# 24-70 2.8II very lackluster



## echelonphoto (Jul 11, 2015)

I have been using the 24-105L lens for many years of pro photography. I decided to take the leap and buy a 24-70L mk2 recently so I could shoot more often at f2.8 for better bokeh. The lens I have is just not that sharp compared to my old one...also exhibits a lot more flare. Once in a while I get a really sharp image, but most often, just so-so. I also use the 70-200f4 L, which is just great and the the 35 f2 is and the 85 1.8...all on 6d bodies.


----------



## echelonphoto (Jul 11, 2015)

Forgot to mention...my second shooter uses the old 24-70 mostly wide open and his shots are really sharp


----------



## Ozarker (Jul 11, 2015)

echelonphoto said:


> I have been using the 24-105L lens for many years of pro photography. I decided to take the leap and buy a 24-70L mk2 recently so I could shoot more often at f2.8 for better bokeh. The lens I have is just not that sharp compared to my old one...also exhibits a lot more flare. Once in a while I get a really sharp image, but most often, just so-so. I also use the 70-200f4 L, which is just great and the the 35 f2 is and the 85 1.8...all on 6d bodies.



My copy is extremely sharp. Sharpest lens I own. Hope you can figure out the problem.


----------



## Viggo (Jul 11, 2015)

How did you do afma?


----------



## gary samples (Jul 11, 2015)

Viggo said:


> How did you do afma?


 +1 the very first thing that always crosses my mind when I see a post like this


----------



## echelonphoto (Jul 11, 2015)

I use one shot af with shutter button...use central and outer points when needed....however all my other lenses are fine with this. In the thousands of shots I shoot every week...even if my af technique was flawed...you would think I would get a fair percentage of really sharp ones.


----------



## Sporgon (Jul 11, 2015)

echelonphoto said:


> I use one shot af with shutter button...use central and outer points when needed....however all my other lenses are fine with this. In the thousands of shots I shoot every week...even if my af technique was flawed...you would think I would get a fair percentage of really sharp ones.



As other have said above, it sounds like you have an AF mismatch between camera body and lens. That's what AFMA is for. Like yourself by the sounds of it, I very rarely need it on most lenses, but when you do need it it makes all the difference.


----------



## TeT (Jul 11, 2015)

Did you AFMA (Auto Focus Micro Adjustment) your camera to your lens?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Photography-Tips/af-microadjustment-tips.aspx

Canon 6D manual download (see page 314)
http://www.canon-europe.com/support/consumer_products/products/cameras/digital_slr/eos_6d.aspx?type=manuals&language=

Did you buy the lens new?

How long ago if used and from where?

If it is not as good as your 24 70 2.8 version I, then you probably need to return it and start over...


----------



## Viggo (Jul 11, 2015)

The 2470 II is crazy sharp, and I think that the sharp shots you get are actually when it misses by a bit. So a proper afma and it will be that sharp every time.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 11, 2015)

echelonphoto said:


> I use one shot af with shutter button...use central and outer points when needed....however all my other lenses are fine with this. In the thousands of shots I shoot every week...even if my af technique was flawed...you would think I would get a fair percentage of really sharp ones.



Take a few shots using live view with live autofocus. If they are sharp, the lens is front or rear focusing. Its common, every lens has a tolerance, and only a few focus perfectly.

Its likely that some of your other lenses might have a small improvement by adjusting the autofocus, but most of the time, its a very small difference.

If you need more AFMA than 15 points, I'd return the lens, or send it to Canon and tell them if its front or rear focusing.

You can construct a DIY test fixture at little or no cost and a minor effort.
http://www.squit.co.uk/photo/focuschart.html


----------



## Sabaki (Jul 11, 2015)

May I recommend that perhaps you take the lens to Canon to have the body/lens combo calibrated?

My 100mm L IS is my sharpest lens but the 24-70 mkii and 70-200 f/4.0 IS are very sharp lenses too.


----------



## georgecpappas (Jul 11, 2015)

Echelon,

Like others, very surprised to hear this; I have had a 24-105 for 7 years (started with my original 5D). It has been to canon for regular adjustment, maintenance, etc..

I recently got the 24-70 MkII and the difference is night and day. on my 5DMKIII there is a noticeable improvement in image quality across the board. I also just purchased a 5Ds and the images from the 24-70 with it are stunning in terms of their quality.

