Lens broken - Need new 24-70(105mm)

[Mt Spokane Photography]

The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 is pretty good, but not very sturdy. Its perfectly fine for normal use, but treating it with kid gloves while hiking would not make it my first choice. I hear that they have silently beefed up the internals, so that issue might be solved. As far as I know AF on the lens is fine, its Sigma that has 99+ percent of third party autofocus issues.

 

[FTb-n]

The Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 is pretty good, but not very sturdy. Its perfectly fine for normal use, but treating it with kid gloves while hiking would not make it my first choice. I hear that they have silently beefed up the internals, so that issue might be solved. As far as I know AF on the lens is fine, its Sigma that has 99+ percent of third party autofocus issues.

I've never given third-party lenses serious consideration and don't mean to sell them short. I've been told by a Canon dealer that Sigma has to reverse engineer AF software for their lenses (which accounts for the AF issues) and that Tamron has a licensing relationship with Canon to get their AF software. Anyone know if there is any truth to any of this?

 

[xps]

Hello Daniela!

My two cents: In one of your past posting, you wrote, you have moved to the Tyrol. So, you can get cashback from Canon in Austria. If you look at Canon Austria, there is an recent cashback on the 24-70 L IS 4.0 of about 200Euro. So, my hint is to buy the 24-70 4.0 L IS as an replacement for your foulty lens, save 200Euro,wait and spare some money for an upcoming 2.8L successor.

 

[daniela]

I read the following on www.photozone.de, when they wrote an review of the 24-70L 4 IS:
The focus point shifts SUBSTANTIALLY when stopping down. Or in other words: the lens suffers from residual spherical aberrations (RSA). In close focus situations this is rather poisonous and the problem was affecting images taken at more conventional distances. The user who supplied the lens checked this behavior with a 2nd lens and this focus characteristic was the same here. This is NOT (sufficiently) compensated by the AF. We did AF reference checks during the MTF analysis and there's a decrease in measured resolution (= increase in focus shift) from f/4 to smaller apertures.

Is this Issue known for this lens?

G
Daniela

 

[Sporgon]

I read the following on www.photozone.de, when they wrote an review of the 24-70L 4 IS:
The focus point shifts SUBSTANTIALLY when stopping down. Or in other words: the lens suffers from residual spherical aberrations (RSA). In close focus situations this is rather poisonous and the problem was affecting images taken at more conventional distances. The user who supplied the lens checked this behavior with a 2nd lens and this focus characteristic was the same here. This is NOT (sufficiently) compensated by the AF. We did AF reference checks during the MTF analysis and there's a decrease in measured resolution (= increase in focus shift) from f/4 to smaller apertures.

Is this Issue known for this lens?

G
Daniela

Never noticed it. If you read the photozone summary they say something about the 'problem' being solved later.
When Lens Rentals did a 'tear down' of the 24-70 IS they said they'd never come across a lens with so many adjustable elements. It seems to me that those early ones were not optically optimum and hence the "it's no good at 50 mil" reports. At 50 mil mine is as good as the 24-105 in the centre and better at the edges.

 

[StoneColdCoffee]

I dropped an old 24-105L on the concrete once
It made the exact same sound. I sent it in to Canon.. $400 to fix it. worked great after.

 

[ahsanford]

If you hike, this is a no brainer. 24-70 f/4L IS.

Lighter and sharper than the 24-105, macro mode is killer for impromptu shooting of flora / bugs on the side of the trail, and it's weather sealed.

Note that the macro work you do with the 24-70 f/4L IS lens is simple/amateur due to the aforementioned focus breathing and a comically short working distance. If you want serious macro work on a tripod, rails, ring-lites, focus stacking, etc. you're probably not hiking with it -- you'd need a proper macro lens and the 24-70 f/4L IS will not do for you. But a zoom lens packing a 0.7x macro in its back pocket is absolutely gold when you are weight/space limited -- it's perfect for travel and hiking, IMHO.

If portraiture is a need with this lens, however, f/4 is still f/4 and you might consider other options. Consider either f/2.8 version (I or a used II) in that case.

- A

 

[jd7]

I read the following on www.photozone.de, when they wrote an review of the 24-70L 4 IS:
The focus point shifts SUBSTANTIALLY when stopping down. Or in other words: the lens suffers from residual spherical aberrations (RSA). In close focus situations this is rather poisonous and the problem was affecting images taken at more conventional distances. The user who supplied the lens checked this behavior with a 2nd lens and this focus characteristic was the same here. This is NOT (sufficiently) compensated by the AF. We did AF reference checks during the MTF analysis and there's a decrease in measured resolution (= increase in focus shift) from f/4 to smaller apertures.

Is this Issue known for this lens?

G
Daniela

Never noticed it. If you read the photozone summary they say something about the 'problem' being solved later.
When Lens Rentals did a 'tear down' of the 24-70 IS they said they'd never come across a lens with so many adjustable elements. It seems to me that those early ones were not optically optimum and hence the "it's no good at 50 mil" reports. At 50 mil mine is as good as the 24-105 in the centre and better at the edges.

I can't say I've ever noticed it in practice either.

There are a few older threads which discuss the 24-70 4L IS which you might find worth a read. Here are links to some:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=27345.msg541086#msg541086
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19744.msg536044#msg536044
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=26224.msg516809#msg516809
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=21846.msg419018#msg419018
(I think I have linked to specific messages in those threads, but that wasn't intentional - it is just the way it has worked out after I used the forum search function.)

I also agree with what ahansford says in an earlier post about the macro mode.