# Bought 24-70 f/2.8 II -Soft, owners, please advice



## absente (Aug 27, 2013)

Hey there, 

so I went on and bought a new 24-70 f/ 2.8 II. The strange thing in China (where I currently live) is that they don't let you test the lens before you buy it - nowhere. So anyway, I picked one finally after searching the whole day for a good price - and to be quite honest, I am very disappointed. 

Here are two crops, 100%, everything is on neutral, no sharpening. 
First one is AF-Live mode where I zoomed in on the 24 using 10x magnification. Second shot is using the normal way. 
Lightning is not so good, but since on a tripod and with remote control I don't see any problem using slow shutter speeds. 
I used AV mode - strange thing is that life-view gives me a different meter reading. 

Any advice from 24-70 owners will be highly appreciated. 

PS: I am shooting with a 5D3, newest firmware.

Using live-view, 1/4 f/2.8 ISO50 24mm



lifeview1 

Using normal focusing, 0.3 f/2.8 ISO50 24mm



lifeview2 

Both pictures are shot in jpeg, L mode. I usually don't shoot RAW so thats why I keep testing like this. 
I don't see any differences in those two pictures except the exposure, which means that AFMA can't help me - Do I have a "bad copy" or can I fix this somehow?


----------



## sturdiva (Aug 27, 2013)

Did you have mirror lockup turned on? With such a long exposure, even on a tripod, you can get camera shake. 

Better bet is to try this with better lighting, to remove that variable.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 27, 2013)

sturdiva said:


> Did you have mirror lockup turned on? With such a long exposure, even on a tripod, you can get camera shake.
> 
> Better bet is to try this with better lighting, to remove that variable.



+1 on repeating the test in better light. But also do a back-to-back test with your 24-105 at 24mm in the same light with IS on and off. The 24-70 II should be better than the 24-105. The IS vs. non-IS will give you some insight as to how steady your tripod is.


----------



## absente (Aug 27, 2013)

Alright, I am now repeating the test in better light and in M mode to keep the exposure the same. I will enable mirror lockup in PF too, and set the timer to 10 seconds. I hope this will be enough. 

PS: I don't have a 24-105 to compare it with - the only thing (right now) I do have is an old 50/1.8, but they seem to perform the same at 50mm. 

I will post a little more test-shots, this time. Hold on (and thanks for your support).


----------



## Zv (Aug 27, 2013)

First of all you need to calibrate it with either dot tune method or Reikan Focal. If you can spend that much on a lens you can afford the software to calibrate it. 

Secondly, and after calibration you should take it outdoors on a day with decent amount of light place it on a tripod and snap a few different types of shots at different apertures. Not just f/2.8. You should also fire some shots handheld but with a fast shutter speed. Aim it at something that has a lot of fine detail like a cracked wall. 

I dunno how close you were to that box but I bet it was near MFD. That would give a very shallow dof making much of the scene soft. 

And you should test it in RAW since jpeg adds sharpening and NR. Switch in camera NR to off for both high ISO and long exp when testing. 

Repeat test with 24-105 and compare in LR or other processing app. If the 24-70 shots still look softer than the 24-105 ones in similar conditions you should return it or have Canon look at it. 

Just read that you don't have the 24-105 so compare to the 50 1.8. @ f/2.8


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2013)

If you have a flash, you can avoid a slow shutter by shooting with flash. Also, if you were near MFD the 24-70 II isn't at it's best when focusing close.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you have a flash, you can avoid a slow shutter by shooting with flash. Also, if you were near MFD the 24-70 II isn't at it's best when focusing close.



+1. If your 24-70 II doesn't beat the 50 f/1.8 at f/2.8 in good light then something is wrong.


----------



## rmrc (Aug 27, 2013)

same opinion as Neuro, you should do the test away from the MFD


----------



## absente (Aug 27, 2013)

Okay, doing new tests now - is 3 meters enough? Pictures follow.

PS: Somehow while seeing the picture in live view and later comparing it with the final image - live view seems much more in focus (at 10x) before taking the shot.


----------



## BoneDoc (Aug 27, 2013)

Best bet is to do it with sunshine helping you. Just shoot outside, and you'll be able to see the difference at 100% magnification.

One thing I notice once I got my 24-70 MkII is how much camera shake I induce into the photograph, even at 1/100 . The lens is that sharp!