I have liked the 24-105 for years due to its versatility; however, I did not find it to be the sharpest lens and did not always get crisp results. The 24-70 MkII is at least one generation better in image quality.

there must truly be something wrong with your copy or the way it is interacting with you camera.

Good luck with your situation.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 11, 2015)

echelonphoto said:


> Forgot to mention...my second shooter uses the old 24-70 mostly wide open and his shots are really sharp



I have just finished doing extensive tests between my 24-70 f2.8 L MkI and my 35 f2 IS vs 24-70 f2.8 L MkII, I was expecting to 'upgrade' to the MkII. My testing showed very little difference in IQ, certainly not enough to warrant the change, it is the third MkII that I have used and in comparison to my MkI there just isn't anything in it, maybe I have an exceptional MkI, I don't know, but I have no intention of getting a MkII. Double blind testing on screen and print showed no consistent 'winner'.


----------



## pwp (Jul 12, 2015)

I'm not the only one on this list who had a shocking run of multiple 24-70 f/2.8 MkI zooms. Out of five, no keepers. Grrr. OP, it sounds like your second shooter has one of the fairly rare good copies of the old lens. 

The new 24-70 f/2.8II has been embraced so comprehensively by photographers around the planet that many, including myself have sold their primes which fall in the 24-70 range. The new lens just rendered them obsolete for the sort of work I do. Maybe you've got an incredibly rare bad copy of the MkII, but I'd suggest that other posters are on the mark advising thorough AFMA calibration. Give it a try!

-pw


----------



## TeT (Jul 12, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> echelonphoto said:
> 
> 
> > Forgot to mention...my second shooter uses the old 24-70 mostly wide open and his shots are really sharp
> ...



It should be as good though and def better than the 24 105, yes? Not worse....


----------



## benperrin (Jul 12, 2015)

My 24-70 2.8II is way better than my old 24-105. I'd suggest AFMA like others have said (test the focus using live view on a tripod) and if that's not the case you probably have a dud copy that needs to be returned. Unfortunately it does happen.


----------



## pwp (Jul 12, 2015)

benperrin said:


> My 24-70 2.8II is way better than my old 24-105.


+1 I had a very good 24-105 yet the 24-70 f/2.8II leaves it gasping for respectability.

-pw


----------



## kbmelb (Jul 12, 2015)

I didn't read all the previous post but, I've owned the 24-105, the 24-70 mkI and now the 24-70 kII and if you aren't seeing monumental improvement over the 24-105 I'd say send that copy back.

The 24-105 was one the worst lenses I've seen under 40mm. The chromatic aberrations at 24 were so bad, it wasn't usable until about 30+mm. It's pretty good 60-105. I'd say darn good over 70mm.

The 24-70 mkII is darn near prime quality through out the range. It is one of the best zooms I'ver used and I have the 70-200 IS II.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jul 12, 2015)

Sporgon said:


> echelonphoto said:
> 
> 
> > I use one shot af with shutter button...use central and outer points when needed....however all my other lenses are fine with this. In the thousands of shots I shoot every week...even if my af technique was flawed...you would think I would get a fair percentage of really sharp ones.
> ...


+1, my 24-70mm Mark 2 is as sharp as many of my primes wide open. My 100L and 35/2 IS are super sharp but they required some minimal AFMA to be spot on so, I'd try this. If it doesn't solve the problem I'd return it right away.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jul 12, 2015)

kbmelb said:


> I didn't read all the previous post but, I've owned the 24-105, the 24-70 mkI and now the 24-70 kII and if you aren't seeing monumental improvement over the 24-105 I'd say send that copy back.
> 
> The 24-105 was one the worst lenses I've seen under 40mm. The chromatic aberrations at 24 were so bad, it wasn't usable until about 30+mm. It's pretty good 60-105. I'd say darn good over 70mm.
> 
> The 24-70 mkII is darn near prime quality through out the range. It is one of the best zooms I'ver used and I have the 70-200 IS II.


I had the same experience while transitioning from 24-105 to 24-70 mkII. Sometimes I complain about its weight but when I see the IQ of the images it produces I am confident I have to keep it.


----------



## benperrin (Jul 12, 2015)

Also just thinking about it make sure you take some test shots on a tripod. A slow shutter speed could be your issue as there is no IS on the 24-70.


----------



## Nitroman (Jul 12, 2015)

Use vlive view at 100% and focus on a brick wall at reasonable distance of maybe 10 feet.

If you can't get a sharp image without using the af, then the lens may well be faulty.


----------

