# Is it acceptable that 1 out of 5 copies of the 24-70mm II are really great?



## Radiating (Oct 17, 2012)

Canon is charging twice as much as both the last version and much more than Nikon charges for the 24-70mm II, and by all the data Canon has provided it is a lens that deserves the price tag because it is in a class of it's own in quality, at least in theory.

Unfortunately there have been many early tests that have been extremely dissapointing for the lens MTF wise.

- If you average all the tests that Bryan of The-Digital-Picture.com did, the lens at equal aperture does not even perform better than the 24-105mm IS, which is less than 1/3rd the price. 

- If you look at the photozone.de test results, the lens they tested (which is obviously not an ideal copy) performs worse than Nikon's 24-70mm f/2.8, which is much cheaper. In fact it performs within as close as makes no difference (3%) as the Tamron 24-70mm VC on photozone, which is a lens that is half as expensive and has image stabilization.


With that said, after trying 5 copies of the 24-70mm f/2.8L Mark II Bryan from the-digital-picture.com did find a lens that meets it's claims and smashes resolution figures and expecations. A lens worth the price tag. He is very very happy with it now.

What are everyone else's thoughts on the fact that you need to buy 5 copies to get one that meets the hype Canon gave it and the quality a lens of this price would have one expect?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 17, 2012)

Radiating said:


> What are everyone else's thoughts on the fact that you need to buy 5 copies to get one that meets the hype Canon gave it and the quality a lens of this price would have one expect?



I think that when I get this lens, I'll be giving it some *very thorough* testing immediately upon receipt...and I'll be hanging on to the packaging...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 17, 2012)

I've read the review and test from Lens rentals where they tested several with good results. I've also read the Digital Picture review, where he bought two lenses, and returned them getting two more for a total of four.
How did you come up with 5?
All 4 sets of images are shown with their images on his site. From what I can tell, the two replacements were better than the first two.
I can't figure out your statement about one of 5 though.
To answer your question, having to return both lenses to get good copies is unacceptable. However, most photographers do not have the test capabilities that Bryan has, and will be thrilled with them.
I'm holding off waiting.
As far as Nikon goes, I've had one, and was not impressed at all, so there are poor, good, better, and best samples and Nikon is well known for its sample variation as well.


----------



## PackLight (Oct 17, 2012)

It was 1 in 4 not 1 in 5. Still not acceptable.

But, I wonder what Bryan would charge to sort through several lenses to find me a good one.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 17, 2012)

I wonder if this explains the long, unexpected production delay and finally they just gave up and started shipping.
I looked at a few (ended up with more than one to insure I had a copy for a certain shoot), each copy was different. On the plus side, all were better than all three 24-105 I've seen. On the minus none performed the same as any other copy, all placed DOF of the edges and corners, espc. at wider side differently and all had different 70mm wide open center frame performance. Even the worst at any aspect was still good, but for $2300, yeah it would be nice to have everything 100% the best and not this is better but that is worse and that is a little worse and then that is better.

The one I decided to keep in the end is amazing 70mm wide open center frame and pretty good at wide edges and corners (I think, it's hard to tell which is the way the DOF should be placed) although lower left corner might be a touch soft. Maybe 3 more copies and I'd get something perfect in every last regard?? As it is though, it's good enough to dump my 24 1.4 II over and it has the sharpest 70mm f/2.8 center frame I've seen from any lens, so not so bad (70mm far edges are weaker than my 70-300L on this and all the copies looked at though).


----------



## Radiating (Oct 17, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> I've read the review and test from Lens rentals where they tested several with good results. I've also read the Digital Picture review, where he bought two lenses, and returned them getting two more for a total of four.
> How did you come up with 5?
> 
> All 4 sets of images are shown with their images on his site. From what I can tell, the two replacements were better than the first two.
> ...



"We now have a properly tuned Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens sample available in the ISO 12233 charts (sample 1)."

I asked him about this, and he stated that he has a 5th copy which replaced the originaly copy #1.

So: Sample #1, #2, #3, #4 & #1 Replacement


----------



## Radiating (Oct 17, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I wonder if this explains the long, unexpected production delay and finally they just gave up and started shipping.



This is my thinking aswell.