----------



## absente (Aug 27, 2013)

some new shots. (PS, the 1m distance is actually 1,5 meters) 




vk1 




vk2 




vk4 




vk3 




vk5 




vk6


----------



## absente (Aug 27, 2013)

I will test it outside tomorrow and in much better conditions - it's 1AM currently here, so the only place I can test it is at home. 

To be quite honest, my 50/1.8 doest do much better at 2.8, but I was really expecting more from this lens. The MFD is about 0,4m so at 1,5m it should deliver good results, especially in the center where I frame the test-shots. 

Something thats unclear to me is also why I can't get the same "focus" like on the live preview (10x) on the final picture. 

I guess I gotta test it tomorrow in real world conditions and see how it performs. Yet, I still would like to hear if even those crappy testshots are in the normal range in terms of focus (in similar conditions)


----------



## absente (Aug 27, 2013)

2V6A3204_crop 




2V6A3205_crop 




2V6A3206crop


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 27, 2013)

There is such a thing as a defective lens, you should be able to get a sharp image.


----------



## Canihaspicture (Aug 27, 2013)

You don't have a cheap filter on that lens do you??? The pic looks blurry to the point were it doesn't even look like missed focus, it looks like a dirty lens.


----------



## absente (Aug 27, 2013)

Canihaspicture said:


> You don't have a cheap filter on that lens do you??? The pic looks blurry to the point were it doesn't even look like missed focus, it looks like a dirty lens.



Of course not - no filter at all. I used my flash for the bacardi shots, the light here is not very good so perhaps it didn't focus quite well - yet i repeated those shots a couple of times. 

Just as a notice - in-body sharpening is completely switched off.


----------



## absente (Aug 27, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> There is such a thing as a defective lens, you should be able to get a sharp image.



I am not saying it's defective, and as you can see, I am trying to get a sharp image by getting suggestions from you and other forum members.


----------



## Canihaspicture (Aug 27, 2013)

You might consider having sharpening turned on and a little contrast if you plan to shoot jpg and not post process... a little goes a long way.

This image is pretty sharp for the resolution in my opinion after minor post processing. (obviously it destroyed your text though haha)


----------



## absente (Aug 27, 2013)

Canihaspicture said:


> You might consider having sharpening turned on and a little contrast if you plan to shoot jpg and not post process... a little goes a long way.
> 
> This image is pretty sharp for the resolution in my opinion after minor post processing. (obviously it destroyed your text though haha)



That pic has no PP whatsoever. All the samples are straight from the camera, everything to 0. 
But I agree, in camera sharpening solves the problem if I push it to 5-6-7, yet I wouldn't say its the perfect solution. 

Maybe it's my mistake, I've read so many happy reviews about the sharpness of this lens, so I wanted to give it a try without in-body-sharpening turned on. Yet at 2-3 meters, a 2300$ lens should be sharp, without resampling the file (e.g. apply sharpening) - or am i wrong?


----------



## Canihaspicture (Aug 27, 2013)

In all of my experience I've never had a camera with an anti-aliasing filter and any lens produce a perfectly sharp image at 100% with no post. 

Sharpening images is an art and if every picture came out of a camera perfectly sharp then sharpening wouldn't be such a popular topic.

Your choices are sharpen in camera or plan on pp for every image (no matter what lens).

Obviously if you aren't displaying at 100% then it won't matter as much. Granted, stopped down to f/8 or f/11 with a good flash and it'll be pretty darn sharp.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 27, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > If you have a flash, you can avoid a slow shutter by shooting with flash. Also, if you were near MFD the 24-70 II isn't at it's best when focusing close.
> ...



Just because the 50 1.8 is cheap doesn't mean it isn't good. from f/2.8 and on the 50 1.8 and 2.8 are fully L-level of sharpness (or better, better than 24-105L for instance).


----------



## cliffwang (Aug 27, 2013)

You cannot expect all 24-70 f/2.8 MK2 lenses are sharp. I think people in CR also mentioned that they got soft images from their 24-70 MK2. The easy way is return it and get a new one. Don't send it back to Canon for adjustment. Once you do that you probably cannot return the lenses.


----------



## Canihaspicture (Aug 27, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



... unless you consider also the colors and bokeh then it's not L quality


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 27, 2013)

absente said:


> some new shots. (PS, the 1m distance is actually 1,5 meters)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



1.5m is awfully close!!

