Disappointed with my 24-70 II.

Forums: 
Acquired my new lens on Thursday. I have been shooting it back to back with my 24-105 (purchased in Feb. of 2012) and I just don't see a real difference. Perhaps slightly sharper and slightly better contrast but nothing that would put a big smile on your face. Nothing that changes my overall impression or enjoyment of the image. Perhaps I have a bad copy of the 24-70 or an exceptionally good copy of the 24-105 (or some combination therein). I will go out again but I know that I have already decided to return it. A nice lens but the extra stop is not worth the loss of range and IS (not to mention $2,300 when a good filter is included). Disappointed as I was really looking forward to using it and enjoying an appreciable jump in IQ. PS - All images viewed on a calibrated Eizo ColorEdge.

DPR calls the image quality at the minimum focus distance "awful". We do use these lenses at the MFD sometimes. For example, a wide angle landscape with foreground and background. "Awful" for an expensive, new, professional high end lens to me is somewhat shocking. This lens is very likely the best choice for most situations where a 24-70 zoom is needed, but what was Canon thinking? maljo

DFPanno wrote: Acquired my new lens on Thursday. I have been shooting it back to back with my 24-105 (purchased in Feb. of 2012) and I just don't see a real difference. Perhaps slightly sharper and slightly better contrast but nothing that would put a big smile on your face. Nothing that changes my overall impression or enjoyment of the image. Perhaps I have a bad copy of the 24-70 or an exceptionally good copy of the 24-105 (or some combination therein). I will go out again but I know that I have already decided to return it. A nice lens but the extra stop is not worth the loss of range and IS (not to mention $2,300 when a good filter is included). Disappointed as I was really looking forward to using it and enjoying an appreciable jump in IQ. PS - All images viewed on a calibrated Eizo ColorEdge.
perhaps you need to do a bit more testing after you get back home before you give up completely. maybe shoot several "same scenes" alternating both lenses at the same aperture, focal length, speed, exposure, iso, etc... and show us the results. we are all suckers for that kind of thing. god luck

DFPanno wrote: Perhaps slightly sharper and slightly better contrast but nothing that would put a big smile on your face. Nothing that changes my overall impression or enjoyment of the image.
Not sure why you expected a significant visual difference. As someone else noted, the gains are marginal - and potentially very costly when moving from one "L" lens to the next. Like getting the 200 f/2.0 to complement the excellent 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II - at three times an already hefty price... What you are paying for - more than anything else - is the ability to shoot @ f/2.8 in stead of f/4.0. If this is important to you you should probably keep the zoom - or go with a prime which could be a more cost-effective way to supplement the 24-105 IS L. Its a little like the non-difference between the 70-200 f/4 IS L and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II. Shooting @ f/4.0 I fail to see even the least difference between the two - but I got the faster lens because I need the extra speed (just as I am constantly considering getting the 200 f/2.0 L IS for the same reason). Good luck with your choice.

maiaibing wrote:
DFPanno wrote: Perhaps slightly sharper and slightly better contrast but nothing that would put a big smile on your face. Nothing that changes my overall impression or enjoyment of the image.
Not sure why you expected a significant visual difference. As someone else noted, the gains are marginal - and potentially very costly when moving from one "L" lens to the next. Like getting the 200 f/2.0 to complement the excellent 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II - at three times an already hefty price... What you are paying for - more than anything else - is the ability to shoot @ f/2.8 in stead of f/4.0. If this is important to you you should probably keep the zoom - or go with a prime which could be a more cost-effective way to supplement the 24-105 IS L. Its a little like the non-difference between the 70-200 f/4 IS L and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L II. Shooting @ f/4.0 I fail to see even the least difference between the two - but I got the faster lens because I need the extra speed (just as I am constantly considering getting the 200 f/2.0 L IS for the same reason). Good luck with your choice.
I have to agree with this. I had a similar experience with the 85mm 1.2L lens. I already had the 85mm 1.8--a non-L lens but excellent nonetheless. I acquired a used copy of the L but was disappointed when I couldn't detect a difference at 1.8 or 2.0. Looking at the on-line reviews there really isn't much of a difference in center sharpness at these aperture values. I still have both lenses because I do like what I can do at 1.4 and 1.6 (1.2 has few practical uses due to the insanely thin DOF). Like the OP, my 1.2 L may not be the best, and my 1.8 may be superb. But I quickly realized that I liked the output from both lenses.

I am curious as to how much improvement you were expecting? 1%,50%,100%..... More?

Black Dot Bob wrote: I am curious as to how much improvement you were expecting? 1%,50%,100%..... More?
I was hoping the 24-70 would allow me to enjoy sooc jpegs without further refinement but i found that they needed almost as much pp as my 24-105 to meet my iq desires. Whether I have to move a slider 1 mm or 1.25 mm to see the image i want to see makes no difference to me. Does that make any sense to you?

