Random Orbits said:
Just because the 50 1.8 is cheap doesn't mean it isn't good. from f/2.8 and on the 50 1.8 and 2.8 are fully L-level of sharpness (or better, better than 24-105L for instance).
Upvote
0
Bought 24-70 f/2.8 II -Soft, owners, please advice
- Thread starter absente
- Start date
- Status
Just because the 50 1.8 is cheap doesn't mean it isn't good. from f/2.8 and on the 50 1.8 and 2.8 are fully L-level of sharpness (or better, better than 24-105L for instance).
You cannot expect all 24-70 f/2.8 MK2 lenses are sharp. I think people in CR also mentioned that they got soft images from their 24-70 MK2. The easy way is return it and get a new one. Don't send it back to Canon for adjustment. Once you do that you probably cannot return the lenses.
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
... unless you consider also the colors and bokeh then it's not L quality
Upvote
0
absente said:
One thing to keep in mind is the lens has focus shift at near distances so if you have liveview. Is there any chance you had it set to a higher aperture than f/2.8 while focusing and then switched it back to f/2.8 to shoot or where in some sort of lighting condition where it triggered higher aperture somehow to not wash out the LCD while focusing??
Also you could try to do six tries of manually focusing it yourself at 10x, making sure liveview is using the actual aperture that the shot will be taken at (normally that is more something to watch out for if you plan to take it at say f/5.6 but it is using f/2.8 to let you see better).
There can be copy variation with these. I did see a difference at f/2.8 between three copies. One was decent (70mm f/2.8 gave same image quality as 70-200 f/4 IS at 70mm f/4 (this is the weak point of the 70-200 f/4 IS though), roughly), one a step up from that and one yet another step up. It is true that most lenses look soft if no PP is done at all.
The box shots look very hazy though, almost like a 50mm 1.8 shot at 1.8 or 2, which seems out of character for the 24-70 II now granted the shooting distance was very close, but it still seems a bit hazy.
Upvote
0
Canihaspicture said:
Of course, thats not even a question.
Canihaspicture said:
I usually use always the internal sharpening, pushed to the recommended setting on the 5D3 with my other L lenses. Yet listening to all the hype about the 24-70 I was thinking okay, let's test it without any sharpening.
Stopping down makes no sense to me, since I bought that lens because of the f/2.8 aperture. Yet again, reviews and other users stated that the lens is "tack sharp" even at 2.8, so that's why I am disappointed and trying to find out if there is something wrong with the lens, my technique or my expectations.
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
Nope, on M, always on 2.8
Could the AFMA eventually help me out, even though there is no real difference between the LV and PF shots?
Upvote
0
absente said:Hey there,
so I went on and bought a new 24-70 f/ 2.8 II. The strange thing in China (where I currently live) is that they don't let you test the lens before you buy it - nowhere. So anyway, I picked one finally after searching the whole day for a good price - and to be quite honest, I am very disappointed.
Here are two crops, 100%, everything is on neutral, no sharpening.
First one is AF-Live mode where I zoomed in on the 24 using 10x magnification. Second shot is using the normal way.
Lightning is not so good, but since on a tripod and with remote control I don't see any problem using slow shutter speeds.
I used AV mode - strange thing is that life-view gives me a different meter reading.
Any advice from 24-70 owners will be highly appreciated.
PS: I am shooting with a 5D3, newest firmware.
Using live-view, 1/4 f/2.8 ISO50 24mm
lifeview1
Using normal focusing, 0.3 f/2.8 ISO50 24mm
lifeview2
Both pictures are shot in jpeg, L mode. I usually don't shoot RAW so thats why I keep testing like this.
I don't see any differences in those two pictures except the exposure, which means that AFMA can't help me - Do I have a "bad copy" or can I fix this somehow?
What is your focal distance? This lens is known to fall apart at close focus distance
Upvote
0
wayno said:
Thanks for your reply - whats your in-camera sharpening setting (in picture style) ?
Upvote
0
You're doing it wrong.......
Don't be photographing vertical surfaces. You have to do an angled shot on a tripod on a horizontal surface, then we can talk about wether your 24-70 II is soft or not.
Most likely this is merely a question of AF micro adjusting... I had to micro adjust my 24-70 II a lot.
And the great thing is, that if you have a 5D mk III then you can micro adjust both the wide AND the tele end of the lens.