Those do look pretty hazy though if that is center frame.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 27, 2013)

absente said:


> I will test it outside tomorrow and in much better conditions - it's 1AM currently here, so the only place I can test it is at home.
> 
> To be quite honest, my 50/1.8 doest do much better at 2.8, but I was really expecting more from this lens. The MFD is about 0,4m so at 1,5m it should deliver good results, especially in the center where I frame the test-shots.
> 
> ...



One thing to keep in mind is the lens has focus shift at near distances so if you have liveview. Is there any chance you had it set to a higher aperture than f/2.8 while focusing and then switched it back to f/2.8 to shoot or where in some sort of lighting condition where it triggered higher aperture somehow to not wash out the LCD while focusing??


Also you could try to do six tries of manually focusing it yourself at 10x, making sure liveview is using the actual aperture that the shot will be taken at (normally that is more something to watch out for if you plan to take it at say f/5.6 but it is using f/2.8 to let you see better).

There can be copy variation with these. I did see a difference at f/2.8 between three copies. One was decent (70mm f/2.8 gave same image quality as 70-200 f/4 IS at 70mm f/4 (this is the weak point of the 70-200 f/4 IS though), roughly), one a step up from that and one yet another step up. It is true that most lenses look soft if no PP is done at all.

The box shots look very hazy though, almost like a 50mm 1.8 shot at 1.8 or 2, which seems out of character for the 24-70 II now granted the shooting distance was very close, but it still seems a bit hazy.


----------



## absente (Aug 27, 2013)

Canihaspicture said:


> In all of my experience I've never had a camera with an anti-aliasing filter and any lens produce a perfectly sharp image at 100% with no post.



Of course, thats not even a question. 




Canihaspicture said:


> Sharpening images is an art and if every picture came out of a camera perfectly sharp then sharpening wouldn't be such a popular topic.
> 
> Your choices are sharpen in camera or plan on pp for every image (no matter what lens).
> 
> Obviously if you aren't displaying at 100% then it won't matter as much. Granted, stopped down to f/8 or f/11 with a good flash and it'll be pretty darn sharp.



I usually use always the internal sharpening, pushed to the recommended setting on the 5D3 with my other L lenses. Yet listening to all the hype about the 24-70 I was thinking okay, let's test it without any sharpening. 

Stopping down makes no sense to me, since I bought that lens because of the f/2.8 aperture. Yet again, reviews and other users stated that the lens is "tack sharp" even at 2.8, so that's why I am disappointed and trying to find out if there is something wrong with the lens, my technique or my expectations.


----------



## absente (Aug 27, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> One thing to keep in mind is the lens has focus shift at near distances so if you have liveview. Is there any chance you had it set to a higher aperture than f/2.8 while focusing and then switched it back to f/2.8 to shoot or where in some sort of lighting condition where it triggered higher aperture somehow to not wash out the LCD while focusing??



Nope, on M, always on 2.8 

Could the AFMA eventually help me out, even though there is no real difference between the LV and PF shots?


----------



## wayno (Aug 27, 2013)

Subjectively, my 24-70 II looks better than what I'm seeing here. I reckon your lens is a bit off.


----------



## Etienne (Aug 27, 2013)

absente said:


> Hey there,
> 
> so I went on and bought a new 24-70 f/ 2.8 II. The strange thing in China (where I currently live) is that they don't let you test the lens before you buy it - nowhere. So anyway, I picked one finally after searching the whole day for a good price - and to be quite honest, I am very disappointed.
> 
> ...



What is your focal distance? This lens is known to fall apart at close focus distance


----------



## absente (Aug 27, 2013)

Etienne said:


> What is your focal distance? This lens is known to fall apart at close focus distance



1,5m


----------



## absente (Aug 27, 2013)

wayno said:


> Subjectively, my 24-70 II looks better than what I'm seeing here. I reckon your lens is a bit off.



Thanks for your reply - whats your in-camera sharpening setting (in picture style) ?


----------



## leGreve (Aug 27, 2013)

You're doing it wrong.......

Don't be photographing vertical surfaces. You have to do an angled shot on a tripod on a horizontal surface, then we can talk about wether your 24-70 II is soft or not.

Most likely this is merely a question of AF micro adjusting... I had to micro adjust my 24-70 II a lot.

And the great thing is, that if you have a 5D mk III then you can micro adjust both the wide AND the tele end of the lens.