DFPanno wrote:
Black Dot Bob wrote: I am curious as to how much improvement you were expecting? 1%,50%,100%..... More?
I was hoping the 24-70 would allow me to enjoy sooc jpegs without further refinement but i found that they needed almost as much pp as my 24-105 to meet my iq desires.
friend, this is wrong. it's almost scandalous. i now believe your lens is okay. maybe you have the wrong idea about photography. lens quality has nothing to do with post processing.

DFPanno wrote:
Black Dot Bob wrote: I am curious as to how much improvement you were expecting? 1%,50%,100%..... More?
I was hoping the 24-70 would allow me to enjoy sooc jpegs without further refinement but i found that they needed almost as much pp as my 24-105 to meet my iq desires. Whether I have to move a slider 1 mm or 1.25 mm to see the image i want to see makes no difference to me. Does that make any sense to you?
you're kidding right? problem is your overall systematic IQ is what isn't working for you. It really doesn't matter what lens you put in front. if you are expecting significant differences OOC on jpg's .. even the 24-105L is probably wasted in this regard. a 28-105 3.5-5.6 would probably do just as well.

Why others can't accept a comment without challenging the op is a mystery. Yes, maybe one should try this or try that but why assume it is the user and not the product? Most here are experienced photographers.

OvinceZ wrote: Why others can't accept a comment without challenging the op is a mystery. Yes, maybe one should try this or try that but why assume it is the user and not the product? Most here are experienced photographers.
I really don't have an agenda one way or t'other. Just sharing my impression of my copy. I think I have the experience to offer an informed opinion; maybe not. if nothing else I think everyone should take a hard look at what you got vs. what you think you are getting (whether it be camera gear or not).

if you don't see a difference there you either have an equipment problem or an eye problem.

This thread reminds me of my experience when I first bought my 5D2. I had been using a Rebel with the 18-55 IS kit lens for several years, and, while I was happy with the pictures I took, I kept noticing that there were some truly stunning pictures being posted by guys using the 5D2. My daughter kept pestering me about getting a camera, so I gave her my Rebel as a present, which "forced" me to find a replacement. Of course, I settled on the 5D2 with the 24-105. When the camera finally arrived, I rushed out to the back yard to try it out. Middle of the day, harsh bright light, I took some snaps of my dogs at my feet. I was frankly very disappointed. Instead of the magic pictures I had seen posted by others, they were quite ordinary looking snapshots that my Rebel could do as well. Yes, if I looked very closely, I could see some differences, but it was not the "magic" I was expecting. It took me a little while to figure out that I needed to use the camera in a way that highlights it's strengths, and that just about any camera can do a decent job in bright sunlight. When I started to take low light pictures, and pictures that emphasized DOF isolation, I began to appreciate the 5D2 much more. There may be a similar learning curve regarding the 24-70II. You may need to learn how to use it in a way to best show off it's advantages before you can learn to appreciate it. Or perhaps you have a defective copy. In my case, although I liked the 24-105, and took many pictures that I was happy with, there were plenty that were "blah". When I got the 70-200 II, I could immediately see how much sharper it was than the 24-105, so I used the 70-200 as often as I could, even in situations where it wasn't the most obvious choice to use. When I got the 24-70 II, it was obvious that it was in the same class as the 70-200 II. It took me only a day to decide to sell my 24-105, since I could see that it would not be getting much time on the camera anymore. But, of course, to each his own. If in your style of shooting you don't see much difference between the 24-105 and the 24-70 II, I agree that it is ridiculous to spend that much money on it.

DFPanno you are not alone with this experience... ....... well.. I suppose I will invite some shots across my bow...... not being in-line...etc but I originally wanted a 24-70 I.S. ... and waited and waited...initially hoping for the I.S. version no I.S. was a let down for sure....when this lens was announced ...and when it finally arrived....it was the very first one in town.... I picked it up... and slapped it on my 5D3...and ran thru the micro adjust.. it only was about 2 clicks off ...and it was darn sharp at the wide end.. some good 'pop'. No chromatics ...really...pretty clean but - for me - it fizzled at the 70mm end.. certainly not close to the 70 end of my 70-200 II I did not see the $2300 value especially when at the 70mm end AND I also have a fairly good 24-105 I.S. which is not thrilling either...but the 24-105 is what it needed to clearly out-shine ... ............. possibly .........a sample variation got me a disappointment...and I MIGHT reconsider... I believe that range is interesting, but would have to perform really well for me to depend on it over a couple primes...and to do away with 24-105 I.S. ...........my PLAN ......was my 14L II below 24mm and my 135L or 100L macro above the 70mm but I just did not see this as working for me...and returned it just some input on this subject TOM

I would try another copy of the 24-70 II. I have both the 24-105 and 24-70 II. Recently sold a 35 L after purchasing the 24-70 II. The 24-70 II is noticeably sharper than the 24-105. The AF is also very fast with 100% accuracy rate on my 5D III.