> I looked at a few (ended up with more than one to insure I had a copy for a certain shoot), each copy was different. On the plus side, all were better than all three 24-105 I've seen. On the minus none performed the same as any other copy, all placed DOF of the edges and corners, espc. at wider side differently and all had different 70mm wide open center frame performance. Even the worst at any aspect was still good, but for $2300, yeah it would be nice to have everything 100% the best and not this is better but that is worse and that is a little worse and then that is better.
> 
> The one I decided to keep in the end is amazing 70mm wide open center frame and pretty good at wide edges and corners (I think, it's hard to tell which is the way the DOF should be placed) although lower left corner might be a touch soft. Maybe 3 more copies and I'd get something perfect in every last regard?? As it is though, it's good enough to dump my 24 1.4 II over and it has the sharpest 70mm f/2.8 center frame I've seen from any lens, so not so bad (70mm far edges are weaker than my 70-300L on this and all the copies looked at though).



I think a lot of people are hoping that this can replace a few primes. How many copies did you go through total?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 17, 2012)

Radiating said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if this explains the long, unexpected production delay and finally they just gave up and started shipping.
> ...



I saw three. Two were VERY sharp 70mm 2.8 (one just beyond belief sharp there and even better than the other, an absolute stand out) and one a bit less so, difference can be seen real world (especially comparing best one to the worst one there), the worst was still good though, better than a good tamron 28-75 and at least as good as a 70-200 f/4 IS wide open 70mm (granted that is the weakest spot of the 70-200 f/4 IS). With two of them it was easier to get to deliver sharp 24mm edges in real world scenes, it seemed, and one had seemingly placement of the DOF at 24mm (the one that was inbetween at 70mm f/2.8) that made it a bit trickier (although focused on a chart, re-focused at each spot did well there; all three just placed the DOF around the main center object at different depths at the edges compared to each of the other copies. I probably should have set up a test with boxes at various distance left and right and then focused on something in the center and seen how DOF fell on each side with each since with my complex scenes it was hard to say for sure which copies were placing it in the most expected fashion, it did seem that two of them were a bit easier to get real world shots working as wished).

So it's a little hard to say which were better, for sure, with what I did so far, but I can 100% for sure they are different, different enough to repeatably spot, which probably shouldn't occur at $2300 for a standard zoom. But then again, overall, all still seemed better than all the 24-105 I've seen, certainly at 24mm, all the differences notwithstanding. So the copy variation does seem kinda high for such a lens and yet they all still deliver as well or better in all regards examined so far (and I have not compared much center range at all so far) than any other standard zoom anyway it seems so it's maybe not really as bad as it sounds though in the end when it really comes down to it. All copies could do some pretty amazing things for a zoom.

I didn't look at 35mm edges, looking at TDP, maybe that is something that should also be tested with these.


----------



## PackLight (Oct 17, 2012)

Radiating said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > I've read the review and test from Lens rentals where they tested several with good results. I've also read the Digital Picture review, where he bought two lenses, and returned them getting two more for a total of four.
> ...



Odd, it isn't the way he explained it in his forum


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 17, 2012)

PackLight said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > Mt Spokane Photography said:
> ...


It is confusing, The way he elplained it in the article as I read it is:
Copy 1 is Sample 2, Copy 2 is sample 3, New lens or Copy 1 replacement is Sample 1, and apparently the Copy 2 replacement, or a entirely new lens is Sample 4.
"Copy 1 ("Sample 2") is extremely sharp wide open (f/2.8) across the entire focal length range - until 70mm at f/2.8 where its performance is only average and even trails the original Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens in the center of the frame. An ISO 12233 chart retest of this lens delivered identical results. Real world shooting confirms the test results. This lens is so sharp at the rest of the focal lengths and at 70mm f/4 that I was hesitant to return it."
Copy 1 ("Sample 2") is extremely sharp wide open (f/2.8) across the entire focal length range - until 70mm at f/2.8 where its performance is only average and even trails the original Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM Lens in the center of the frame. An ISO 12233 chart retest of this lens delivered identical results. Real world shooting confirms the test results. This lens is so sharp at the rest of the focal lengths and at 70mm f/4 that I was hesitant to return it. 

Update: I have the lens I'm looking for and will complete the review soon. The new lens is represented as "Sample 1" in the ISO 12233 chart results. A forth lens was tested and is presented as "Sample 4".


----------



## PackLight (Oct 17, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> PackLight said:
> 
> 
> > Radiating said:
> ...



The new ISO's were posted yesterday and it was kind of confusing.

