Canon 24-70mm Version: 1... Worthy or Unworthy?

[Abitconfused]

My Canon 24-70 is not one of my most thrilling lenses. It rarely surprises me. Take, for example, my Nikon 105mm Macro. That lens just keeps on giving! The Canon 17-40mm is also a stunner at times as is the Canon 50mm f/1.4. So why was this lens made exactly? And, who loves it? And for what purpose?



My 24-70 is sharp after some Unsharp Masking in Photoshop



Both color and sharpening were suffered over for some time in this shot and I still don't think it is quite right.

[Colin Southern]

I use mine often for full length portraiture and landscape. It's one of my older lenses now, but I haven't bothered to update it to the II version because I'm completely happy with it.

If you're not happy with your image quality then it might be time to do some formal test shots to see if there is a problem.

[Donald]

I consider the 24-70 to be one of the greatest things ever made. A wonderful lens. As Colin says, time for some formal tests?

When you write - "Take, for example, my Nikon 105mm Macro. That lens just keeps on giving!", what do you mean? What are the qualitative differences?.

[Colin Southern]

When you write - "Take, for example, my Nikon 105mm Macro. That lens just keeps on giving!", what do you mean? What are the qualitative differences?.

About 35mm for a start!

Not sure about others, but I've heard that the Nikon 105mm is absolutely hopeless for anything requiring wide angle!

[Stagecoach]

Ed, I'm not familiar with the Canon lenses so can not comment on them but what I would say is that with the lighting condition in these two shots is it really fair for a test?

Looking at No 2 full size I note the cobweb between the upper 'V', is that not pretty sharp?

Grahame

[William W]

. . . It's one of my older lenses now, but I haven't bothered to update it to the II version because I'm completely happy with it.

I purposely bought one, before they went out of stock as a new purchase.

The Lens Hood configuration on the EF 24 to 70 F/2.8 L MkII USM is not suitable for what I want and the Tamron 24 to 70/2.8 VR focus and zoom turrets were both jittery and sticky - I tried a few copies of every lens. These quantitative assessments led me to buy the lens that Ed is complaining about. I find my copy of the 'original' 24 to 70/2.8 very sharp, very well made, mechanically and electronically well tuned and it operates superbly: I use is as a standard working zoom lens on 5D Series cameras, for People Shots mainly.

I don't know how to adequately to begin to compare my EF 24 to 70 F/2.8L USM to either my EF 100F/2.8 Macro or my EF135 F/2 L USM.

WW

[rpcrowe]

When I shot with my 24-70mm f/2.8L Mki lens, I absolutely loved it as did most photographers of its early production era. In fact, it was not until the last several years of this lens production that I began hearing any negative comments. Since, I never tested my copy against new copies of that lens, I don't know if the negative comments had any basis in truth. My copy of the 24-70mm f/2.8L lens was a bit sharper than my copy of the 17-40mm f/4L.

I do wonder, however if there might have been a glitch in the production of these lenses, towards the end of their production time, to cause the negative press

I purchased my 24-70mm f/2.8L Mki used from a professional photographer who was getting on the bandwagon of the 24-105mm f/4L IS lens. I was quite happy with my 24-70L on my 30D and later on my 40D camera and considered it extremely sharp.

I replaced the 24-70mm f/2.8L with a 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens because the focal range that lens was better suited for a crop camera, not because of any problems I had with the lens itself. The photographer to whom I sold the lens is still happily shooting performances with it on a professional level.

IMO, all digital images (especially those shot in RAW) need application of proper sharpening. It is certainly no negative comment to say that "I needed to sharpen the images from my 24-70mm f/2.8 IS lens." I don't judge the sharpness of a lens from SOOC images but, rather from real-life images after I have applied proper sharpening.

BTW: the back lit shot of the cactus is not necessarily a good example to use regarding the sharpness of any lens. However, here is a shot of another cactus that I did at 45mm with my Mki on a 30D camera at 45mm using f/6.7...



Although we cannot accurately judge the sharpness of an image from the small copies posted on the various Internet sites, this is a very sharp image...

[GrahamS]

Ed, which 24-70 are you talking about, the f2.8L or the f4L?

[William W]

Ed, which 24-70 are you talking about, the f2.8L or the f4L?

I assumed EF 24 to 70 F/2.8 L USM, because Ed mentioned "Version: 1" in the title of the thread.

WW

[loosecanon]

I have both the 24-70 L mk 1, bought recently second hand but appearing new - even down to Canon's waxy bag. I have had a 24mm-105 L IS for a few years.
The 24-105 is a good workhorse, perfectly good image quality but some vignetting especially at f4. The 24-70 is a revelation, the brightness of the viewfinder (5D3) sharpness and micro contrast all excellent. The way the zoom works with the lens hood really helps keep flare at bay.
Which do I use - both 24-105 for reach and IS, 24-70 for when I want that extra punch.

On my monitor both the images submitted seem over exposed, but this monitor is not as calibrated as my editing computer.

[GrahamS]

Ed, the 24-70 f2.8L Mk1 is an exceptional lens! It is tack sharp across the range even wide open. If you are not getting good results, you may have a de-centered element or a poorly calibrated focus adjustment.

[Abitconfused]

OK, good to hear from all. I will give this lens much more thought. Seems the +++ outweigh the --- by quite a margin. Thanks for your insight!

[Ken MT]

Are you comparing like with like. eg Prime lens 50mm and 105mm, and date of manufacturing
Canon 17-40 2003, Canon 24-70 Mk 2 2012, Nikon 2006, Canon 50mm 1993. You would expect there to be some improvements in lens manufacture over the years

[Colin Southern]

Seems the +++ outweigh the --- by quite a margin.

To be honest, I can't say I've found any "---" over the years.

[Traingineer]

The only problem I have with the 24-70mm lens is that it sometimes needs some micro adjustment.

[Colin Southern]

The only problem I have with the 24-70mm lens is that it does occasionally need to be re calibrated. The main drawback of the lens.

That's a bit odd - I've had mine 8 1/2 years and it's as good now at the day I got it.

[Traingineer]

That's a bit odd - I've had mine 8 1/2 years and it's as good now at the day I got it.

That's what I also thought, but after trying out, I realised that the lens was in need of re-calibration

[Donald]

Not sure that I'd know whether the lens was in need of re-calibration. How do you actually determine this?

[William W]

That's what I also thought, but after trying out, I realised that the lens was in need of re-calibration

You might like to clarify that response, please, because it varies greatly from message that was originally provided.

In the first comment it was stated that the lens was in need of 'occasional' calibration, which means that it wanders in and out of correct calibration and needs to be corrected, now it is stated that a lens was tested and it was in need of calibration.


WW

[Traingineer]

You might like to clarify that response, please, because it varies greatly from message that was originally provided.

In the first comment it was stated that the lens was in need of 'occasional' calibration, which means that it wanders in and out of correct calibration and needs to be corrected, now it is stated that a lens was tested and it was in need of calibration.


WW

To make everything clear, the lens was never calibrated, I tested it and then calibrated it to -15, then a few weeks later, i set it to -6, and recently, I set it to -7.