......that you can spend so much on professional optics and then have to worry about what kind of copy you have. I would pay Canon a premium for a "certified" copy in a sealed box. That said I might follow your suggestion.

AGREED! You pay top $$$ for a L lens, it should be near perfect. All the camera makers do it.. It applies even to 120K HD zoom lenses, except, the difference between a GOOD and BAD copy is very very small..
DFPanno wrote: ......that you can spend so much on professional optics and then have to worry about what kind of copy you have. I would pay Canon a premium for a "certified" copy in a sealed box. That said I might follow your suggestion.

DFPanno wrote: ......that you can spend so much on professional optics and then have to worry about what kind of copy you have. I would pay Canon a premium for a "certified" copy in a sealed box.
I guess that would increase the already stellar price by a factor of two at least, to compensate for all the duds that then can't sell at full price then. But the good side is that the many people who want an L lens and don't need best IQ will be cheaper off

Totally agree with you.

DFPanno wrote: A nice lens but the extra stop is not worth the loss of range and IS (not to mention $2,300 when a good filter is included).
But you should have known that before you bought the lens; the specs are well published. What exactly did you expect from this lens? Care to post any pictures to illustrate your point?

Howard wrote:
DFPanno wrote: A nice lens but the extra stop is not worth the loss of range and IS (not to mention $2,300 when a good filter is included).
But you should have known that before you bought the lens; the specs are well published. What exactly did you expect from this lens? Care to post any pictures to illustrate your point?
There is a context to my assessment which you seem to have missed. To repeat for you: This copy does not have better IQ than my 24-105. If it had better IQ then the "package" would be worth it. What did I expect? IQ that was appreciably better than my 24-105. No time to post pics and quite frankly I am not sure that they are necessary. My post is simply one persons individual experience with one copy. Given that it is generally accepted that the new lens has much better IQ I thought an experience to the contrary would be of interest to some.

No, I did not miss that point. But how do you know it is this particular "copy" and not the lens in general? How can we know without seeing any examples? Obviously, it is your lens and your choice; do whatever suits your need.

Howard wrote: No, I did not miss that point. But how do you know it is this particular "copy" and not the lens in general? How can we know without seeing any examples?
I am lead to believe that is just my copy (or some range of copies) as the general assessment is that it is a higher quality/more advanced lens. Hopefully my experience will be rare.
Obviously, it is your lens and your choice; do whatever suits your need.

Though my impressions of the 24-70 mk II have been largely discredited on a separate thread due to lack of artistic quality to admittedly test images, I'd like to still say that I have owned both the 24-105 (a couple of them), do currently own the 24-70 mk II and IMHO the 24-70 mk II has noticeably better IQ over the 24-105 (which in itself isn't a bad lens).

DFPanno wrote: Disappointed as I was really looking forward to using it and enjoying an appreciable jump in IQ.
Can you say what is wrong with the images from the new lens? A few examples would help us to understand.

tim73 wrote:
DFPanno wrote: Disappointed as I was really looking forward to using it and enjoying an appreciable jump in IQ.
Can you say what is wrong with the images from the new lens? A few examples would help us to understand.
On the road so I can't. The image was nearly identical to that of my 24-105. I bought the lens in hopes that the IQ would be appreciably better. Perhaps another copy will provide a better experience.

DFPanno wrote:
tim73 wrote:
DFPanno wrote: Disappointed as I was really looking forward to using it and enjoying an appreciable jump in IQ.
Can you say what is wrong with the images from the new lens? A few examples would help us to understand.
On the road so I can't. The image was nearly identical to that of my 24-105. I bought the lens in hopes that the IQ would be appreciably better. Perhaps another copy will provide a better experience.
There are people who judge lenses by what DXOMARK and various other "experts" say about them and if they say they are good, then they will be good. However by the criteria which those experts judge lenses, like MTF etc., and their conclusion that this lens is better than that, you may be unable to SEE the difference in prints and results. The 24-105 used carefully produces, at least in my hands, terrific looking prints, such that when I do the odd wedding, it's the lens which I most use, and I've about 20 lenses. I shot these two shots this morning with a Sigma 70-200 OS and a 2x Sigma teleconverter. Now this is an extreme example, but there's really nothing wrong with either.. At least to me.. IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191909068879.jpg) IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191909078880.jpg) If someone came along and started spouting off about MTFs I'd have yawned..