If you quote the notes in the review, I do not think the review has been updated yet. At least it wasn't right before I wrote this post.

This was Bryan's comment on the forums 

"After having four of these lenses, I think that the lens listed as Sample 1 is what we should expect from the new 24-70 L II. This is one of the new lenses, but I moved it to the Sample 1 position because this is what the tool shows by default for a lens. The real first and second lenses are listed as Sample 2 and 3. The other new lens is listed as Sample 4. Sorry about the confusion this creates."

So 1 and 4 are the new lens. Looking at the ISO charts the lens looks very nice compared to the old. It sure isn't meeting the standard that was set by other reviewers earlier.


----------



## Jesse (Oct 17, 2012)

Can someone please point me in the direction of where Bryan's part II of his review is? It still shows that he is awaiting the arrival of more lenses. And there aren't any pictures.....


----------



## PackLight (Oct 17, 2012)

Jesse said:


> Can someone please point me in the direction of where Bryan's part II of his review is? It still shows that he is awaiting the arrival of more lenses. And there aren't any pictures.....



He just posted the ISO for the replacements yesterday. It looks like he is still working on it as part I hasn't been updated.


----------



## pdirestajr (Oct 17, 2012)

So if you need to go through 5 lenses to find the most bestest lens in the bunch for your current body.... what happens when you switch bodies? Doh!


----------



## Zlatko (Oct 17, 2012)

I bought one copy and it is really great.


----------



## davinci52 (Oct 17, 2012)

People, I think we're getting off topic here. It doesn't matter a bit whether 4 lenses or 5 lenses had to be tested to find a really good one - either percentage (only 20% excellent or only 25% excellent) is completely unacceptable from a major manufacturer such as Canon.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 17, 2012)

davinci52 said:


> People, I think we're getting off topic here. It doesn't matter a bit whether 4 lenses or 5 lenses had to be tested to find a really good one - either percentage (only 20% excellent or only 25% excellent) is completely unacceptable from a major manufacturer such as Canon.


We are trying to determine exactly what the information is that he is referring to. He says he has information that has not been posted. There is nothing on the site that says one of five or even one of four was the only good ones. 
A poster who refers to another blog should be able to back up his claim. The article was updated yesterday, and only describes issues with two lenses, so if there were five, what about the other three?
We would like to see the post that Bryan made saying 4 of the five were defective.


----------



## Phenix205 (Oct 17, 2012)

I just looked at the 4 samples (or copies) Bryan posted on his website. Here is what my eyes told me:

- # 2 is slightly sharper than # 1 at 35mm f2.8
- # 4 is noticeably sharper than # 1 at 70mm f2.8 (corner)
- # 3 is slightly sharper than # 1 at 70mm f2.8 (mid-frame and corner)
- #2 is the softest at 70mm f2.8

I am still confused which one Bryan thought was the best.


----------



## Crapking (Oct 17, 2012)

_DXR1443 by PVC 2012, on Flickr

Camera	Canon EOS-1D X
Exposure	0.001 sec (1/2000)
Aperture	f/2.8
Focal Length	55 mm (24-70 2.8 II)
ISO Speed	6400

I ran THIS version (a rental from LensRental) through FoCal last week, and it required a +2W/+3T AFMA, then took it to my next assignment. Of note, I rarely use my 24-70 Mark I for sports because even with AFMA, it was never 'sharp' enough for enlargements. 

After using this Mark II lens for 2 hrs, I was having lens envy again and was bummed I had to send it back. Then I got an email from Amazon it was available - so I ordered and received it yesterday. For one night I had both copies.
No copy-copy variation that I could tell, but because the first was a rental I didn't save my original FoCal files - stupid me.
Then (really stupid me), I got another email that my 'preordered' lens from B&H shipped - oops, forgot to cancel that. Now I have two copies to compare, and one to return. I'll be spending time in my basement with FoCal, and I'll also be out and about for few days doing a direct comparison. I'll post the FoCal reports and some other test shots for these lenses on all my bodies (7d/5d/1DIV and 1Dx). While I may not be as thorough or scientific, I'll share the images from all 3 to let you know 'just another fotog's opinion'


----------



## michi (Oct 17, 2012)

I also am not happy with Canon for seemingly having such low quality control out of the factory. It's fine that when I buy a $500 lens that there may be variations, but a $2000+ lens? The problems gets aggrevated when I read all the comments of people ordering two or more for comparison. That means, me, who doesn't have the means for exact measuring, will end up with the lowest performing lenses from Amazon, B&H and Adorama which were returned after being sorted out as the lowest performing samples. Canon should not put me in that position of doubting the $2000+ product I'm thinking of purchasing. I will keep my version I for now and wait...


