did i get a lemon 24-70?

[dorin]

hi guys,

so i finally took th eplunge about a month ago in DSLR and as a starting kit i got myself a 40d and a 24-70. the 24-70 focuses extremely fast, nice contrast/colours but i always found it a little bit too soft.
after coming from egypt, holiday for 2 weeks, i noticed some dust specks inside the lens. i sent it to service and asked them to calibrate it as well when they clean it.

well, it cam back cleaned and calibrated...at least this is what i thought till i made a test, comparing it to 70-200 f2.8 IS (rented it over the weekend for the prague trip)

so, here is the original pic (resized) - all the pics are trigered by remote shutter and the camera was steady onto the tripd

http://www.bocanila.ro/40d/comparison/orig.jpg

now 100% crop 70-200

http://www.bocanila.ro/40d/comparison/70-200.jpg

and now 24-70

http://www.bocanila.ro/40d/comparison/24-70.jpg

both pics are f2.8 1/10 at 70mm

and now i realised that again some tiny dust specks are back into the 24-70.

will i have to pay to have the lens re-calibrated? i mean for christ's sake this is a 1300usd lens, and meant to be weather sealed - shouldn't it keep the dust away?

canon service in switzerland doesn't seem to be to eager to do their job when there are warranty issues (they said they "cleaned" my sensor and viewfinder and when i got it back the sensor or still with dust - indeed abit less then before- but the viewfinder was untouched. they asked for money to clean it claiming it left from them perfect, after a call with canon support center they did it for free.

that's why, will they try to charge me again?

i know that 70-200 is a brilliant lens but i heard the same about 24-70...

what do you think?

dorin

[JTL]

what do you think?

dorinPersonally, I think there’s a chance that your lens did not get calibrated or cleaned. It does happen sometimes that a lens comes in and gets mis-tagged as serviced when it hasn't actually been serviced. Unfortunately, you are probably now faced with an extended letter writing campaign that you will have to wage in order to get satisfactory service and not be charged again.

[dorin]

ok, but getting dust in the sensor it is user's fault to say like this, but dust in a sealed weather proofed lens and fault in calibration its purely manufacture defect, why would a user have to pay over and over again to have it run how it should be?

dorin

[DonSchap]

what do you think?

dorin

I think you need to follow your lens through the repair/alignment process and make them prove the alignment, now that you have had it done, paid for it and found it faulty.

Let them demonstrate their "process" to you ... and get proof positive it really is getting done and not just a "look-see" by some pimple-faced kid getting minimum wage.

This is REPAIR of a high-end lens ... you deserve to have it perform likewise ... unless it just cannot. It could have a "misgrind" or something worse, that cannot be overcome and you need a REPLACEMENT lens. Stand on the warranty ... and get your satisfaction.

Tell them there are interested parties, involved, and hey ... It's YOUR trip at stake ... and YOUR money!

Good luck.

[dorin]

i will call canon support as soon as they open. the lens is under warranty, 1 1/2 month old. the cleaning and allignment of the lens was for free, but i'm affraid they will ask me to pay to redo it, or is the alignment and cleaning a sealed lens for free regardless how many times as long as it is under warranty?
they asked me to pay then to have the body and sensor cleaned,claiming they did good for the first time. if for the first time i only had the time-frame on my side (i recieved it at 8.30 and at 9 i was on the phone with them complaining and in the eve was picked up by dhl) at least now is a sealed lens which i couldn't temper with.

thanks for your inputs!
Dorin

[michaelb]

I would recommend repeating this testing in better light, just to make sure your focus was accurate - if it still looks soft, then I would send it in to Canon.

[Mark_48]

Dorin,

If you do retry some test shots, be sure to use the center AF point. Not sure if you may have used multiple AF points in the shots you posted, but if you did it could be possible that a point grabbed focus elsewhere in the image and f/2.8 may not allow much room for error. Possibly Canon's EOS Viewer utility may work with the 40D files and could allow you to see which AF points were active at the moment of the shot. Also consider the mirror lockup function on the 40D to help ensure the mirror slap doesn't shake the camera a bit even on a tripod.

Mark.....

[24Peter]

I like Mark's suggestions and would add that I think the 24-70 is kind of a mixed bag. Some people seem to have great copies, others not so great. I rented one and it was awful, even stopped down. I'm much happier with my 24-105 F4 IS, though even with that lens there seems to be some variation. Try another 24-70 and see if you get better results. Then you'll know if your lens is the problem.

All that being said, I don't think your lens is a lemon based on the pic you posted - it's just not a great copy. Canon will probably say it is within spec, so you'll either have to stop down and live with it, or sell it and try to find a better one.

[DonSchap]

Geez Louise, Pete ...

if that's the best the lens can do, I would seriously consider the TAMRON SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro (say that three times, fast) and just be done with it. You would save a carload of cash, get a 6-year warranty, lightweight and decent focus speed. But, most of all ... dead-on and sharp focus.

Personally, I don't know how Canon gets away with this kind of crap. That is NOT an el cheapo lens. You should have some assurance that out-of-box, it's dead nuts on the money! :mad: Some kit lenses focus better than that!

[Mark_48]

Geez Louise, Pete ...

if that's the best the lens can do, I would seriously consider the TAMRON SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) Macro (say that three times, fast) and just be done with it. You would save a carload of cash, get a 6-year warranty, lightweight and decent focus speed. But, most of all ... dead-on and sharp focus.