Garry, You have some nice shots from the Sigma 70-200 OS and 2x TC there. Can I ask how you like this combo in general? I just started using this lens on a Nikon D600 and like it a lot, but was wondering about getting the 2x TC. Does it help to be stopped down a bit, say to F/8? I still have AF at that aperture. My apologies to the OP for going off-topic on this thread... Thanks, Greg
Gearóid Ó Laoi, Garry Lee wrote:
DFPanno wrote:
tim73 wrote:
DFPanno wrote: Disappointed as I was really looking forward to using it and enjoying an appreciable jump in IQ.
Can you say what is wrong with the images from the new lens? A few examples would help us to understand.
On the road so I can't. The image was nearly identical to that of my 24-105. I bought the lens in hopes that the IQ would be appreciably better. Perhaps another copy will provide a better experience.
There are people who judge lenses by what DXOMARK and various other "experts" say about them and if they say they are good, then they will be good. However by the criteria which those experts judge lenses, like MTF etc., and their conclusion that this lens is better than that, you may be unable to SEE the difference in prints and results. The 24-105 used carefully produces, at least in my hands, terrific looking prints, such that when I do the odd wedding, it's the lens which I most use, and I've about 20 lenses. I shot these two shots this morning with a Sigma 70-200 OS and a 2x Sigma teleconverter. Now this is an extreme example, but there's really nothing wrong with either.. At least to me.. If someone came along and started spouting off about MTFs I'd have yawned..

DFPanno wrote: Acquired my new lens on Thursday. I have been shooting it back to back with my 24-105 (purchased in Feb. of 2012) and I just don't see a real difference. Perhaps slightly sharper and slightly better contrast but nothing that would put a big smile on your face. Nothing that changes my overall impression or enjoyment of the image. Perhaps I have a bad copy of the 24-70 or an exceptionally good copy of the 24-105 (or some combination therein). I will go out again but I know that I have already decided to return it. A nice lens but the extra stop is not worth the loss of range and IS (not to mention $2,300 when a good filter is included). Disappointed as I was really looking forward to using it and enjoying an appreciable jump in IQ. PS - All images viewed on a calibrated Eizo ColorEdge.
May I ask do you have any lenses that do give you the results you were expecting with your 24-70/2.8 II ?

meland wrote:
DFPanno wrote: Acquired my new lens on Thursday. I have been shooting it back to back with my 24-105 (purchased in Feb. of 2012) and I just don't see a real difference. Perhaps slightly sharper and slightly better contrast but nothing that would put a big smile on your face. Nothing that changes my overall impression or enjoyment of the image. Perhaps I have a bad copy of the 24-70 or an exceptionally good copy of the 24-105 (or some combination therein). I will go out again but I know that I have already decided to return it. A nice lens but the extra stop is not worth the loss of range and IS (not to mention $2,300 when a good filter is included). Disappointed as I was really looking forward to using it and enjoying an appreciable jump in IQ. PS - All images viewed on a calibrated Eizo ColorEdge.
May I ask do you have any lenses that do give you the results you were expecting with your 24-70/2.8 II ?
I was expecting the IQ of the 24-70 to be demonstrably better than that of my 24-105. The copy I have does not provide that result. It is a comparable image. The relative IQ as afforded by other lenses does not really figure into the equation (to my way of thinking). I could say though that the IQ is not on par with the 70-200 2.8 or the 50 1.2 but I did not buy the 24-70 to displace those lenses.

DFPanno wrote: I could say though that the IQ is not on par with the 70-200 2.8 or the 50 1.2 but I did not buy the 24-70 to displace those lenses.
If the 24-70 II is not "on par" with the 70-200 II, I suspect that something is wrong. I have both and they are very comparable (excellent). I haven't had the 24-105L, but did upgrade from the 24-70 to the 24-70 II. While the difference is not dramatic at say f/5.6, it is quite obvious at f/2.8 (not just in terms of sharpness, but also with regard to color and contrast). I'd try another copy before giving up (unless, of course, you are already happy with the 24-105 and then there is no real need to replace it in the first place).

70mm ... that is where I wanted better performance... comparable quality I hoped the 70mm points of 24-70 II and 70-200 II would be similar.... but the 24-70 fell short.. I have not written off the 24-70... I am currently distracted ...enjoying the Sigma 35.... which sits right there in the middle....so I have my 14L, 35 and a 135L on top .. the 'primes version' of the kit I want... but I still have some hope there... maybe I could try again... I have had very good copies of most all my other lenses... ...I tried a 70-200 non I.S. once which was awful.. ...later I got the 70-200 I.S. ...which was the best zoom I ever saw.. anyway I'll keep an open mind on all this.... ........

? IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7/http://3.static.img-dpzen.com/files/g/TS560x560~2450934.jpg) !

Apewithacamera wrote: ? IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7/http://3.static.img-dpzen.com/files/g/TS560x560~2450934.jpg) !
Amazing!! That is one of the funniest/cleverest posts I have seen in a long time. Thumbs up to you.

no text

plevyadophy wrote:
Apewithacamera wrote: ? IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7/http://3.static.img-dpzen.com/files/g/TS560x560~2450934.jpg) !
Amazing!! That is one of the funniest/cleverest posts I have seen in a long time. Thumbs up to you.
+2, indeed

DFPanno wrote: ... A nice lens but the extra stop is not worth the loss of range and IS (not to mention $2,300 when a good filter is included). ...
Have you tried shooting without the filter? The lens may not be the problem...

