Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L Sharpness issue

[michael_vermont]

<p>Hey how's it going :)</p>

<p>Purchased my 5D Mark II and 24-70mm f/2.8L awaiting for delivery this week, the lens which I have opt over the 24-105mm f/4L, after having read many reviews and comments on the 24-70mm I'm rather concerned about the sharpness being a hit and miss.</p>

<p>How would I be able to tell if my copy of the lens is the as sharp as it's <em>suppose</em> to be? This is not my first L lens, I also have a 70-200mm f/4L and TS-E 24mm f/3.5L, however I expect the 24-70 to be sharper thus I'm stumped as how I should be comparing it.</p>

<p>Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!</p>

[jeg]

<p>Take it to Canon and have is properly calibrated to your camera. It's the only way to be sure.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>If I read correctly you don't have it yet.</p>

<p>To prevent disappointment; it's probably not as sharp as your other two L lenses.</p>

<p>But it should be a great lens usable in many conditions and rendering lovely images. Look at the usual sites for samples. (pixel-peeper / flickr / pbase etcetera)</p>

[matthew_lynes]

<p>One of the things I do with a new lens is to take a shot of a newspaper at about F16 and then look at the corners of the image to make sure it is not softer than the center. This is not the most advanced test you can do but it will tell you immediately if you have a dodgy copy. I recently bought the 24-70 f2.8, its a great lens and I'm sure yours will be fine.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Make a few test shots but use a tripod to eliminate camera shake. I think you will quickly know if yours is acceptable. </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>The 24-70 is not as sharp as the 24 TS-E, at f5.6 they should be close, but the prime should look a little better (obviously unshifted) than the zoom.</p>

<p>At f8 and 70mm the 70-200 f4 will be a fair bit sharper than the 24-70 at f8 and 70mm.</p>

<p>I don't know why you would expect the 24-70 to be sharper than either of your other lenses, it is not, expecting it to be will guarantee disappointment. </p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>You will not find it as sharp as the 70-200 f4 LIS. One of the problems with wide to tele zooms is that they go from being retrofocus to being telefocus as you zoom. The 24-70 just goes to the edge of the telefocus range whereas the 24-105 has to become a telefocus lens - I suspect this is why the 24-70 is sharper. Going to 24mm at the wide end also creates design challenges and I suspect the old 28-70 was slightly sharper as it is easier to design (I never owned a copy). As for testing I suggest that you set the microfocus (there are plenty of threads on how you do this but I find this works well http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/cameras/1ds3_af_micoadjustment.html)<br>

Once you have done this I suggest you make a number of test targets, paste them on a flat wall and take shots with the camera at least 50x the focal length from the wall. Then you can look at corner and edge sharpness. If helps to have a big room!<br>

the 24-70 is a very good lens but will not match the sharpness of the best lenses as it's focal length ranges forces some design compromises, as does the f2.8 aperture. That said I really like my copy.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>All long-range zoom lenses, especially ones that go toward the wider focal lengths, represent a series of design compromises. There is simply no way out of this, and it is amazing that the designers do as well as they do. (It was even more amazing in the days before computers, but of course, there were very few zoom lenses then).</p>

<p>First. Don't make the mistake of looking at results at 100% and seeing that it is "unsharp". Think about just how BIG a 100% scale print would be and realize that displaying a little bit on your screen at 100% is like pressing your nose up against a billboard.<br /> Second, while it is possible to get the lens and camera adjusted for each other, the manufacturers as a rule produce products that work right out of the box. Don't LOOK for trouble, let it come to you if it does. This is an era of mass-production, not the "file the part to fit" era of hand assembly on a work bench.<br /> The lens will be plenty sharp for any use you put it to in all likelihood. Give it a chance and judge it fairly, not on the basis of "viral complaints" that often come from people who have never even seen one, much less owned it.</p>

[William Michael]

<p> . . . "viral complaints" that often come from people who have never even seen one, much less owned it. . .<br>

:) Nice quote.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I never had any sharpness issues with this lens. As a matter of fact, sometimes it is a bit too sharp especially if you are shooting portraits . My main gripe about this lens is that it is very HEAVY and tends to hunt in low light situations. The retro focusing is also a little annoying, other than that, it's a professional grade lens IMHO. I don't own the 70-200mm f/4L, or the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L, so I can't really make any comparisons, but calibrating a lens to your camera after you shelled out close to $1200 is a bit much ! If you don't find this lens is sharp enough, then simply return it. </p>

[edouard_mutabazi]

<p>Michael, you will know if it's not sharp. My first copy, which I later returned, was so off that I knew after I took the first picture and saw the image on the LCD screen. Usually the zoom ring will be a little more resistant from 24-28mm even on the one I have now, but on that first one it was hard enough to require more than the usual muscle power. <br>

Take a few pictures and then see if they're fuzzy. I didn't want to go through the whole deal of dealing with Canon as I didn't want to start with something that expensive needing repairs. It's better to start on a good note. </p>