My lens was off about an inch or so, now it's tack sharp, even at 2.8.

So do yourself a favor and go through all your lenses and AFMA them, it's worth it. But you HAVE TO do it against a horizontal surface, not a vertical one.

Lay out a measuring tape, running away from the camera. Set the AF to only use the center point for AF'ing. Choose a spot on the measuring tape and place it inside the AF square in the viewfinder.
Take a shot.... check the shot, zoom in.... if the focus is further away that your point, then AFMA backwards by going into minus. If the focus is closer, then AFMA upwards till.

Take another shot.... rinse and repeat till your focus is dead-on.

I had to +10 my wide end on the 24-70 2.8L II before it was sharp in the center. But now it's there..... and now, please don't start babbling about how the lenses should be sharp out of the box. We all know that S___. Just deal with it and fix it.

If your shot indeed remains soft... send the lens back.


----------



## leGreve (Aug 27, 2013)

Looking at your bottle shot.... I bet you have front focus about +8 to +10.

Also... stop worrying about iso. I tested mine at iso 1000 and would still end up getting tack sharp images.


----------



## Random Orbits (Aug 27, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



It wasn't a comment on whether or not the 50 1.8 is good or not (it has tremendous performance/cost ratio), but TDP's charts show that the 24-70 II at 50mm is significantly sharper than any EF 50mm prime, and that has been my experience as well. Using the identical setup and camera settings, the 24-70 II should be better and would provide a good reference point as to whether the OP has a lemon. My first post suggested comparing the 24-70 II to his 24-105 (previously owned/listed on a prior thread). On this thread, he said that he no longer has the 24-105 but has the 50 f/1.8.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2013)

leGreve said:


> So do yourself a favor and go through all your lenses and AFMA them, it's worth it. But you HAVE TO do it against a horizontal surface, not a vertical one.
> 
> Lay out a measuring tape, running away from the camera. Set the AF to only use the center point for AF'ing. Choose a spot on the measuring tape and place it inside the AF square in the viewfinder.



Do yourself a bigger favor and get Reikan FoCal.

Using a measuring tape is a bad idea, the camera's AF system is designed to lock onto the feature of highest contrast in the AF point, and that actual point is bigger than the little box in the VF. What that means practically is that it'll be locking onto the edge of the tape measure itself, which runs all the way through the frame, not the horizontal line at the number 6 or whatever you pick. If you're going to do it manually, use a commercial tool like LensAlign, or build a DiY equivalent with a vertical focus target and an angled ruler/tape measure, something like this:


----------



## leGreve (Aug 27, 2013)

Focusing Micro Adjustment Tutorial


----------



## wayno (Aug 27, 2013)

absente said:


> wayno said:
> 
> 
> > Subjectively, my 24-70 II looks better than what I'm seeing here. I reckon your lens is a bit off.
> ...



Factory default. But I only shoot RAW. The 24-70 II is a strong, sharp, contrasty lens. You should be impressed - I was. That said, I haven't shot it in JPEG


----------



## leGreve (Aug 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> leGreve said:
> 
> 
> > So do yourself a favor and go through all your lenses and AFMA them, it's worth it. But you HAVE TO do it against a horizontal surface, not a vertical one.
> ...



Waaaay to much overdoing.... it litterally took me 4 minutes doing it manually.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2013)

leGreve said:


> Focusing Micro Adjustment Tutorial



It might surprise you to learn that just because something is on the Internet, that doesn't mean it's true, or that it's good advice to follow. 



leGreve said:


> Waaaay to much overdoing.... it litterally took me 4 minutes doing it manually.



I prefer knowing it's been done properly, though. But I'm glad you found an easy way that works for you.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 27, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



That doesn't match my results or photozone's (I trust them much more than TDP).
They have, for pure sharpness alone not talking about other aspects, the 50 1.4 beating the 24-70 II at f/2.8 and the 50 1.8 basically in a tie with the 24-70 II for center, mid and corner.

50mm is the easiest lens to design and even the cheapest 50mm has long been better than many a pricey lens (for raw sharpness and so long as you are a bit away from 1.4 or 1.8).