DFPanno wrote: Acquired my new lens on Thursday. I have been shooting it back to back with my 24-105 (purchased in Feb. of 2012) and I just don't see a real difference. Perhaps slightly sharper and slightly better contrast but nothing that would put a big smile on your face. Nothing that changes my overall impression or enjoyment of the image. Perhaps I have a bad copy of the 24-70 or an exceptionally good copy of the 24-105 (or some combination therein). I will go out again but I know that I have already decided to return it. A nice lens but the extra stop is not worth the loss of range and IS (not to mention $2,300 when a good filter is included). Disappointed as I was really looking forward to using it and enjoying an appreciable jump in IQ. PS - All images viewed on a calibrated Eizo ColorEdge.
You're going to see the law of diminishing returns when "upgrading" from an already excellent optically Canon 24-105L lens. Personally I think that the 24-70 2.8L II is severely overpriced. Really now over $2,000 for a lens that only does 2.8 and lacks IS??? The 50 1.8 for only $100 is faster than it for 1/20th the price and probably just as good clarity wise at similar apertures. Not to mention that 24-70 is a short zoom range. I'd suggest returning or selling the 24-70 that you have and getting a few fast primes instead such as Sigma or Canon 35mm prime, Canon 85 1.8, and using your 24-105 as a general purpose lens when fast primes aren't as efficient. If you shoot any form of portraiture that would be my recommendation. F4 is still fast enough especially with IS for indoor work or bounced flash especially with a newer FF body that can do high iso's easily.

I might do just this.

DFPanno wrote: Acquired my new lens on Thursday. I have been shooting it back to back with my 24-105 (purchased in Feb. of 2012) and I just don't see a real difference. Perhaps slightly sharper and slightly better contrast but nothing that would put a big smile on your face. Nothing that changes my overall impression or enjoyment of the image. Perhaps I have a bad copy of the 24-70 or an exceptionally good copy of the 24-105 (or some combination therein). I will go out again but I know that I have already decided to return it. A nice lens but the extra stop is not worth the loss of range and IS (not to mention $2,300 when a good filter is included). Disappointed as I was really looking forward to using it and enjoying an appreciable jump in IQ. PS - All images viewed on a calibrated Eizo ColorEdge.
What were your shutter speeds? Did you test the 24-105 with the IS turned off? Did you put the camera up on a tripod? If you can find a scene location that acts like a flat wall (the entire frame at infinity), the difference will b1tch-slap you. I would say the equivalent DoF for equal sharpness at the edges may approach two stops. Anecdote: I bought the 5D and 24-105 in 2005 and the first place I took them was the Grand Canyon. It was easy to find many ledges where the drop from the tip of the lens to the ground measured a quarter mile, IOW, the frame was all infinity, essentially the same DoF as a flat wall. When I got those gazillion pics home and viewing at 100%, discovered that there was a circle in the center that was fairly sharp but outside of that, varying degrees of softness deepening as it found the edges. Kind of describes every lens right? Except that the center circle of sharpness from this lens seemed very small and softening, once it was seen at 100%, was quite noticeable at print size. One of the biggest problems about pixel peeping is that you are unwittingly training your eye to see or notice detail you wouldn't normally see or notice. Before long, I was seeing this softness at normal sizes in areas I believe should have still been sharp. I was thrilled with FF but it was obvious that the 24-105, while it popped with color and contrast, wasn't the sharpest knife in the draw. I then embarked on an 8 year and $25,000 search for a sharp lens. I bought every Canon L series prime, nearly every Zeiss prime, several handfulls of Contax, Leica and Olympus primes which I adapted, and a variety of Canon and Nikon zooms. Out of all of that. I have 5 WOW!! lenses. The Contax Zeiss 21mm, the Lecia R 28mm, TSE-17mm, Nikkor 14-24G & the 24-70 II.

