# AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving this copy.



## K-amps (Oct 14, 2012)

I just AFMA'ed my 24-70ii the* third time * (i.e. Each time fine tuning both tele and Wide till I nailed both). +5 on the Wide and +6 on Tele with my 5d3.

The Issue I have is, the sharpness at 24mm has a lot to be desired... 70mm is fine I guess, but I had higher hopes for a $2300 lens... is this it or do i have a dud on my hands?

Pls see 100% crops of 24mm and 70mm below and let me know what you think... if all seems ok, I can send shots of the corners which are even more disappointing...

EDIT: Added MF shot
Third shot is MF @ 24mm


----------



## elflord (Oct 14, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not loving it.*



K-amps said:


> I just AFMA'ed my 24-70ii the* third time * (i.e. Each time fine tuning both tele and Wide till I nailed both). +5 on the Wide and +6 on Tele with my 5d3.



Is the test chart shot manually focused ? 

It's not clear whether you're complaining about the optical performance of the lens or the AF accuracy.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 14, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not loving it.*

Added MF a a third shot. Looks better than AF24mm but still not as good as AF 70mm


----------



## Viggo (Oct 14, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not loving it.*

The only method I've found to give results is Focal. I've adjusted manually and never been happy, one situation great, the next horrible. Focal gives much better consistently great results. You can also get graphs so you can compare with other people's copies also.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 14, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not loving it.*

What settings were you using? It looks like high ISO when you should use low ISO and lots of light. Manual settings of AFMA are difficult. Lining up everything has to be accurate.
Try a image with the camera on a tripod, square to the chart with bright light, and Live view and Live focus. If the image is sharp, then you need a better AFMA.
FoCal will not only adjust AFMA, but it can test for consistent autofocus, which points to a lens issue. It will also help align the lens to the target so that you get consistent values. Its worth the price.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 14, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not loving it.*

Thanks Viggo and mk.Spokane (by the way how is the hand now?)

What version do you recommend? (I am a hobbyist... if the pro version gives me better AFM, I will go with it).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 14, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not loving it.*



K-amps said:


> Thanks Viggo and mk.Spokane (by the way how is the hand now?)
> 
> What version do you recommend? (I am a hobbyist... if the pro version gives me better AFM, I will go with it).


I pre-ordered the Pro version last December for a big discount and am very happy with it. I get access to beta versions, which is nice if you have a new camera model, because you get support quicker.
However the AFMA results will be just as accurate with any version. You can always upgrade for just the difference in price, so you do not lose if you get the basic version and decide to upgrade.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 14, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*

You can't [EDIT: I originally typed CAN by mistake instead of CAN'T] just take one or two shots of a test chart and expect to see the perfect sharpness. I always do at least six 10x liveview manual trials and often try for ten. Just the tiniest, tiniest hair of focusing difference can make test results go all over the place. It's tricky.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 14, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> You can just take one or two shots of a test chart and expect to see the perfect sharpness. I always do at least six 10x liveview manual trials and often try for ten. Just the tiniest, tiniest hair of focusing difference can make test results go all over the place. It's tricky.


Thats whats nice about foCal, you do not get all those variations that happen due to many uncontrolled factors.
Here is a 24-105mmL with at least two shots taken at each AFMA setting. Notice that they usually are close or on top of each other. It would be virtually impossible to see the differences in the shots taken at the same AFMA, and being off by + / - 3 points is insignigicant. You need to be off by 5 points with this lens at 105mm to see the difference in sharpness. Obviously, some lenses are less forgiving, a 85mm f/1.2 might have a sharper peak.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 14, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > You can just take one or two shots of a test chart and expect to see the perfect sharpness. I always do at least six 10x liveview manual trials and often try for ten. Just the tiniest, tiniest hair of focusing difference can make test results go all over the place. It's tricky.
> ...



I have to disagree, even the TINIEST hair difference and the crispness of a test chart WILL differ and you can easily flip flop around comparative performance between two lenses. Even doing 10x LV MF with a magnifier on top you absolutely will see differences test shot to shot and need to pick the best out of a bunch when you are doing fine comparisons.