Anyway his images do appear to be suspiciously soft (although it is hard to say for sure from his shots).


http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/564-canon50f14ff?start=1


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 27, 2013)

FWIW, here's an example of two successive shots taken of a static scene from a stable tripod, with a reasonably shallow DoF (135L @ f/2). Two focus attempts, two very different planes of focus. I superimposed the 7D's AF diagram (it's the whole AF sensor, but I sized the green 'x' to approximate the actual area of the center AF point). You can see that based on the AF point itself, both of the images are 'in focus' according to the parameters used by the AF system (green lines crossing a contrast boundary). The situation with the horizontal measuring tape is analogous, and that's why the reliable AF calibration tools all have a focus target that's parallel to the image sensor.


----------



## rpt (Aug 27, 2013)

absente said:


> Okay, doing new tests now - is 3 meters enough? Pictures follow.
> 
> PS: Somehow while seeing the picture in live view and later comparing it with the final image - live view seems much more in focus (at 10x) before taking the shot.


If your live view shot is focused and your AF shot is not, you need to AFMA. I use Reikan FoCal. I took neuro's suggestion and got the pro version. If you have a number of lenses it is a good investment.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 27, 2013)

I did a quick and dirty test right now. They were all shot very close at 50cm or so, and the last one (2nd shot) at 70mm is about a meter or 1,5 away. All 100% crop. Go 3 meters away and the sharpness increases a LOT.

24





35




50




70




70 farther away


----------



## zlatko (Aug 27, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Do yourself a bigger favor and get Reikan FoCal.



I use FoCal too. I think it does a very fine job. Nearly all lenses benefit from some AF microadjustment.


----------



## Viggo (Aug 27, 2013)

zlatko said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Do yourself a bigger favor and get Reikan FoCal.
> ...


+1 All lenses I have owned since FoCal came out has been adjusted except, funny enough, the 50 L which was at 0 after 6 runs, all consistent.


----------



## absente (Aug 27, 2013)

Viggo said:


> I did a quick and dirty test right now. They were all shot very close at 50cm or so, and the last one (2nd shot) at 70mm is about a meter or 1,5 away. All 100% crop. Go 3 meters away and the sharpness increases a LOT.



replicated it, more or less. White balance is off, it's 5AM and i finished the second bottle of bacardi ^^ 

Whats your sharpness setting (in camera) ? I shot those with +1
PS: I tried different AFMA settings but to be quite honest i didn't see any improvement. 

PPS: Close focus seems to be no problem. What I am struggeling with is the long distance focus on 24mm, like the bacardi pics. 

24 / 50cm



ccc1 

35 / 50cm



cc2 

50 / 50cm



ccc3 

70 / 50cm



ccc4 

70 / 170cm



ccc5


----------



## absente (Aug 27, 2013)

rpt said:


> If your live view shot is focused and your AF shot is not, you need to AFMA. I use Reikan FoCal. I took neuro's suggestion and got the pro version. If you have a number of lenses it is a good investment.



No, the shot itself is not focused - I am talking about the picture (10x) on the screen while taking the shot in LV


----------



## Viggo (Aug 27, 2013)

They were shot in raw, and "normal" sharpening in Lr.


----------



## rpt (Aug 28, 2013)

absente said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > If your live view shot is focused and your AF shot is not, you need to AFMA. I use Reikan FoCal. I took neuro's suggestion and got the pro version. If you have a number of lenses it is a good investment.
> ...


You just can't arbitrarily set AFMA and check. Do a complete AFMA test and if it is still blurred, exchange the lens. neuro's page - the excerp of which he posted here is a good way to go. There are many other links on the net - not all worked for me. It is imperative that the light is good! Add extra light. It makes a difference. Also ensure the tripod is stable and you don't raise the center column. Mirror lock up is a good idea. Reduces shake. Also take at least 3 pictures at each AFMA value.

Hope this helps. My experience had been that things look like they are in focus at 10x magnification on the LCD but when you open the image on your machine it may not be so good... Until I successfully did AFMA. Had the most trouble for my 100-400L. It had defective focusing and IS which when repaired, all was well


----------



## Pi (Aug 28, 2013)

You should do what was suggested several times: shoot a slanted target with detail. So far, you are giving us the sum of two numbers (lens softness + AF error) and asking us to guess one of them.


----------



## shashinkaman (Aug 28, 2013)

Dude, STAY OFF THE BREEZERS when you test your new toys!!