----------



## dstppy (Oct 17, 2012)

Crapking said:


> Camera	Canon EOS-1D X
> Exposure	0.001 sec (1/2000)
> Aperture	f/2.8
> Focal Length	55 mm (24-70 2.8 II)
> ...



REALLY? A Scientific test? I don't think there's any room for that kind of messing around on this thread.

Some guy said that 4 out of 5 were bad enough to try and generate hits on a website. This is not just ANY guy, this is SOME guy.



If a problem is there, we're going to hear about it from Roger at LensRentals soon enough just from broad base sampling and experience.

Let us know what you turn up, it'll be interesting.


----------



## Drizzt321 (Oct 17, 2012)

So...what people are saying is there may be some manufacturing variations that result in some lenses being slightly less awesome than another one? On a brand new lens with brand new elements. So maybe it's a good thing I can't afford this now, by the time I buy one they likely will have worked out any minor manufacturing issues.


----------



## KitsVancouver (Oct 17, 2012)

Zlatko said:


> I bought one copy and it is really great.



Can you please define "great?" Did you look at photos 100% or are you going by what you see at less than 100%?


----------



## KitsVancouver (Oct 17, 2012)

Drizzt321 said:


> So...what people are saying is there may be some manufacturing variations that result in some lenses being slightly less awesome than another one? On a brand new lens with brand new elements. So maybe it's a good thing I can't afford this now, by the time I buy one they likely will have worked out any minor manufacturing issues.



I guess that's why some people are upset. This lens is supposed to be a production ready model. It's not supposed to be in field testing, beta testing or any other kind of testing for that matter.


----------



## robbymack (Oct 17, 2012)

this is such a mountain out of a mole hill, 4 (or 5) samples aren't enough to draw any real conclusions. If Lens rentals was saying it and they had 40 copies then maybe. If you're really that worried about sample variation (again read roger's comments regarding the "this lens is soft" phenomenon) just buy from a quality retailer: BH, Adorama, et al. and send it back for a new one if you aren't happy. For the record the one I rented for the weekend was fantastic.


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 17, 2012)

Crapking said:


> _DXR1443 by PVC 2012, on Flickr
> 
> Camera	Canon EOS-1D X
> Exposure	0.001 sec (1/2000)
> ...



i am sorry about being off the topic, but i do have a question for you as if you would like to share? i wonder as if you have increased/decreased exposure or brightness for this image? i am learning about light and trying to come up with my own way of estimating exposure. my existing exposure estimation for this shot would be iso 800 - f/4 - 1/125-250 (between)... converting to your settings would be about 2 stops or 1 stop brighter, accordingly; therefore, i am asking for your help in figuring out how to use light. and again, i am trying to learn how to estimate an exposure, please do not think of something else 

thanks in advance....


----------



## Drizzt321 (Oct 17, 2012)

KitsVancouver said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > So...what people are saying is there may be some manufacturing variations that result in some lenses being slightly less awesome than another one? On a brand new lens with brand new elements. So maybe it's a good thing I can't afford this now, by the time I buy one they likely will have worked out any minor manufacturing issues.
> ...



Who said it's not production ready? Is it that some are only really good instead of great? Or is it that there is real, tangible issues with a very large percentage of ALL lenses that have been delivered. Not just to one or two review sites getting a handful of lenses. I'm talking a large enough sample to be statistically significant. For example, LensRentals getting 100 lenses with a variety of serial numbers (presuming they aren't all from the same batch, etc) and him saying that there's 20 or 30 of them that are really noticeably off that doesn't get fixed with micro-adjust.


----------



## Crapking (Oct 18, 2012)

ScreenShot by PVC 2012, on Flickr

As to prior poster's exposure questions, here is a screen shot of my adjustments in LR, and here is a link to the original .CR2 file so you can play with it yourself, in whatever PP software you use. What did not show in the screen shot was sharpening up to 100, noise luminance reduction at 65 and Camera Faithful. No lens profile yet for the Mark II in LR 4.2.

I find that I with the 1Dx I can pull shadows/brighten quite a bit at lower ISO's (up to 8000-10,000) for websites.

