Canon EF 24-70 F/2.8 Lens Problem?

[Marc]

Hey everybody,

I've got a Canon EOS D-10 with two lenses; an excellent 70-200 F2.8 IS Zoom and a 24-70 F2.8 Zoom. I think I'm having trouble with this, the latter of the two lenses:

http://marc.smugmug.com/photos/1658005-M.jpg

No matter what I do or what the conditions are, shots taken with this lens are consistently a bit blurry. I don't think it's the body, because I regularly get razor-sharp shots with the 70-200.

Here's a couple samples to show you what I mean (I haven't used any Photoshop or other trickery - everything is straight out of the camera). If you look at the originals at Smugmug here (http://marc.smugmug.com/gallery/79) in original size mode, you'll see much more of the detail I'm talking about. This first shot was shot under overcast skies, but had way more than enough light. I took several shots using both auto focus and manual focus - and this was the best one. The hair is blurry and the moss on the fence is vague.

http://marc.smugmug.com/photos/3113267-L.jpg

In this second shot, virtually everything is a bit out of focus. Hair, sweater details, road detail, etc. are all out of focus!

http://marc.smugmug.com/photos/3113266-L.jpg

I know I'm just a neophyte, but if I use the larger lens, I get stunningly sharper shots. So much so that I've virtually ceased using this $1500 lens! What would you do about this? Could I be that bad with one lens (varying between automatic and manual focus and settings), or is it possible that I've got a lemon here?

Let me know - I've got about 6 months left on my Canon USA warranty...

Thanks!

Marc

[fish]

I noticed that both of those shots were at fairly slow shutter speeds and I'm assuming you are hand-holding, right? Could be a little camera shake going on there. It's not really a fair comparison between the IS lens and non-IS lens.

How about shooting a few more shots on a tripod and compare?


FWIW, my 17-40/4L has a similar feature. I think it's supposed to be that silky smooth Canon L look. :D

Fish - From the EXIF data the first picture - the exposure was f8.0 1/30th of sec (way too sloooow!!!!) at ISO 100. The second phot was at 1/45th second. If you look at the first image ( at 200+% image size ) carefully along the fence behind the lady the horizontal parts of the image seem sharper than the vertical - this makes me suspect horizontal camera movement during exposure. Here is a small crop of the image to demonstrate what I am referring to... I think reshooting this at 1/500 or 1/1000th is in order before we declare the lens at fault.

[hutchman]

Hey Marc,

We have a 24-85 at work and get the same results as you. None of the images taken with that lens are satisfactory to me. All are very soft with virtually noting in sharp focus. The body has been back to Canon for inspection and they have pronounced it good. The body works great with other lenses. The lens goes back to Canon next.

I wonder if some lenses just are not a good mate for the body?

Hutch

[fish]

I noticed that both of those shots were at fairly slow shutter speeds and I'm assuming you are hand-holding, right? Could be a little camera shake going on there. It's not really a fair comparison between the IS lens and non-IS lens.

How about shooting a few more shots on a tripod and compare?


FWIW, my 17-40/4L has a similar feature. I think it's supposed to be that silky smooth Canon L look. :D

Fish - From the EXIF data the first picture - the exposure was f8.0 1/30th of sec (way too sloooow!!!!) at ISO 100. The second phot was at 1/45th second. If you look at the first image ( at 200+% image size ) carefully along the fence behind the lady the horizontal parts of the image seem sharper than the vertical - this makes me suspect horizontal camera movement during exposure. Here is a small crop of the image to demonstrate what I am referring to... I think reshooting this at 1/500 or 1/1000th is in order before we declare the lens at fault.

Did somebody hit the "edit" button instead of the "quote" button? :nono

[wxwax]

Looks like it. Pas moi.

Marc, have you taken any shots using a tripod? I'd try that before deciding that the lens has a problem. Any camera shake will be accentuated by zooming in, and the EXIFs show that both shots have some zoom. Combine that with relatively slower shutter speeds, and camera shake is a distinct possibility.

That's one reason why yer 70-22 IS is so sweet. Takes the shake out.

[Max Power]

Probably too slow a shutter speed. A good guide line is never shoot slower then the converted focal length, unless you are using a tripod. Ex. 100mm focal length min of 1/100, 200mm focal length min of 1/200, 500mm focal length min of 1/500.