----------



## absente (Aug 28, 2013)

I finally know where the drama begins - I was comparing the sharpness to my 70-200f 2.8, which I always used at sharpness set to "5" (in picture style). Of course, comparing a setting of "0" or "1" with the 24-70 can't beat it. 

But it makes me wonder how people who shoot at a "1" on sharpness get crystal clear pictures - well I guess in PP. By the way, the factory setting on Canon cameras on automatic picture style is "3" - at least on my 5D3. 

So today I shoot a lot of scenes with the setting on "3" - But from my (humble) experience, the AF and the sharpness on my 70-200 are better, in real life situations. An no, it's the non-IS version. 

I had a situation today where my focus point "jumped" while focusing - it jumped over the whole frame (from left to right). I was focusing on a face, and it jumped to some tree's behind the person, about 10 meters away - happened the first time to me, shooting 7 years Canon gear. 

Overall the current keeping rate is about 3 out of 9 or about 30% (single focus point, subject not moving fast, single shot). I never had a keeper rate as bad as this. 

But at least it's possible to get some sharpness with the setting on "3", but if I could, I would exchange the lens. But I can't since the return/exchange policies in China are just retarded. 

Product shot, for work. Distance 50cm, f/2.8 sharpening set to "3", focused with live-view. PP in LR with "standard sharpening"




Nanping Daifuku-054-2 

same setting, but 100% crop at f/8 - unedited, straight from camera. I think it's acceptable given the close distance. 




daifuku_crop 

same shot like the above at f/2.8 (using PF, not LV)



daifuku_f28 

even though i focused clearly on the "wall" it's blurred, while the top is in focus. 
I guess that is a strong indication for a needed AFMA. 

All shots taken at 35mm


----------



## absente (Aug 28, 2013)

Didn't do them in burst mode, one shot, one point (far right), road was shaking, her head was moving to. Sharpness "3", no PP. First two pics 2.8 1/320, last one 1/500, I was (trying) to focus on the "wakeup". 100% crop @ 70mm.




wu_1 




wu_2 




wu_3 

I would guess taht the shaky road is responsible for #1 and #3 - or was #2 just a lucky shot because I am in need of AFMA? I guess I have to run tonight the ML dot-point to try it out (hopefully without burning the 5D3). 

and yeah, I am staying away tonight from the Breezer ^^


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 28, 2013)

If you're focusing your product shots in Live View, AFMA doesn't apply

You're using LR, but shooting JPG?  In RAW, the in-camera sharpness setting doesn't really matter...


----------



## absente (Aug 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you're focusing your product shots in Live View, AFMA doesn't apply
> 
> You're using LR, but shooting JPG?  In RAW, the in-camera sharpness setting doesn't really matter...



Yeah, I need to deliver photos very fast, that's why I shoot in JPG. I never mastered to PP RAW files but it's on my to-do list for .. someday ^^

PS: The unfocused shot at 2.8 (cake) is using PF, not LV - (post edited)


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 28, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> If you're focusing your product shots in Live View, AFMA doesn't apply



absente;
It took someone a while to say it, you were getting suggestions to do AFMA on a lens you are not getting sharp with manual focus. You can AFMA the lens to death, if it isn't sharp in live view at 10x on a tripod in decent light, it is not going to be sharp at all. AFMA doesn't correct a lens to sharpness that can not shoot a sharp picture.

I own the 24-70mm II and have tested several. 
It is at its best between 24-50mm and specifically at 24mm. At 70mm some copies can get a little soft and this wouldn't be a concern for me.
At f/2.8 your should be getting excellent results with manual focus.
The pictures you posted are soft. From what you have described and what you have shown I think you got one of the softer copies.
Of the ones I tested I had one copy that was a bit soft at 24mm all the rest were excellent.
If your copy performed the way you have shown in my hands I would send it back.

Every one of the lenses I tested I did a AFMA, all of the lenses performed differently on the same bodies. All required some adjustment and the values were always different across the range.


----------



## davet4 (Aug 28, 2013)

absente

i am in the same situation (although not the same lens), i am currently in china and i bought the 5dmkIII with the 24-105mm lens. and i am also getting 'soft' pictures. i really thought it was just me and i needed to get use to using the camera, but after what i have read here it seems a common fault...if you do managed to get sharper pictures i would be interested in what you did...