Personally, I don't know how Canon gets away with this kind of crap. That is NOT an el cheapo lens. You should have some assurance that out-of-box, it's dead nuts on the money! :mad: Some kit lenses focus better than that!

Don, I've got that Tammy and it's a bit of a disappointment in low light focusing. A couple of weddings I used it at, it was hunting and occassionally missed the mark. Otherwise for a carry around lens the Tammy sure beats the weight of the 24-70 I bought for events and wedding stuff and imagewise, yeah the Tammy is a nice sharp lens.

Mark....

[dorin]

hi guys,

for the moment i cannot make more comparing tests as i gave back the 70-200.

i did now some other tests, as you can see at f2.8 and f22 is insanely soft...

original
http://www.bocanila.ro/40d/comparison/IMG_7531.jpg

f2.8
http://www.bocanila.ro/40d/comparison/f2,8.jpg

f3,5
http://www.bocanila.ro/40d/comparison/f3,5.jpg

f8.0
http://www.bocanila.ro/40d/comparison/f8,0.jpg

f10
http://www.bocanila.ro/40d/comparison/f10.jpg

f15
http://www.bocanila.ro/40d/comparison/f15.jpg

f22
http://www.bocanila.ro/40d/comparison/f22.jpg

honestly, how OOF do you think it is?

Thanks,
dorin

[24Peter]

I had a Tamron 28-75 F2.8 that Tamron could not calibrate properly (very soft wide open). In fact, they agreed it was so bad they gave me my money back even though I had purchased the lens several months earlier from a third party retailer. So there goes your theory Don... But again, many people love their Tamron's and have great pics to prove what a nice lens it is. So... point is, always thoroughly test your lens before commiting to it.

[24Peter]

Dorin - I think you have an average copy of that lens (most lenses break down at F22 due to diffraction, not poor lens-ability.) You may want to stop pixel peeping as I learned (the hard way), it will make you crazy.

Let Canon take another stab at the lens and if you're still not happy, move on.

[Mark_48]

Dorin, (or someone)

I was looking at the EXIF info both in Opanda's IEXIF Viewer and CS3 and both show all your shots between f/2.8 to f/22 as f/2.8 at 1/160th and 70mm. Your original shows shot at 24mm at 1/250th, so I'm not sure what this shot represents since the crops weren't taken from that. I've usually seen the EXIF as being correct regardless of editing that was done. If you know why it's like this could you offer an explanation. I'm lost.

Mark....

[dorin]

hi Mark,

the "original" is the first pic taken at f2.8 , as "original" for you to have an idea what size of the crops represent from the main picture.

the rest of the crops are crops taken from the next series of pics, and i showed only the crops rather than the original pic and its respective crop when the aim of the pics are to show the detail level.

did i give a proper explanation?

cheers,
Dorin

[Mark_48]

Was your first "original" shot actually at 24mm as the EXIF would seem to indicate? To me the "original" should be at 70mm to give proper reference to the crops.
I'm still confused about the identical EXIF's on the other shots....

Mark.....

[DonSchap]

Camera supply boy? Give this man a TAMRON ... and shoot it side-by-side. Then the truth be told. :D

[michaelb]

Now I'm convinced there is something wrong with your 24-70.




This is from my 24-105, wide-open (f/4)....you're 24-70 should be just as sharp....
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/287728226_bouxe-L.jpg




And here is a 100% crop of me in her sunglasses taking the pic....
http://brownphotography.smugmug.com/photos/287728216_ZoGBA-M.jpg

[dorin]

mark, i did check what you meant and indeed i saw your point. all the shots were taken at 24mm.
why does exif sais that thy're all taken at same apreture and shutter speed, well, it seems that if you work with layers in photoshop, whatever layer you save you'll get the exif of the background layer, hence the confusion.

michaelb, your sample is a plain proof my 24-70 needs a recalibration.

Thanks guys,
dorin

[Mark_48]

Just to give another comparison, here's a quicky with my 24-70L on a 30D out my front door. Handheld f/2.8 @ 1/800 ISO 100 70mm. Full image and then 100% outcrop. Single center AF point focused on street sign.

[dorin]

thanks Mark,

yeap, there's no discussion i have a soft 24-70. i really wonder how come they didnt calibrate it right from the first time?
what i will do is to send it back for recalibration next monday,i need it for the next 2 weekends, i will send it together with the camra, and then when i get it back , if still not happy i will rent a 24-70 from a local photo store, and run comparing shots, so if then still bad, i'll ask to either fix it either to give me another one.
to be honest yes i could do some PP to get the as sharp as they should be but when you pay that price i expect a proper quality to come along, isn't that the purpose of the L lenses?

Thank you guys for your replies, i will keep you posted as soon as i have updates!

CH-eers,
Dorin

[cdifoto]

My 24-70L images are better when the subject is closer. It's not great with distance work for some reason, which is fine by me since I primarily shoot people. Try up-close subjects (within about 20 feet) at around f/5.6 or so.

[cdifoto]

Here are some 100& crops from mine. Admittedly I was careless with my cropping so they don't share the same dimensions, but I assure you they are 100%. EXIF is embedded, and the relevant information is also overlaid as you can see.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/gear/2008-05-02-0001.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/gear/2008-05-02-0002.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/gear/2008-05-02-0003.jpg