You had at least a stop or two of room in the aperture settings of those two shots that would have allowed you a higher shutter speed.

Try taking some flash shots in a fairly dark room of something with allot of detail in it and see what you get.

[pathfinder]

Did somebody hit the "edit" button instead of the "quote" button? :nono
Fish - that was my post with the little picture of the vertical stick - how in the world did my post get posted under your name - THAT is really Scary. How could I post and have it come out as your posting. Hmmmmm That could lead to all kinds of interresting developments............... You mean I can edit your posts????? WHooooo Hoooo - this could be fun NOT!

[fish]

Fish - that was my post with the little picture of the vertical stick - how in the world did my post get posted under your name - THAT is really Scary. How could I post and have it come out as your posting. Hmmmmm That could lead to all kinds of interresting developments............... You mean I can edit your posts????? WHooooo Hoooo - this could be fun NOT!
You have mod powers now. Use them for good, not evil. You'll notice you can both quote and edit. Try using the quote button. :thwak

[wxwax]

Yeah, and never, ever accidentally overwrite someone's post and lose what the wrote. Right, Fish? :lol3

[ian408]

Hey everybody,

I've got a Canon EOS D-10 with two lenses; an excellent 70-200 F2.8 IS Zoom and a 24-70 F2.8 Zoom. I think I'm having trouble with this, the latter of the two lenses:
I've seen the same thing with my 100-400. I noticed it when I was in
Yosemite shooting in low light auto focus. Since I've gotten good shots
out of it before, I wrote it off to the cold (high 20's).

Do you think cold has anything to do with this?

Ian

[fish]

Yeah, and never, ever accidentally overwrite someone's post and lose what the wrote. Right, Fish? :lol3
EFZ. I learned that lesson. A few times. :lol

[pathfinder]

I've seen the same thing with my 100-400. I noticed it when I was in
Yosemite shooting in low light auto focus. Since I've gotten good shots
out of it before, I wrote it off to the cold (high 20's).

Do you think cold has anything to do with this?

IanHow cold was it in Yosemite? I have used the 100-400 and the 70-200IS down to zero without noticeable changes in the images unless I was shivering too much!http://www.dgrin.com/images/icons/Laughing.gif

The 100-400 gets written up now and then as not as sharp as the primes - well so what else is new - but if it is stopped down a stop or two and used at the higher shutter speeds the long focal length requires eg 1/500 or so ( and YES I know it is IS ) it does a very creditable job. YMMV of course....

[pathfinder]

You have mod powers now. Use them for good, not evil. You'll notice you can both quote and edit. Try using the quote-- reply you mean?? http://www.dgrin.com/images/icons/lickout.gif- button. :thwak

I promise to be good! .......heh heh heh....

[ian408]

How cold was it in Yosemite? I have used the 100-400 and the 70-200IS down to zero without noticeable changes in the images unless I was shivering too much!http://www.dgrin.com/images/icons/Laughing.gif

The 100-400 gets written up now and then as not as sharp as the primes - well so what else is new - but if it is stopped down a stop or two and used at the higher shutter speeds the long focal length requires eg 1/500 or so ( and YES I kown it is IS ) it does a very creditable job. YMMV of course....
For the price, I'd expect the primes to be spot on :)

It was (from the truck mirror thermostat) in the high 20's. Generally, I get
good results and now that I am aware of it, I can cope.

Ian

[wxwax]

Marc, did you happen to read this review (http://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/) of your lens?

[Marc]

Marc, did you happen to read this review (http://www.fredmiranda.com/24-70/) of your lens?Hey Waxy,

I hadn't seen that review. But I did see this review on Luminous Landscape (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/24-70-review.shtml) and one other site that I can't remember right now. Both raved about the lens' performance and sample pictures (along with comparisons) really sealed the deal.

After my initial post, I called CanonUSA and arranged to send the lens in to their service center in Irvine, CA for check/fix/replacement/return. Based on other's comments above, I'm thinking that the problem may be in the user vs. the equipment. However, the thing that has me baffled is the stunning difference in picture clarity between two different lenses under similar conditions. Hmmm...

When I get it back, I'll do the tripod test and see what this shows.

Thanks for the input, guys!

Marc

[wxwax]

Cool. You have the two lenses that I lust after. If only they made the 24-70 as an IS.