Even on your chart maybe the first try is the 930 and the next try is the 815, if you didn't know they were both the same copy tested you could mistakenly think one copy is way better than the 'other'. YOu need a bunch of trials to hit the 930 score with reasonable chance.

And say a 300 2.8 IS + 1.4x TC on a 7D, even a difference of 1 on MFA can make a noticeable difference in hit rate, DOF at that high MP count and such a long lens is small.


----------



## Axilrod (Oct 14, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*

24mm should be super sharp, it's resolution scores were off the charts and the general consensus was that 24mm was the sharpest spot. I compared it to the 24LII and while the 24 had less distortion the 24-70II was noticeably sharper.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 14, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



Axilrod said:


> 24mm should be super sharp, it's resolution scores were off the charts and the general consensus was that 24mm was the sharpest spot. I compared it to the 24LII and while the 24 had less distortion the 24-70II was noticeably sharper.



24 1.4 II is crazy sharp (on photozone didn't it get truly insane numbers there center frame? I forget but I think so, my 24 1.4 II is nuts in the center, it drove 5D2 video to constant moire way more than even my 70-200 f/4 IS or almost anything else), but it seemed hard to tell apart from 24-70 II, both crazy sharp at 24mm IMO, the prime maybe a bit more consistent at corners though.


----------



## Kernuak (Oct 14, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Axilrod said:
> 
> 
> > 24mm should be super sharp, it's resolution scores were off the charts and the general consensus was that 24mm was the sharpest spot. I compared it to the 24LII and while the 24 had less distortion the 24-70II was noticeably sharper.
> ...


The Photozone review of the 24 L MkII is a bit misleading, as they mark it down due to the soft corners when wider than f/2. However, if you look at their charts, it shows how good it is at f/2.8 and narrower, even in comparison to the Zeiss 21mm and the 24mm TS/E L MkII. If the 24-70 MkII is as sharp as the prime, then it should be razor sharp.

Edited, because of this stupid touchpad .


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 14, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...


While it true that someone can see a tiny difference at the AFMA settings, FoCal saves the1:1 images used for the evaluation at the different points, and the difference in sharpness isn't significant to me.
In fact, just using the images, its entirely possible to select the wrong one as being the sharpest. Some people can, but the differences are very subtle.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 14, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*

Ok gents, Bought focal and set it all up. Before Focal I was +5/+6 for w/t

test 1 W with focal said set w=0
test 2 T said set T= -1
test 3 W said set W = -1 (down 1 form last test)
test 4 T said set T = +4 (up 5 from last test)

Should I keep going in endless loops of T +W tests? I know the W setting affects the T setting so when should I call it quits?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 15, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



Kernuak said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Axilrod said:
> ...



Not nearly as misleading as my fogeting the word "it" I meant to type "on photozone didn't IT get truly insane numbers there center frame? " a rather different meaning. ;D
So yeah we agree, PZ did say it ws super sharp there, my point.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 15, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



K-amps said:


> Ok gents, Bought focal and set it all up. Before Focal I was +5/+6 for w/t
> 
> test 1 W with focal said set w=0
> test 2 T said set T= -1
> ...



K-amps - I ran my 16-35 II and 24-70 II thtrough FoCal Pro x3 per lens. The results I got are same.

A tripod plays major role in this test, hope you have a decent one. Also, I'm running on window(5D III), therefore, I was required to change the AFMA values manually in camera and small movement could changes the value(s).


----------



## K-amps (Oct 15, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



Dylan777 said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Ok gents, Bought focal and set it all up. Before Focal I was +5/+6 for w/t
> ...



Dylan... I might need to re-test. I had the 5d3 placed on a table on a rubber mat... I don't think it moved, but with 10+ menu changes per test, I cannot be sure.

Will need to reset the test system to a tripod next...