Rick Knepper wrote:
DFPanno wrote: Acquired my new lens on Thursday. I have been shooting it back to back with my 24-105 (purchased in Feb. of 2012) and I just don't see a real difference. Perhaps slightly sharper and slightly better contrast but nothing that would put a big smile on your face. Nothing that changes my overall impression or enjoyment of the image. Perhaps I have a bad copy of the 24-70 or an exceptionally good copy of the 24-105 (or some combination therein). I will go out again but I know that I have already decided to return it. A nice lens but the extra stop is not worth the loss of range and IS (not to mention $2,300 when a good filter is included). Disappointed as I was really looking forward to using it and enjoying an appreciable jump in IQ. PS - All images viewed on a calibrated Eizo ColorEdge.
What were your shutter speeds? Did you test the 24-105 with the IS turned off? Did you put the camera up on a tripod? If you can find a scene location that acts like a flat wall (the entire frame at infinity), the difference will b1tch-slap you. I would say the equivalent DoF for equal sharpness at the edges may approach two stops. Anecdote: I bought the 5D and 24-105 in 2005 and the first place I took them was the Grand Canyon. It was easy to find many ledges where the drop from the tip of the lens to the ground measured a quarter mile, IOW, the frame was all infinity, essentially the same DoF as a flat wall. When I got those gazillion pics home and viewing at 100%, discovered that there was a circle in the center that was fairly sharp but outside of that, varying degrees of softness deepening as it found the edges. Kind of describes every lens right? Except that the center circle of sharpness from this lens seemed very small and softening, once it was seen at 100%, was quite noticeable at print size. One of the biggest problems about pixel peeping is that you are unwittingly training your eye to see or notice detail you wouldn't normally see or notice. Before long, I was seeing this softness at normal sizes in areas I believe should have still been sharp. I was thrilled with FF but it was obvious that the 24-105, while it popped with color and contrast, wasn't the sharpest knife in the draw. I then embarked on an 8 year and $25,000 search for a sharp lens. I bought every Canon L series prime, nearly every Zeiss prime, several handfulls of Contax, Leica and Olympus primes which I adapted, and a variety of Canon and Nikon zooms. Out of all of that. I have 5 WOW!! lenses. The Contax Zeiss 21mm, the Lecia R 28mm, TSE-17mm, Nikkor 14-24G & the 24-70 II.
oy vey, rick, that must have been a very bad copy of the 24-105. the worst. see, my 24-105 is quite good even at f4 handheld. it's sharp with good colors and contrast and no visible softness issues. it's a different problem that the "is" would not work properly at low speeds at apertures smaller than f4 so i use "is" only at f4 where it performs flawlessly. i must send the lens to canon for repairs obviously. this is the very first shot i took with the 24-104 when i was still testing the lens at a place i know well. it's not bad. it's a jpeg right out of the camera IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191909138881.jpg) .

salamander1 wrote:
Rick Knepper wrote:
DFPanno wrote: Acquired my new lens on Thursday. I have been shooting it back to back with my 24-105 (purchased in Feb. of 2012) and I just don't see a real difference. Perhaps slightly sharper and slightly better contrast but nothing that would put a big smile on your face. Nothing that changes my overall impression or enjoyment of the image. Perhaps I have a bad copy of the 24-70 or an exceptionally good copy of the 24-105 (or some combination therein). I will go out again but I know that I have already decided to return it. A nice lens but the extra stop is not worth the loss of range and IS (not to mention $2,300 when a good filter is included). Disappointed as I was really looking forward to using it and enjoying an appreciable jump in IQ. PS - All images viewed on a calibrated Eizo ColorEdge.
