# Did I get a bad lens...or user error?



## tjjackson63 (Jun 17, 2012)

Hello, I'm just a hobby photographer, a long ways from knowing everything I need to know. I recently bought a used 24-70 from KEH with an Ex+ rating. I was a little nervous about getting this lens because of what I've read about bad copies. I'm still trying to figure out if I got a good one or not. Some photos seem sharp some don't. So, I don't know if it's me or the lens...or both. Can I please get some insight with this? I'll try to post a few different pics I recently took with this lens....


----------



## tjjackson63 (Jun 17, 2012)

Pic 2


----------



## tjjackson63 (Jun 17, 2012)

pic 3


----------



## tjjackson63 (Jun 17, 2012)

pic 4...This is the one worries me the most. I've had a couple turn out like this. Kind of seems out of focus. All of these ones are hand held. I did adjust saturation a bit on the 1st one, pics 2, 3, and 4 are untouched.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 17, 2012)

I've had five of the older 24-70mm L model, and while they were all right, just not spectacular. The images you posted are a bit difficult, because we do not know where the AF point was, or the camera body settings.

I find FoCal is a good way to give a lens a good bit of testing for not only autofocus accuract, but consistency of autofocus. You can also find out at which settings your lens is the sharpest.

The 24-70 does have way too much field of curvature, which on closeups with a wide aperture will mean out of focus edges, or if you focus toward the edge, the center will be soft.

For those with a crop body, you can get the 17-55mmL, but with FF, I'd get a new one locally, as it can take a few tries to get a really good one. The field of curvature will not improve though, its in the design.


----------



## tjjackson63 (Jun 17, 2012)

I am using a crop sensor t2i. I'm pretty sure I just used auto-focus, aimed at the crossbar on the bike. I just checked the settings and it was: 55mm, F7, 1/80th sec
Could that 1/80th handheld be the culprit in this photo?
Also, I went with the 24-70 over the 17-55 because I read alot about dust issues with that lens, and though I'm as careful as I can be, I'm a little clumsy, AND I change my lenses alot out on dirt roads and in the woods looking for wildlife. I hope to some day have a Mark ii as a 2nd camera to carry around so I figured when that day comes my 24-70 can go on that one.


----------



## jordanbstead (Jun 17, 2012)

Yes, it's user error. All the photos are tack, save for the last one, shot at a slower shutter speed and at 55mm. You were probably just moving around too much as you shot it. 

Know that as a base rule, whatever shutter speed you're shooting at should be a 1/x of whatever lens length you're at. This helps to combat camera shake. 

Example: If you're shooting with a 50mm lens, you'll need AT LEAST a shutter speed of 1/50th to get a sharp image with average camera shake.


----------



## Tammy (Jun 17, 2012)

jordanbstead said:


> Yes, it's user error. All the photos are tack, save for the last one, shot at a slower shutter speed and at 55mm. You were probably just moving around too much as you shot it.
> 
> Know that as a base rule, whatever shutter speed you're shooting at should be a 1/x of whatever lens length you're at. This helps to combat camera shake.
> 
> Example: If you're shooting with a 50mm lens, you'll need AT LEAST a shutter speed of 1/50th to get a sharp image with average camera shake.



he is shooting with a crop so he should be shooting at 1/1.6x focal length.. if he has decent steady hands.. if not, 2x would be a good easy rule..


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 18, 2012)

http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/how-to-test-a-lens/

When testing a lens you should use a steady tripod under controlled conditions. I suggest using liveview AF on a stationary (inanimate) object; that red wall, from a distance, might be a decent test target.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 18, 2012)

Tammy said:


> jordanbstead said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it's user error. All the photos are tack, save for the last one, shot at a slower shutter speed and at 55mm. You were probably just moving around too much as you shot it.
> ...


 
Yes, the old 1/effective focal length (1/1.6 X FL) was ok for 5mp sensors, but for 18mp sensors, double the minimum speed, for 50mm on a crop camera, try to use 1/160 or 1/200 sec to reduce motion blur. To test a body, use a tripod, or a really high shutter speed, 1/640 or 1/1000 to pretty much eliminate motion as a factor. you will be much happier when you get the shutter speed up. 

The 24-70mm L is very unbalanced on a crop body, so it gets more handheld movement than a better balanced lens.


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 18, 2012)

I'd give it some more time before getting worried. It appears that your lens is at least capable of taking sharp pictures. For example the shot of the dear is sharp, as well the 'ear' of the woman you took a picture of is very sharp. Are you using a focus region or a selected focus point? The other shots could do with being a little sharper, the first image of the fence and flowers as well as the image of the bike should be sharper on that lens. I have a copy of the 24-70, it's razor sharp throughout on both full frame and crop.

Higher shutter speeds, practicing steady hands, taking multiple pictures of the same image, practice focusing. The advice above about using a tri-pod with a delayed 2 second shutter and shooting with various settings in live view is worth trying. I don't see anything that jumps out as a problem with your lens, so do a bunch of tests, get good at it before you start worrying. Also, just a basic note for you, if you are shooting wide open at 2.8 on a scene with objects at varying distances, only the objects in line with what you focused on (focal plane) are going to be in sharp focus, everything else will gradually recede out of focus, so you may want to pay attention to testing at higher f/numbers as well as faster shutter speeds. Also, I would compliment your composition, the framing choices in all of your shots is quite good.


----------



## imkev (Jun 18, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I find FoCal is a good way to give a lens a good bit of testing for not only autofocus accuract, but consistency of autofocus. You can also find out at which settings your lens is the sharpest.



Which version of FoCal would you recommend purchasing. I have a 5DII and a 7D that I woulld be using it on. Also is there anywhere state side we can get it, or is it only available on their website in the UK? 