----------



## Radiating (Oct 15, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*

This lens is supposed to be one of the sharpest lenses ever made at 24mm and is supposed to be much sharper at 24mm than it is at 70mm.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=486&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=3&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

If the lens is not delivering mind blowing sharpness at 24mm you have a deffective copy. This lens much like the Mark I version appears to have extremely uneven copy varaiation. Early tests are showing 50%-66% of lenses delivering results I would personally be unsatisfied with.

Simply put you should return it and get another copy. +5 MA isn't so good either.


----------



## cliffwang (Oct 15, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



K-amps said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...



Mounting camera body on a tripod is better idea to test AF IMO. I have two tripod, one is the Manfrotto carbon fiber one, and one is Manfrotto metal one(about 15 years old). I use the metal one for AF test because it's more stable. All my lenses were tested twice on FoCal to make sure the test results. And all results are same except the cheap lens, Canon 50mm F/1.8 II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 15, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



K-amps said:


> Should I keep going in endless loops of T +W tests? I know the W setting affects the T setting so when should I call it quits?



W and T are independent, one does not affect the other.



K-amps said:


> Dylan... I might need to re-test. I had the 5d3 placed on a table on a rubber mat... I don't think it moved, but with 10+ menu changes per test, I cannot be sure.
> 
> Will need to reset the test system to a tripod next...



Might?  The two keys to consistency are stability and lighting. 

'On a table on a rubber mat' isn't what I'd call stable (with most tables - we do have analytical balances on rubber mats on tables in the lab, but those 'tables' are solid blocks of marble weighing hundreds of pounds). Personally, I noticed some inconsistencies when testing on a stable tripod on the main floor of my house (hardwood flooring) - someone walking around, even in the next room, produces vibration. Setting up the test in the basement (concrete slab) took care of that. 

Lighting should be constant and very bright. Look over your test results - what are the Ev's you see? Notice Mt. Spokane's are close to 12 Ev; mine are always in the 11-13 Ev range. If you're at 10 Ev or less, you need more light. Personally, I use three 150 W gooseneck lamps at a distance of ~14" from the target. More light means a faster shutter speed, which further minimizes the impact of vibration. I just tested my 600 II, outdoors in sunlight with the gooseneck lamps added, Ev's were around 15.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 15, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



neuroanatomist said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Should I keep going in endless loops of T +W tests? I know the W setting affects the T setting so when should I call it quits?
> ...



EV's were definitely falling as the test progressed. 5.6 to 6.3EV's. So this is another variable that requires attention. I can take the set up to the basement, but that would mean installing the software on my laptop... IS there any limitation on number of machines this can be set up with?

I am still a bit concerned since even with MF, I am not getting mind blowing sharpness... I guess i will run some more tests and then form an opinion.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 15, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



K-amps said:


> EV's were definitely falling as the test progressed. 5.6 to 6.3EV's. So this is another variable that requires attention. I can take the set up to the basement, but that would mean installing the software on my laptop... IS there any limitation on number of machines this can be set up with?



Yep - stability and lighting. One can compensate for the other to some extent (more stable means a slower shutter can work, more light means a faster shutter which mitigates vibration). Looks like you may have issues with both. I'd move it to the basement and add a lot of light. 

The FoCal manual recommends at least EV 8 (IIRC, the earliest version of the manual recommend EV 10). One reason I used the extra light even outdoors was that I was using a long, slow lens (f/4, f/5.6 with 1.4xIII), and I wanted shutter speeds as high as possible. At 15 EV, I was at 1/2500 s with the bare lens and 1/1250 s with the TC.

I don't know that there's a limit. I can tell you that I've got it installed on one Windows machine (a virtual machine) and two Macs, and I've run it from all of them. Since you have to connect a camera with a serial number listed in the License Manager, I suspect that's their control mechanism.



K-amps said:


> I am still a bit concerned since even with MF, I am not getting mind blowing sharpness... I guess i will run some more tests and then form an opinion.



If you're not getting sharp images with contrast detect AF and a well-lit, high-contrast subject, you may want to exchange the lens...