My lens was off about an inch or so, now it's tack sharp, even at 2.8.
So do yourself a favor and go through all your lenses and AFMA them, it's worth it. But you HAVE TO do it against a horizontal surface, not a vertical one.
Lay out a measuring tape, running away from the camera. Set the AF to only use the center point for AF'ing. Choose a spot on the measuring tape and place it inside the AF square in the viewfinder.
Take a shot.... check the shot, zoom in.... if the focus is further away that your point, then AFMA backwards by going into minus. If the focus is closer, then AFMA upwards till.
Take another shot.... rinse and repeat till your focus is dead-on.
I had to +10 my wide end on the 24-70 2.8L II before it was sharp in the center. But now it's there..... and now, please don't start babbling about how the lenses should be sharp out of the box. We all know that S___. Just deal with it and fix it.
If your shot indeed remains soft... send the lens back.
Don't be photographing vertical surfaces. You have to do an angled shot on a tripod on a horizontal surface, then we can talk about wether your 24-70 II is soft or not.
Most likely this is merely a question of AF micro adjusting... I had to micro adjust my 24-70 II a lot.
And the great thing is, that if you have a 5D mk III then you can micro adjust both the wide AND the tele end of the lens.
My lens was off about an inch or so, now it's tack sharp, even at 2.8.
So do yourself a favor and go through all your lenses and AFMA them, it's worth it. But you HAVE TO do it against a horizontal surface, not a vertical one.
Lay out a measuring tape, running away from the camera. Set the AF to only use the center point for AF'ing. Choose a spot on the measuring tape and place it inside the AF square in the viewfinder.
Take a shot.... check the shot, zoom in.... if the focus is further away that your point, then AFMA backwards by going into minus. If the focus is closer, then AFMA upwards till.
Take another shot.... rinse and repeat till your focus is dead-on.
I had to +10 my wide end on the 24-70 2.8L II before it was sharp in the center. But now it's there..... and now, please don't start babbling about how the lenses should be sharp out of the box. We all know that S___. Just deal with it and fix it.
If your shot indeed remains soft... send the lens back.
Upvote
0
Looking at your bottle shot.... I bet you have front focus about +8 to +10.
Also... stop worrying about iso. I tested mine at iso 1000 and would still end up getting tack sharp images.
Also... stop worrying about iso. I tested mine at iso 1000 and would still end up getting tack sharp images.
Upvote
0
LetTheRightLensIn said:
It wasn't a comment on whether or not the 50 1.8 is good or not (it has tremendous performance/cost ratio), but TDP's charts show that the 24-70 II at 50mm is significantly sharper than any EF 50mm prime, and that has been my experience as well. Using the identical setup and camera settings, the 24-70 II should be better and would provide a good reference point as to whether the OP has a lemon. My first post suggested comparing the 24-70 II to his 24-105 (previously owned/listed on a prior thread). On this thread, he said that he no longer has the 24-105 but has the 50 f/1.8.
Upvote
0
leGreve said:
Do yourself a bigger favor and get Reikan FoCal.
Using a measuring tape is a bad idea, the camera's AF system is designed to lock onto the feature of highest contrast in the AF point, and that actual point is bigger than the little box in the VF. What that means practically is that it'll be locking onto the edge of the tape measure itself, which runs all the way through the frame, not the horizontal line at the number 6 or whatever you pick. If you're going to do it manually, use a commercial tool like LensAlign, or build a DiY equivalent with a vertical focus target and an angled ruler/tape measure, something like this:
Attachments
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
leGreve said:
It might surprise you to learn that just because something is on the Internet, that doesn't mean it's true, or that it's good advice to follow.
leGreve said:
I prefer knowing it's been done properly, though. But I'm glad you found an easy way that works for you.
Upvote
0
Random Orbits said:
That doesn't match my results or photozone's (I trust them much more than TDP).
They have, for pure sharpness alone not talking about other aspects, the 50 1.4 beating the 24-70 II at f/2.8 and the 50 1.8 basically in a tie with the 24-70 II for center, mid and corner.
50mm is the easiest lens to design and even the cheapest 50mm has long been better than many a pricey lens (for raw sharpness and so long as you are a bit away from 1.4 or 1.8).
Anyway his images do appear to be suspiciously soft (although it is hard to say for sure from his shots).
http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/564-canon50f14ff?start=1
Upvote
0
- Status