----------



## absente (Aug 28, 2013)

davet4 said:


> absente
> 
> i am in the same situation (although not the same lens), i am currently in china and i bought the 5dmkIII with the 24-105mm lens. and i am also getting 'soft' pictures. i really thought it was just me and i needed to get use to using the camera, but after what i have read here it seems a common fault...if you do managed to get sharper pictures i would be interested in what you did...



I am raising in-camera sharpness "to death", e.g. 3-5 and pictures are "acceptable" (but I am very picky). I have no clue if other people do the same to get good results. 

What's your sharpness setting in picture style (RAW/JPG, doesn't matter)? Try increasing to 5, that solved my problems with the 5D3 (that I bought in China, too). Which city are you in? 

*As for China* - since everyone is complaining that we get our equipment so cheap. Yeah, it's 10-20% cheaper than B&H, but there is one little *but* - You can't test it before you buy. It's common practice here if you buy new stuff. You can't even look at the lens/camera, because that would mean ripping the seal off (the box), and then the gear is considered "used". After you pay, you can - and surprise, no return policy for "picky customers" - *Pure BS*. 

In reality, dealers know about soft lenses, and they do this in order to sell everything - otherwise people would just buy the "sharp" one's. At least thats the situation in Chongqing, Shanghai and Beijing where I tried to test my gear before buying it. 

At the end, I am buying all y gear "blind" and have to live with the consequences. Would I pay 20% more to be able to test it? Yes.


----------



## absente (Aug 28, 2013)

takesome1 said:


> absente;
> 
> It took someone a while to say it, you were getting suggestions to do AFMA on a lens you are not getting sharp with manual focus. You can AFMA the lens to death, if it isn't sharp in live view at 10x on a tripod in decent light, it is not going to be sharp at all. AFMA doesn't correct a lens to sharpness that can not shoot a sharp picture.



It is sharp on live-view, on the display - but the final image is a little off (after I press the shutter using tripod etc) - yet not every time. That's what I've stated in the beginning. It's the first time I have a problem like this, and I really have no clue. But it happens only on sharpness set to "0" or "1" - with "5" it's far better. 

What sharpness setting are you using with your lens to test it? If possible, could you shoot the box or something else at your current settings, and let me repeat it - with exact values? That would help me out, since I already have one comparison.


----------



## takesome1 (Aug 28, 2013)

absente said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > absente;
> ...



Setting of 1, of course you can sharpen.
If it is sharp sometimes and not others, you mention after you push the button. If it takes some pics that are sharp in MF, and others that are not then most likely it is you. Pushing the button, just that action can set up vibration in your camera. If you use a release, how you hold the release can set up a vibration. Use the delay settings, say 3 seconds. Make sure nothing is touching the camera when it fires and see if that helps.

I would shoot samples for you, but I am not going to be able to. I am not by the camera right now, and have a full schedule (sorry).


----------



## davet4 (Aug 28, 2013)

My in camera setting was 3, I have just upped it to 5 and will take some shots later to see if I get any better results. I bought the camera up in shenyang and as you say you buy things blind without any testing. I am now down in xian, and again looking at new lens they will not let you test until you have paid...and you can't return anything...


----------



## absente (Aug 28, 2013)

davet4 said:


> My in camera setting was 3, I have just upped it to 5 and will take some shots later to see if I get any better results. I bought the camera up in shenyang and as you say you buy things blind without any testing. I am now down in xian, and again looking at new lens they will not let you test until you have paid...and you can't return anything...



Yepp, but even at 3 you should get decent results. Only 1 is critical. Try some testshots and upload them here, I had the 24-105 on my 5D3 until last month, so I will be able to give you some feedback.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 28, 2013)

leGreve said:


> Focusing Micro Adjustment Tutorial


Good example of what not to do!

The camera will pick its focus point, and it might not be where the shooter thinks it is. He is also too close, nowhere near 50X the focal length of the lens. The results will be predictably off and erratic.


----------



## shashinkaman (Aug 31, 2013)

Ever think it could be your camera that is causing this 'bad marriage'? I'm just saying that when people talk about 'bad lenses' they conveniently ignore the fact that the camera also plays a very BIG part in the focusing equation...

Just like Noah, I have "two of each" and many a time one of my lenses works perfectly well (or only needs a little AF microadjustment) on body A but can't be made to work (i.e. achieve sharp images) on body B.

Did you try this lens on another camera? If you did, I missed it in the many replies and posts, if you didn't it might be worth your while to try it. 

Good luck!


----------