----------



## rpt (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*

While you retest on a stable tripod, don't raise the center column! I learnt the hard way about this no-no...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



rpt said:


> While you retest on a stable tripod, don't raise the center column! I learnt the hard way about this no-no...


=1. You can't be too stable for critical tests like this. I get much better results in bright light and on concrete with my very heavy tripod and never extend the center column. I could have added weight to the under hook, but my results were fine.
I'd not worry about a difference of 1 or 2 points unless the shape of the curve is very peaked.
Check the camera in good light tripod, and live AF. If its not sharp, no amount of AFMA will fix that, the lens needs to be exchanged.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



Mt Spokane Photography said:


> rpt said:
> 
> 
> > While you retest on a stable tripod, don't raise the center column! I learnt the hard way about this no-no...
> ...



When you say Live AF ... do you mean Liveview/ contrast AF?


----------



## Invertalon (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*

I am on my second copy of the 24-70 II... First had a decentered element (softness on right side of frame at 24mm).

Both copies were excellent at 24mm (minus right side on first one) and about even at 70mm... No real variation I see between the two. I would shoot a subject in good light outside on a tripod using live-view, then compare that image with the same image allowing the camera to AF. If they don't look identical, your MA is off.

My current copy is at -2 wide and +1 tele with my 5D3 (with some help from Focal). That -2 on the wide end made a BIG difference. I did not think with all the DOF it would matter so much, but it really is required for maximum sharpness. I see a huge difference if I shoot at 0 versus -2... The telephoto end, surprisingly is more forgiving. Strange, but just what I have noticed.

Shoot with live view though and see if the sharpness looks good to you then... If soft still, exchange it. Live view should draw maximum sharpness out of the lens for the most part, not relying on the camera AF system.


----------



## rpt (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



K-amps said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > rpt said:
> ...


Yes, that is what he means.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



rpt said:


> When you say Live AF ... do you mean Liveview/ contrast AF?


Yes, that is what he means.
[/quote]

So contrast AF is more accurate than phase AF ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



K-amps said:


> So contrast AF is more accurate than phase AF ?



Yes, but slower. Phase detect uses a separate sensor, and if that sensor or the optics in front of it are misaligned relative to the image sensor, focus will be off (and that why there's AFMA - to correct that misalignment). Contrast detect uses the image sensor itself to determine focus - nothing to misalign.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



neuroanatomist said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > So contrast AF is more accurate than phase AF ?
> ...


+1
Contrast detect is not perfect, but so close that it doesn't matter. Its just slow. You can also chose the area you want to focus on by moving the white rectangle with your joystick (if there is one).
It is a good way to check your phase detect AF, if live AF is sharp and phase detect is not, you need a adjustment. If neither are sharp, the issue might be more serious than a simple adjustment.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*

Thanks John and Mt and everyone else. Conducting tests now.... will report back.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*

First the good news... I get about the same values for last focal test 0 and 5 (W and T).

Attached are 3 shots labelled as Phase/Contrast/MF respectively. Shows Phase/ contrast very close (all 100% crops) and the MF a bit sharper.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*

I think I am fine with center sharpness... however the corners are a bit worrisome... especially at 24 mm... this is supposedly the best 24mm canon has at corners... should I be concerned? I know I shot the "wall" but it is straight and plane ;D

I am attaching resized (to fit CR) non cropped frames of both 70mm and 24mm... let me know your thoughts.

(I know there is vignetting and noise in the corners... but it is lack of resolution that concerns me)


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*

it looks to me that you have significantly more vignetting in the left side of the frame from that on the right
could be your lens is decentered, I would take it back to the store and try another copy take those images with too to show them.

strange thing is this new version was supposed to fix decentering issues with the 24-70 that were common with the mk1


----------



## K-amps (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



wickidwombat said:


> it looks to me that you have significantly more vignetting in the left side of the frame from that on the right
> could be your lens is decentered, I would take it back to the store and try another copy take those images with too to show them.
> 
> strange thing is this new version was supposed to fix decentering issues with the 24-70 that were common with the mk1



That could be my lighting set up... Let me try another shot with diffused daylight....


