Is it acceptable that 1 out of 5 copies of the 24-70mm II are really great?

[dstppy]

Camera Canon EOS-1D X
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/2000)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 55 mm (24-70 2.8 II)
ISO Speed 6400

I ran THIS version (a rental from LensRental) through FoCal last week, and it required a +2W/+3T AFMA, then took it to my next assignment. Of note, I rarely use my 24-70 Mark I for sports because even with AFMA, it was never 'sharp' enough for enlargements.

After using this Mark II lens for 2 hrs, I was having lens envy again and was bummed I had to send it back. Then I got an email from Amazon it was available - so I ordered and received it yesterday. For one night I had both copies.
No copy-copy variation that I could tell, but because the first was a rental I didn't save my original FoCal files - stupid me.
Then (really stupid me), I got another email that my 'preordered' lens from B&H shipped - oops, forgot to cancel that. Now I have two copies to compare, and one to return. I'll be spending time in my basement with FoCal, and I'll also be out and about for few days doing a direct comparison. I'll post the FoCal reports and some other test shots for these lenses on all my bodies (7d/5d/1DIV and 1Dx). While I may not be as thorough or scientific, I'll share the images from all 3 to let you know 'just another fotog's opinion'

REALLY? A Scientific test? I don't think there's any room for that kind of messing around on this thread.

Some guy said that 4 out of 5 were bad enough to try and generate hits on a website. This is not just ANY guy, this is SOME guy.



If a problem is there, we're going to hear about it from Roger at LensRentals soon enough just from broad base sampling and experience.

Let us know what you turn up, it'll be interesting.

 

[Drizzt321]

So...what people are saying is there may be some manufacturing variations that result in some lenses being slightly less awesome than another one? On a brand new lens with brand new elements. So maybe it's a good thing I can't afford this now, by the time I buy one they likely will have worked out any minor manufacturing issues.

 

[KitsVancouver]

I bought one copy and it is really great.

Can you please define "great?" Did you look at photos 100% or are you going by what you see at less than 100%?

 

[KitsVancouver]

So...what people are saying is there may be some manufacturing variations that result in some lenses being slightly less awesome than another one? On a brand new lens with brand new elements. So maybe it's a good thing I can't afford this now, by the time I buy one they likely will have worked out any minor manufacturing issues.

I guess that's why some people are upset. This lens is supposed to be a production ready model. It's not supposed to be in field testing, beta testing or any other kind of testing for that matter.

 

[robbymack]

this is such a mountain out of a mole hill, 4 (or 5) samples aren't enough to draw any real conclusions. If Lens rentals was saying it and they had 40 copies then maybe. If you're really that worried about sample variation (again read roger's comments regarding the "this lens is soft" phenomenon) just buy from a quality retailer: BH, Adorama, et al. and send it back for a new one if you aren't happy. For the record the one I rented for the weekend was fantastic.

 

[ishdakuteb]

_DXR1443 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

Camera Canon EOS-1D X
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/2000)
Aperture f/2.8
Focal Length 55 mm (24-70 2.8 II)
ISO Speed 6400

I ran THIS version (a rental from LensRental) through FoCal last week, and it required a +2W/+3T AFMA, then took it to my next assignment. Of note, I rarely use my 24-70 Mark I for sports because even with AFMA, it was never 'sharp' enough for enlargements.

After using this Mark II lens for 2 hrs, I was having lens envy again and was bummed I had to send it back. Then I got an email from Amazon it was available - so I ordered and received it yesterday. For one night I had both copies.
No copy-copy variation that I could tell, but because the first was a rental I didn't save my original FoCal files - stupid me.
Then (really stupid me), I got another email that my 'preordered' lens from B&H shipped - oops, forgot to cancel that. Now I have two copies to compare, and one to return. I'll be spending time in my basement with FoCal, and I'll also be out and about for few days doing a direct comparison. I'll post the FoCal reports and some other test shots for these lenses on all my bodies (7d/5d/1DIV and 1Dx). While I may not be as thorough or scientific, I'll share the images from all 3 to let you know 'just another fotog's opinion'

i am sorry about being off the topic, but i do have a question for you as if you would like to share? i wonder as if you have increased/decreased exposure or brightness for this image? i am learning about light and trying to come up with my own way of estimating exposure. my existing exposure estimation for this shot would be iso 800 - f/4 - 1/125-250 (between)... converting to your settings would be about 2 stops or 1 stop brighter, accordingly; therefore, i am asking for your help in figuring out how to use light. and again, i am trying to learn how to estimate an exposure, please do not think of something else

thanks in advance....

 

[Drizzt321]

So...what people are saying is there may be some manufacturing variations that result in some lenses being slightly less awesome than another one? On a brand new lens with brand new elements. So maybe it's a good thing I can't afford this now, by the time I buy one they likely will have worked out any minor manufacturing issues.

I guess that's why some people are upset. This lens is supposed to be a production ready model. It's not supposed to be in field testing, beta testing or any other kind of testing for that matter.

Who said it's not production ready? Is it that some are only really good instead of great? Or is it that there is real, tangible issues with a very large percentage of ALL lenses that have been delivered. Not just to one or two review sites getting a handful of lenses. I'm talking a large enough sample to be statistically significant. For example, LensRentals getting 100 lenses with a variety of serial numbers (presuming they aren't all from the same batch, etc) and him saying that there's 20 or 30 of them that are really noticeably off that doesn't get fixed with micro-adjust.

