out of the box for the rebate later today.

As for the MFD, maybe Canon was slightly optimistic saying it could be 1.27 feet, but when I shoot events, I don't get that close. I'm happy with 20-24" working distance for detail shots, which so far is working great with this lens. If I did try to shoot closer, I know that any lens-shake is going to be magnified.

Ok, I guess if somebody wants to use this on a tripod at the absolute MFD, they might wish they had a true macro lens, but that is not why I bought my 24-70.

To my eyes, it provides very good sharpness starting at f/2.8, and I am super happy with the silky transition to the OOF areas and the bokeh itself.

I'm thinking that somehow the way this resolves onto newer sensors somehow matches the sensor array far better than the older 24-70 or even the very popular 24-105mm. Sure don't know the science, but it just plain works!

In the past, I bought lenses or other gear and then kept second guessing myself. I know about agonizing over a choice, and then agonizing again over the decision. With experience, and beginning to understand real-world vs theoretical/charts/neuroses, I'm slightly more easy going. This new 24-70, despite the cursedly high price, fits my style. Good tool, I'm sure.

Thanks! This is exactly what I wanted to see!! Yes the majority of my shots won't be taken at MFD but Its nice to know while on the fly I won't need to switch lenses to get a shot of something small that catches my. I suspected it wouldn't be an issue since all my glass function well from MFD-infinity but, I'd never read a review that explicitly pointed out how bad the MFD resolution is :/... I suppose in the context of comparing it to this lenses stellar performance in all other categories.. It is poor perhaps.... Seems plenty good though for my needs though! (I was just worried that it would somehow be virtually unusable at close distances, which for me, esp at that price...would have been a deal breaker).

 

[Duckman]

Thank you everyone for your responses

 

[hwoarang5]

i have the same lens yes when u reach the max MFD it tends to suffer at wide end... try not to shoot that close.. for anything closer, just get a electronic extension hood and use manual focus... by then u will switch to smaller aperture like F4 to 8 and use flash to lit them... thats how i got my ring shots during my work on shooting wedding reception..

ps: the MFD issue is well tested and mention by DPREVIEW

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon-ef-24-70mm-f-2-8l-ii-usm/5

 

[No Mayo]

Thanks again, the recent $300 price drop, $300 rebate, 4%($80) reward, and free shipping pushed me over the edge and I ordered mine from B+H for what will eventually tally to $1619 (after jumping through the rebate hoops and ordering something else from B+H).

 

[Dylan777]

Few shots @ f2.8 indoor, no flash, close distance