----------



## K-amps (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*

2 more shots wide open at 24mm taken outdoors. Lighting should be even. One of the wall, the other of the concrete floor.

thoughts?


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 16, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*

left side vignetting still looks heavier to me, darker and intrudes into the image more than on the right side


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 17, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



wickidwombat said:


> left side vignetting still looks heavier to me, darker and intrudes into the image more than on the right side



+1....left side does seem to be heavier.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 17, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*

Ok so we established that the left side is heavier.... what now, should we consider the resolution at the corners as well or is this a return/ exchange contender? :-\


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 17, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



K-amps said:


> Ok so we established that the left side is heavier.... what now, should we consider the resolution at the corners as well or is this a return/ exchange contender? :-\



K-amps, I have similar problem. I'm going to return mine and exchange for another one


----------



## K-amps (Oct 17, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



Dylan777 said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Ok so we established that the left side is heavier.... what now, should we consider the resolution at the corners as well or is this a return/ exchange contender? :-\
> ...



I was just watching a few episodes of the Jamie Kennedy Xperiment and switched to CR & saw your post Dylan... Are you for real?? ;D ;D ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 17, 2012)

Assuming you've ruled out a mis-mounted lens hood, I'd say it's decentered and I'd exchange it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Assuming you've ruled out a mis-mounted lens hood, I'd say it's decentered and I'd exchange it.


Yes, I'd go for a replacement, except that I'm just sitting back and seeing how everyone is doing with theirs. So far, I've read about a lot of sample variation, which is a bit disgusting. I'd consider the Tamron, except it seems to have even more issues with QC.
Once you have found a good one, never let it go.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 17, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



K-amps said:


> Ok so we established that the left side is heavier.... what now, should we consider the resolution at the corners as well or is this a return/ exchange contender? :-\



at that price i would be taking it back to compare with another copy for sure


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 17, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



K-amps said:


> I think I am fine with center sharpness... however the corners are a bit worrisome... especially at 24 mm... this is supposedly the best 24mm canon has at corners... should I be concerned? I know I shot the "wall" but it is straight and plane ;D
> 
> I am attaching resized (to fit CR) non cropped frames of both 70mm and 24mm... let me know your thoughts.
> 
> (I know there is vignetting and noise in the corners... but it is lack of resolution that concerns me)



What aperture? Perfect corners other than stopped down are hard to get at 24mm from any lens.
How far to the wall?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 17, 2012)

Here are some full 22MP images at 24mm:

f/8:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8054/8084425985_be471a8de2_o.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8194/8080849426_1f81f67a9a_o.jpg
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8191/8080854568_f1f6684736_o.jpg
f/11:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8191/8080859646_10b351fbce_o.jpg
f/4.5:
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8189/8080844890_ee3cf61987_o.jpg

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

100% crops 70mm, f/2.8, center frame:










200% best copy at 70mm, center, f/2.8:




and worst:




and good tamron copy:


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 17, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



K-amps said:


> 2 more shots wide open at 24mm taken outdoors. Lighting should be even. One of the wall, the other of the concrete floor.
> 
> thoughts?



what if you flip camera upside down does vignetting on the side stay on left or swap sides?


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 17, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



K-amps said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...



Most of my shots were from 35mm to 50mm. I didn't noticed until other CRs members pointed out. I went and took some shots at 24mm, results were ugly 

Mine will be on the way back to crutchfield tomorrow....I'll exchnage for another one, will see


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 17, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Assuming you've ruled out a mis-mounted lens hood, I'd say it's decentered and I'd exchange it.



Neuro, I didn't have the hood on when I took that picture. Crutchfield has 60days return & refund. I will exchange for another on. Maybe I should wait a bit longer so Canon can fix the all the bugs.