What were your shutter speeds? Did you test the 24-105 with the IS turned off? Did you put the camera up on a tripod? If you can find a scene location that acts like a flat wall (the entire frame at infinity), the difference will b1tch-slap you. I would say the equivalent DoF for equal sharpness at the edges may approach two stops. Anecdote: I bought the 5D and 24-105 in 2005 and the first place I took them was the Grand Canyon. It was easy to find many ledges where the drop from the tip of the lens to the ground measured a quarter mile, IOW, the frame was all infinity, essentially the same DoF as a flat wall. When I got those gazillion pics home and viewing at 100%, discovered that there was a circle in the center that was fairly sharp but outside of that, varying degrees of softness deepening as it found the edges. Kind of describes every lens right? Except that the center circle of sharpness from this lens seemed very small and softening, once it was seen at 100%, was quite noticeable at print size. One of the biggest problems about pixel peeping is that you are unwittingly training your eye to see or notice detail you wouldn't normally see or notice. Before long, I was seeing this softness at normal sizes in areas I believe should have still been sharp. I was thrilled with FF but it was obvious that the 24-105, while it popped with color and contrast, wasn't the sharpest knife in the draw. I then embarked on an 8 year and $25,000 search for a sharp lens. I bought every Canon L series prime, nearly every Zeiss prime, several handfulls of Contax, Leica and Olympus primes which I adapted, and a variety of Canon and Nikon zooms. Out of all of that. I have 5 WOW!! lenses. The Contax Zeiss 21mm, the Lecia R 28mm, TSE-17mm, Nikkor 14-24G & the 24-70 II.
oy vey, rick, that must have been a very bad copy of the 24-105. the worst.
No, I suspect I have an average copy of the lens and I fear you must reread what I wrote. The scene I described at the Grand Canyon is very specific and sets up like a brick wall or flat wall test folks use to test their lenses at home just after receiving them. If you were to do the same thing, maybe a flat wall assuming the Grand Canyon isn't down the street, you'd see what I am talking about. Actually, I use a location on a bridge in town that reproduces infinity across the frame. I would urge the OP to find such a location and retest both lenses on a tripod without IS.
see, my 24-105 is quite good even at f4 handheld. it's sharp with good colors and contrast and no visible softness issues.
Listen, historically, I have used the 24-105 & 24-70 in tandem - the 24-105 for hiking handheld or walkaround and the 24-70 on tripod for mission critical. However, I may have far many more images from the 24-105 on my Flickr account under the name Knepper than probably all others combined. One reason for this was in August 2010, I became convinced that Canon was on the verge of releasing the 24-70 II that fall so I sold my original. Out smarted myself actually. Well, the 24-105 had to do the 24-70's work for 2 years while I waited on the 24-70 II. Please note that 2010 was well after that Grand Canyon trip and I was willing to use the 24-105 in critical situations. I am not saying what you think I am saying about the 24-105.... Now that I have the 24-70 II, the roles mentioned above may change a bit. First off, I've learned to use shutter speed instead of IS to obtain sharp images in many types of light. Granted, I can't get there all of the time. Secondly, the 24-70 II is so much sharper into the corners @f2.8 than the 24-105 is, even maybe up to f11, in situations where DoF is not a major factor.
it's a different problem that the "is" would not work properly at low speeds at apertures smaller than f4 so i use "is" only at f4 where it performs flawlessly. i must send the lens to canon for repairs obviously. this is the very first shot i took with the 24-104 when i was still testing the lens at a place i know well. it's not bad. it's a jpeg right out of the camera
This image is cropped, contains areas that are inside of infinity, has DoF concerns and therefore won't readily reveal the characteristics I speak of. Once you see what I am talking about, you won't have to blow up an image to see it. For example, I am looking at this image at the size you posted since I can't blow it up while writing my reply and I can see blurring in the gravel at the corners. I believe this may be DoF concerns and not lens aberrations but it is easy to see and you'll be able to see lens aberrations once you've acclimated your viewing to smaller details. If this is representative of the compositions you shoot, you may not need, what I think of as, a landscape oriented lens ie sharp (or sharper I should say) into the corners.
IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191909158882.jpg) .