Thanks in advance for any input


----------



## rwmson (Jun 18, 2012)

I believe it's only available online.


----------



## tjjackson63 (Jun 21, 2012)

Thank you all for your help! Also, to Jettatore, thank you for the compliment on my composition. : )


----------



## bdunbar79 (Jun 21, 2012)

tjjackson63 said:


> Thank you all for your help! Also, to Jettatore, thank you for the compliment on my composition. : )



Well, it's frustrating when you're doing DSLR photography. Your picture doesn't look good and think of the myriad of things that could have gone wrong and you have to figure out which it is!! 

I personally don't think there is anything wrong with your lens. Practice landscape shots with it. Set your aperture to f/11 to f/22. Your DOF will be so huge you can just change shutter speed for correct metering. Then practice shallowing your DOF, on a tripod. That's how I learn each of my lenses. And it's fun! 8)


----------



## sandymandy (Jun 24, 2012)

Sometimes the autofocus just misses. I took a photo of my friend sitting on a bench with the focus point on her face. But my camera still set the background sharp and not her. Dont ask me why  Oh and i also took shots after midnight in the streets outside and my lens didnt focus at all even under the streetlamps ha!

The bike shot just got movement blur cuz shutter speed was 2 low


----------



## ramon123 (Jun 25, 2012)

no it doesn't mean you got a "bad lens", sometimes it just shows that error once and then pretty much never again


----------



## tjjackson63 (Jun 28, 2012)

Hello, I'm still a bit concerned about the lens...or maybe an issue I'm having. Here are 3 photos I took the last 2 nights (basically the same lighting). The first pic (of the deer) was taken with my 100-400. This photo is unaltered, but in another version I was able to brighten it and adjust hue so it looks pretty lifelike. The 2nd pic (flower) is also unaltered, taken with my 24-70 on a tripod (F7, +1 Exp, 34mm). I was able to look this one look decent with some hue alteration and brightening in another version of it. Now pic 3 was taken with my 24-70 on a tripod, remote shutter at F11, +1.3 Exp, 1/50 sec. This doesn't really look anything like real life. It is almost orange whereas the field is actually bright yellow. Pic 4 was also taken from a tripod with remote shutter. This time at F18, no Exp. Comp, 1/10 sec at 35mm. I don't know what I'm doing wrong. I'm new with this lens but it shouldnt be this hard! One other thing I should note, the pics with the 24-70 were taken with a B&W Polarizer. I'm pretty sure I tried it without the filter and got the same results. I'm stressing out here. My new lens should be fun!


----------



## tjjackson63 (Jun 28, 2012)

pic 2


----------



## tjjackson63 (Jun 28, 2012)

pic 3


----------



## tjjackson63 (Jun 28, 2012)

pic 4


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 28, 2012)

Your whites are off. You are getting a 'yellowed' fill in the whites on the picture of the daisy's, likely from heavy reflection of the very yellow surroundings. This should be quite simple to fix in post production, even easier if you shoot in RAW. Personally, I would not worry about color at all until post, color is infinitely modable after the fact without a loss of quality, so unless you are working on time sensitive projects, like photo-journalism, or need to crank out hundreds of wedding photo's quickly and painlessly, I simply wouldn't worry about it. Otherwise, you are going to need to be working with a custom color balance in camera, which is easy enough, and then use things like bounce light reflectors in the field (most practical with an assistant or two) which will help negate some of the colored bounced light from the surroundings. But like I said, if you aren't in a rush and if you like the shots you have here already, the colors are infinitely adjustable without losing quality, and that is where I would put my effort, so don't stress it.

also worth a note; when posting .jpg's to Canonrumors there can be alterations to the file that end up changing color vs. the actual .jpg you first uploaded.


----------



## tjjackson63 (Jun 29, 2012)

Hello, thank you for your help (again). I'm doing this purely as a hobby. I guess the reason I've been stressing about it (other than the fact that I'm trying to learn and getting quite overwhelmed), is that I bought this lens at the beginning of June and spent most of the time using my 100-400 that I bought at the same time. I had heard about bad copies of the 24-70 then started to get worried thinking the deadline will pass on me being able to return it if I had to.
I went out to the field again tonight to try a few shots. I am currently not shooting in RAW. I would like to (at least for my landscapes and structures) but I haven't yet because I am using Photoshop 7 and I can't work with RAW in it. I plan on downloading PE10 this weekend. Anyway, here are 2 pics I took tonight. The first one is unaltered, the second one I adjusted saturation, hugh, brightness, and color variation to get it closer to how the field actually looks. I'm still learning post processing as I go.


----------



## wickidwombat (Jun 29, 2012)

um yeah if you arent shooting raw you will be better off letting the camera do it for you
if shooting jpg in places where white balance is going to be an issue get one of these
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/77mm-White-Balance-WB-Cap-Camer-Lens-Filter-New-L4G-/130362750305?pt=AU_Cameras_Photographic_Accessories&hash=item1e5a39b561
you just take a shot through it and set that as a custom white balance before you shoot then all your jpg files will be corrected, it works exactly the same way a grey card except much much easier to shoot and you can just keep it in your pocket
trying to colour correct jpgs in post just usually makes a mess


----------



## briansquibb (Jun 29, 2012)

Custom wb is fun to play with

Try putting coloured get in front and setting the cwb. Then put the same volour gel infront of a flash and take a picture.

Results are amazing - even more so if you use colour grads.

Slightly off topic but can be used in fields like this


----------



## itsnotmeyouknow (Jun 30, 2012)

Also for getting colours right think about getting a screen calibrator - colormunki or Spyder are two of the most well known as sometimes what you see on your screen isn't what your camera captured.


----------