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 17, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming you've ruled out a mis-mounted lens hood, I'd say it's decentered and I'd exchange it.
> ...



yeah i'm hanging onto my 24-70 mk1 for now its a good one, see how this plays out first


----------



## K-amps (Oct 17, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > I think I am fine with center sharpness... however the corners are a bit worrisome... especially at 24 mm... this is supposedly the best 24mm canon has at corners... should I be concerned? I know I shot the "wall" but it is straight and plane ;D
> ...



I shot wide open, f2.8 about 18inches from the wall.

Neuro... I seldom use lens hoods... (another topic  )


----------



## Viggo (Oct 17, 2012)

Were there such issues with the first of the 70-200 mk2's also? And with 16-35 mk2 ? And if so, did they get better or did people just accept them?

The reason why I'm asking is if this is a 24-70 mk2 issue, it's pretty useless... this is a very expensive lens and not that fast and should be almost no sample variation... I'd be pretty upset I think...


----------



## j1jenkins (Oct 17, 2012)

I had troubles getting consistent AFMA results once and I had to change the process. I found that consistently shooting in the same spot was my challenge. Here's the process (bear with me) that I used.

-Mount the camera to your tripod and level it out
-Tether the camera to your PC. 
-Mount the lens align target on a tripod and level it out. I get it as close as possible to MFD. Ideally, you have an old tripod that has a crank to raise and lower it.
-Open the EOS utility and go to live shooting.
-Click test shot.
-Zoom to x1
-If the scroll bar on the side of the test shot lines up in the middle, great. If not, raise and lower the target until you achieve this. (see pic below) 
-From there, you can adjust the AFMA. I was VERY delicate when pushing the buttons so as not to move the camera.
-Keep it tethered throughout the adjustment process so there is no variation.

This helped me to get consistent results. If you're doing this already, my apologies. Just offering up a solution that helped me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 17, 2012)

Viggo said:


> The reason why I'm asking is if this is a 24-70 mk2 issue, it's pretty useless... this is a very expensive lens and not that fast and should be almost no sample variation... I'd be pretty upset I think...



Agreed, and even though Canon had copy variability with the original, you'd think they'd have learned from that...

I was very interested in this lens when it was announced, but instead of pre-ordering it, I put those funds toward my 600 II. Now, I'm even more happy that I did that. I'm now actually considering the 50/1.2L instead of the 24-70 II. 



j1jenkins said:


> -Mount the lens align target on a tripod and level it out. I get it *as close as possible to MFD*.



That's a bad idea, unless you're always shooting at the MFD. The adjustment at the MFD is often quite different from the adjustment at other focus distances, and once you get a ways out from the lens, the adjustment values tend to get much more stable. That is why LensAlign recommends 25x the focal length, and Canon recommends 50x the focal length (i.e., about 8 ft and 16 ft, respectively, for a 100mm lens).

The keys to getting consistent results are a stable tripod and LOTS of light. Personally, I have 450 W of light pointed at the target from a distance of a little over 1 foot.


----------



## sandymandy (Oct 17, 2012)

Isnt it common knowledge zoom lenses can never be as sharp as a fixed focal length? Zooms have to make compromises. always. doesnt matter what u pay.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 17, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> Isnt it common knowledge zoom lenses can never be as sharp as a fixed focal length? Zooms have to make compromises. always. doesnt matter what u pay.



It seems conventional wisdom went out the window when it came to reviews for the 24-70 mk. ii


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 17, 2012)

K-amps said:


> sandymandy said:
> 
> 
> > Isnt it common knowledge zoom lenses can never be as sharp as a fixed focal length? Zooms have to make compromises. always. doesnt matter what u pay.
> ...



Actually, it went out the window two years earlier, when the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II came out. Now, it's the new normal.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 17, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



Dylan777 said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...




Ok guys...I need your thoughts on this. I setup the camera and lens on tripod. Shot it at f2.8 Ave mode - LiveView

Return it or keep it?


----------



## K-amps (Oct 17, 2012)

Dylan:

I think your vignetting looks same for both sides... the earlier shot was indoors and lighting can affect those results. This looks fine to me.