 

[Crapking]

ScreenShot by PVC 2012, on Flickr

As to prior poster's exposure questions, here is a screen shot of my adjustments in LR, and here is a link to the original .CR2 file so you can play with it yourself, in whatever PP software you use. What did not show in the screen shot was sharpening up to 100, noise luminance reduction at 65 and Camera Faithful. No lens profile yet for the Mark II in LR 4.2.

I find that I with the 1Dx I can pull shadows/brighten quite a bit at lower ISO's (up to 8000-10,000) for websites.

As for choosing exposure settings, I'll shoot RAW, manually, with MY desired Tv / Av settings and spot meter with autoISO. Some gyms I can use Tv mode, but with crazy flourescent / halogen combo's in most of the high schools I shoot, I find my results are better if I do it myself. When i remember, I'll shoot a white balance card at the start and at the end and save that WB as a template to apply, independent of other custom templates I have created.

Sorry for getting off thread again, but wanted to answer the question...

http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/mQTdxYOa/1/5675545

 

[drjlo]

It's fine that when I buy a $500 lens that there may be variations, but a $2000+ lens?

It's not fine for a $500 lens, either!

 

[ishdakuteb]

ScreenShot by PVC 2012, on Flickr

As to prior poster's exposure questions, here is a screen shot of my adjustments in LR, and here is a link to the original .CR2 file so you can play with it yourself, in whatever PP software you use. What did not show in the screen shot was sharpening up to 100, noise luminance reduction at 65 and Camera Faithful. No lens profile yet for the Mark II in LR 4.2.

I find that I with the 1Dx I can pull shadows/brighten quite a bit at lower ISO's (up to 8000-10,000) for websites.

As for choosing exposure settings, I'll shoot RAW, manually, with MY desired Tv / Av settings and spot meter with autoISO. Some gyms I can use Tv mode, but with crazy flourescent / halogen combo's in most of the high schools I shoot, I find my results are better if I do it myself. When i remember, I'll shoot a white balance card at the start and at the end and save that WB as a template to apply, independent of other custom templates I have created.

Sorry for getting off thread again, but wanted to answer the question...

http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/mQTdxYOa/1/5675545

thanks very much and really appreciate your sharing as well as helps...

 

[bdunbar79]

Well at least my odds are better than winning the lottery and/or getting struck by lightning. Mine will arrive sometime Friday.

 

[pwp]

Oh no, not again! After four dud copies of the 24-70 f/2.8 MkI I literally gave up and got a perfectly satisfactory 24-105 and a couple of primes instead. Still, I'd prefer a good 24-70 f/2.8. Being a sucker for punishment I'll buy a MkII, keep the packaging, do my tests and hope for the best. I must be due for a good copy.

This will be a good lens to buy from an authorised dealer with clear returns policies rather than dubious gray market.

-PW

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Despite the copy variation, I think a bit too much worry is being made over it all though. As I said, despite the variation, all I saw were the best standard zoom I've seen. And as I've said, if it can get me to dump my 24 1.4 II, pixel peeper as I am, it can hardly be all wrong can it?

 

[PackLight]

Despite the copy variation, I think a bit too much worry is being made over it all though. As I said, despite the variation, all I saw were the best standard zoom I've seen. And as I've said, if it can get me to dump my 24 1.4 II, pixel peeper as I am, it can hardly be all wrong can it?

From the comparisons I see in the ISO charts it wouldn't make me want to dump my 24 f/1.4LII or my 35mm.
Granted there would be more situations that I wouldn't feel I should go to the primes now.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Despite the copy variation, I think a bit too much worry is being made over it all though. As I said, despite the variation, all I saw were the best standard zoom I've seen. And as I've said, if it can get me to dump my 24 1.4 II, pixel peeper as I am, it can hardly be all wrong can it?

From the comparisons I see in the ISO charts it wouldn't make me want to dump my 24 f/1.4LII or my 35mm.
Granted there would be more situations that I wouldn't feel I should go to the primes now.

and 24 1.4 II f/8:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8471/8080843159_853749e6c2_o.jpg
24-70 II f/8:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8054/8080838687_7552869720_o.jpg

Not that the 24 1.4 II has a lot of PF, but even at f/8, it can still sometimes get a bit in the corner areas under really harsh conditions while the 24-70 II is utterly resist f/8 24mm to any PF LoCA at all from what I've seen so far.

Both are really good at 24mm for landscapes and better than any 24-105 I've ever tried.

 

[Tammy]

The one I decided to keep in the end is amazing 70mm wide open center frame and pretty good at wide edges and corners (I think, it's hard to tell which is the way the DOF should be placed) although lower left corner might be a touch soft. Maybe 3 more copies and I'd get something perfect in every last regard?? As it is though, it's good enough to dump my 24 1.4 II over and it has the sharpest 70mm f/2.8 center frame I've seen from any lens, so not so bad (70mm far edges are weaker than my 70-300L on this and all the copies looked at though).

I also have the 24L II and tested it on a heavily detailed brick wall on a tripod with LV manual focus, contrast AF etc and my first copy of the 24-70L II is excellent, noticeably outresolving my 24L II from center to the edges at F2.8, F4.. i like the color more and the micro contrast is amazing! i love my 24L II but i'm ok with putting it up on craigslist.. i would also say the center to mid-frame at 70mm is the sharpest i've seen..