Thanks for the list, Rick. Very helpful. Vince

I'm not looking for the 24-70L to replace the excellent 24-105L IS I use on the 1DsIII. I expect it to be head-n-shoulders better than my 24-70L, which exhibits barrel distortion. Enjoy your new lens.

Psychic1 wrote: I'm not looking for the 24-70L to replace the excellent 24-105L IS I use on the 1DsIII. I expect it to be head-n-shoulders better than my 24-70L, which exhibits barrel distortion.
I owned both 24-105L and 24-70L in the past and in my opinion the 24-105 has a lot more distortion at the 24mm end when compare to the 24-70L, I used it on my old 20D without any issue but as soon as I moved to FF 1DS2 I sold it within a week. I don't (and not plan to) own the 24-70L II but from playing with friend's copy on my 1DSIII, I think that's in fact head and shoulder above the 24-70 MK 1, but I am too spoiled by the fast 1.4 and 1.2 and TSE primes so not interested in the zoom any more.

OvinceZ wrote: Thanks for the list, Rick. Very helpful. Vince
In observance of the quote in your signiture, I must disclaim that the list of Wow!! lenses is my own and may or may not make others' lists for a variety reasons. The first obvious omission for many photogs might be the fact that there are no lenses longer than 70mm.

Rick Knepper wrote:
DFPanno wrote: Acquired my new lens on Thursday. I have been shooting it back to back with my 24-105 (purchased in Feb. of 2012) and I just don't see a real difference. Perhaps slightly sharper and slightly better contrast but nothing that would put a big smile on your face. Nothing that changes my overall impression or enjoyment of the image. Perhaps I have a bad copy of the 24-70 or an exceptionally good copy of the 24-105 (or some combination therein). I will go out again but I know that I have already decided to return it. A nice lens but the extra stop is not worth the loss of range and IS (not to mention $2,300 when a good filter is included). Disappointed as I was really looking forward to using it and enjoying an appreciable jump in IQ. PS - All images viewed on a calibrated Eizo ColorEdge.
What were your shutter speeds?
More than adequate; base ISO. Only variable was shutter speeds.
Did you test the 24-105 with the IS turned off?
No
Did you put the camera up on a tripod?
No
If you can find a scene location that acts like a flat wall (the entire frame at infinity), the difference will b1tch-slap you.
I can try this.
I would say the equivalent DoF for equal sharpness at the edges may approach two stops.
I am not seeing this at all but I will go out again this week before i make a final decision with regard to this copy.
Anecdote: I bought the 5D and 24-105 in 2005 and the first place I took them was the Grand Canyon. It was easy to find many ledges where the drop from the tip of the lens to the ground measured a quarter mile, IOW, the frame was all infinity, essentially the same DoF as a flat wall. When I got those gazillion pics home and viewing at 100%, discovered that there was a circle in the center that was fairly sharp but outside of that, varying degrees of softness deepening as it found the edges. Kind of describes every lens right? Except that the center circle of sharpness from this lens seemed very small and softening, once it was seen at 100%, was quite noticeable at print size. One of the biggest problems about pixel peeping is that you are unwittingly training your eye to see or notice detail you wouldn't normally see or notice. Before long, I was seeing this softness at normal sizes in areas I believe should have still been sharp. I was thrilled with FF but it was obvious that the 24-105, while it popped with color and contrast, wasn't the sharpest knife in the draw. I then embarked on an 8 year and $25,000 search for a sharp lens. I bought every Canon L series prime, nearly every Zeiss prime, several handfulls of Contax, Leica and Olympus primes which I adapted, and a variety of Canon and Nikon zooms. Out of all of that. I have 5 WOW!! lenses. The Contax Zeiss 21mm, the Lecia R 28mm, TSE-17mm, Nikkor 14-24G & the 24-70 II.
Thanks.

DFPanno wrote:
What were your shutter speeds?
More than adequate; base ISO. Only variable was shutter speeds.
Did you put the camera up on a tripod?
No
To DFPano the OP- I hope you find this helpful and leads you to the results you expected. many people here oh the forum are here as they seek continuous improvement if rom all the varying factors that impact our resulting photography. as we seek to analyze equipment and make comparisons it becomes very critical to understand the impact of all the variables that affect the output you want to analyze. Eliminating or neutralizing these variables to be a constant are critical comparisons comparisons, especially with lenses. The two answers quoted above can have Major impact on your analysis. Li had two excellent and calibrated versions of the 24-70 MK I and now have the MK II as well. I like you was still expecting improvement specifically in sharpness at anything below f5.6. Realize I already had good copies, and not that the MTF is the sole indicator for results, but did indicate that there would definitely be improve especially toward the 70mm end. (let's not even worry about corners for now.). Realize I had tons of stable f2.8 experiment shots with my MK I, even to the extent of having different MFA values depending on whether I was in fluorescent or incandescent lighting! Well, II have yet to have time to detail analyze my MK II in experiment mode, but have been using it sovereign the MK I since I have already observed the improvement in sharpness. law have only shot it at f2.8 And would say it has about the equivalent of 1.5 stops of better ISO sharpness. Let me explain what I mean by what I realize that this is a subjective comment. I have only been using it for indoor basketball shooting, no flash, shutter of slight or 1/640 and ISO ranging from 1600-3200 at f2.8. The increase in lens sharpness I am seeing is making up for for the 1.5 stops on ISO I mentioned before. Photos I take now at 3200 look better than those I a took at 1600 with the MkI. I do have like two shots I took of a brick wall the first day I got the lens just to quick mfa and make sure it was decent and know I wouldn't be waiting my time using it. I KNOW I need to do more controlled test on this new purchase to satisfy myself and make sure that everything checks out especially uniform results in the 4 corners to each other. This will require time and some warmer weather here in Chicago. So I hope you maintain your hope of having a sharper lens in you bag and not yet conclude it is you copy nor the model. My suggestions- 1. Put on tripod. (Eliminate any technique issue and turn off IS if doing comparisons) 2. Go outside for plenyt of light and low IsO to eliminate noise. And shutter at least 1/400 if possible or faster 3. Use LIVE View Contrast focus to eliminate any phase detect AF or MFA issues for now. 4. Choose a contrasty target that is perfectly perpendicular to frame and at least 25x FL away. The singular plain of focus will eliminate and DOF questions. 5. Take respective photos at 2.8 and f4.0 to Make comparisons 6. Repeat now using Regular phase AF (not live view) and make MFA settings that may be necessary. 7. Let us know what you find. As a reference here is my handheld MK Ii on 7D f2.8 shot of brick wall shot (20 degrees F outside and I hade to run to catch a flight after picking up the lens). I wasn't quite perfectly perpendicular as evidenced by the very slight keystone left to right. I took the brick wall shot about 10' away: Full res original file link:http://schlacter.smugmug.com/Other/Scraps/12109203_GsHVT9#!i=2322853972&k=r3hK2nf&lb=1&s=O http://schlacter.smugmug.com/photos/i-r3hK2nf/0/X3/i-r3hK2nf-X3.jpg smaller res shown below, both SOOC jpg IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191909228883.jpg)

Bookmarked. I will follow your suggestions and those of Rick K's and retest before I return for another copy. Thanks again.

Add new comment

Image
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: png gif jpg jpeg.
Attachment
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: zip rar.