As for choosing exposure settings, I'll shoot RAW, manually, with MY desired Tv / Av settings and spot meter with autoISO. Some gyms I can use Tv mode, but with crazy flourescent / halogen combo's in most of the high schools I shoot, I find my results are better if I do it myself. When i remember, I'll shoot a white balance card at the start and at the end and save that WB as a template to apply, independent of other custom templates I have created. 

Sorry for getting off thread again, but wanted to answer the question... 

http://albums.phanfare.com/isolated/mQTdxYOa/1/5675545


----------



## drjlo (Oct 18, 2012)

michi said:


> It's fine that when I buy a $500 lens that there may be variations, but a $2000+ lens?



It's not fine for a $500 lens, either!


----------



## ishdakuteb (Oct 18, 2012)

Crapking said:


> ScreenShot by PVC 2012, on Flickr
> 
> As to prior poster's exposure questions, here is a screen shot of my adjustments in LR, and here is a link to the original .CR2 file so you can play with it yourself, in whatever PP software you use. What did not show in the screen shot was sharpening up to 100, noise luminance reduction at 65 and Camera Faithful. No lens profile yet for the Mark II in LR 4.2.
> 
> ...



thanks very much and really appreciate your sharing as well as helps...


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 18, 2012)

Well at least my odds are better than winning the lottery and/or getting struck by lightning. Mine will arrive sometime Friday.


----------



## pwp (Oct 18, 2012)

Oh no, not again! After four dud copies of the 24-70 f/2.8 MkI I literally gave up and got a perfectly satisfactory 24-105 and a couple of primes instead. Still, I'd prefer a good 24-70 f/2.8. Being a sucker for punishment I'll buy a MkII, keep the packaging, do my tests and hope for the best. I must be due for a good copy.

This will be a good lens to buy from an authorised dealer with clear returns policies rather than dubious gray market.

-PW


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 18, 2012)

Despite the copy variation, I think a bit too much worry is being made over it all though. As I said, despite the variation, all I saw were the best standard zoom I've seen. And as I've said, if it can get me to dump my 24 1.4 II, pixel peeper as I am, it can hardly be all wrong can it?


----------



## PackLight (Oct 18, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Despite the copy variation, I think a bit too much worry is being made over it all though. As I said, despite the variation, all I saw were the best standard zoom I've seen. And as I've said, if it can get me to dump my 24 1.4 II, pixel peeper as I am, it can hardly be all wrong can it?



From the comparisons I see in the ISO charts it wouldn't make me want to dump my 24 f/1.4LII or my 35mm.
Granted there would be more situations that I wouldn't feel I should go to the primes now.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 18, 2012)

PackLight said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Despite the copy variation, I think a bit too much worry is being made over it all though. As I said, despite the variation, all I saw were the best standard zoom I've seen. And as I've said, if it can get me to dump my 24 1.4 II, pixel peeper as I am, it can hardly be all wrong can it?
> ...



and 24 1.4 II f/8:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8471/8080843159_853749e6c2_o.jpg
24-70 II f/8:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8054/8080838687_7552869720_o.jpg

Not that the 24 1.4 II has a lot of PF, but even at f/8, it can still sometimes get a bit in the corner areas under really harsh conditions while the 24-70 II is utterly resist f/8 24mm to any PF LoCA at all from what I've seen so far.

Both are really good at 24mm for landscapes and better than any 24-105 I've ever tried.


----------



## Tammy (Oct 18, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> The one I decided to keep in the end is amazing 70mm wide open center frame and pretty good at wide edges and corners (I think, it's hard to tell which is the way the DOF should be placed) although lower left corner might be a touch soft. Maybe 3 more copies and I'd get something perfect in every last regard?? As it is though, it's good enough to dump my 24 1.4 II over and it has the sharpest 70mm f/2.8 center frame I've seen from any lens, so not so bad (70mm far edges are weaker than my 70-300L on this and all the copies looked at though).



I also have the 24L II and tested it on a heavily detailed brick wall on a tripod with LV manual focus, contrast AF etc and my first copy of the 24-70L II is excellent, noticeably outresolving my 24L II from center to the edges at F2.8, F4.. i like the color more and the micro contrast is amazing! i love my 24L II but i'm ok with putting it up on craigslist.. i would also say the center to mid-frame at 70mm is the sharpest i've seen..


----------