----------



## cliffwang (Oct 17, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



Viggo said:


> Were there such issues with the first of the 70-200 mk2's also? And with 16-35 mk2 ? And if so, did they get better or did people just accept them?
> 
> The reason why I'm asking is if this is a 24-70 mk2 issue, it's pretty useless... this is a very expensive lens and not that fast and should be almost no sample variation... I'd be pretty upset I think...



I haven't heard that issue on 70-200mm F/2.8 IS MK2; not sure about 16-35mm MK2. However, I usually try to avoid buying new stuff in the first months when they are released.



Dylan777 said:


> Ok guys...I need your thoughts on this. I setup the camera and lens on tripod. Shot it at f2.8 Ave mode - LiveView
> 
> Return it or keep it?



For me the left side vignetting is heavier. Was this under natural light?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 17, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



K-amps said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...



24mm, f/2.8, more or less MFD is kind of a harsh test!


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 17, 2012)

sandymandy said:


> Isnt it common knowledge zoom lenses can never be as sharp as a fixed focal length? Zooms have to make compromises. always. doesnt matter what u pay.



It's awfully close to my 24 1.4 II for landscapes though. AWFULLY close and in some ways better even.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 17, 2012)

*Re: AFMA'ed the 24-70 mk.ii ... not sure I am loving it.*



cliffwang said:


> Viggo said:
> 
> 
> > Were there such issues with the first of the 70-200 mk2's also? And with 16-35 mk2 ? And if so, did they get better or did people just accept them?
> ...



Yes...outdoor. In a sunny day in california


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 17, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Dylan:
> 
> I think your vignetting looks same for both sides... the earlier shot was indoors and lighting can affect those results. This looks fine to me.



K-AMP, I just spoke to CrutchField Customer Service. They are out of stock, but will replace me with another lens. While waiting for the new lens, I get to keep my current. I'm very HAPPY with Crutchfield Service.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 17, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan:
> ...



Glad you got good service form them. The local store I got mine form is kind of the only large store here... my sales person sort of gets edgy when I tell him I didnt like the lens for one reason or the other... he gets defensive and his smile goes upside-down... make me uncomfortable... How should I tell him that I am returning this after I returned the Tamron 24-70 due to bad AF... :


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 17, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...



I'm not sure where you got your lens. Here in the US, if the lens doesn't work right, I simply ask for refund or exchange --- within store return policy of course. 

For the sale person - I don't really care how he/she feels about me my return. Bottom line is, you are the CUSTOMER(BUYER) and this is NOT a couple hundred dollars lens. Show him the picture that you took.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 17, 2012)

Dylan777 said:


> I'm not sure where you got your lens. Here in the US, if the lens doesn't work right, I simply ask for refund or exchange --- within store return policy of course.
> 
> For the sale person - I don't really care how he/she feels about me my return. Bottom line is, you are the CUSTOMER(BUYER) and this is NOT a couple hundred dollars lens. Show him the picture that you took.



They'll probably take it back... just that the look they give yousometimes makes you feel like you are the bad guy....


----------



## cliffwang (Oct 17, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Glad you got good service form them. The local store I got mine form is kind of the only large store here... my sales person sort of gets edgy when I tell him I didnt like the lens for one reason or the other... he gets defensive and his smile goes upside-down... make me uncomfortable... How should I tell him that I am returning this after I returned the Tamron 24-70 due to bad AF... :



Have you tried Amazon? I have Amazon Prime, so Amazon provides free shipping for return without any question. If you don't like an item, just return. So far, I have returned couple lenses on Amazon. No question, no argument, and fast process(in one minute to get return label). The bad thing is Amazon charge tax in CA now.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 18, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Glad you got good service form them. The local store I got mine form is kind of the only large store here... my sales person sort of gets edgy when I tell him I didnt like the lens for one reason or the other... he gets defensive and his smile goes upside-down... make me uncomfortable... How should I tell him that I am returning this after I returned the Tamron 24-70 due to bad AF... :
> ...



How do you like your Tamrom 24-70?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Oct 18, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure where you got your lens. Here in the US, if the lens doesn't work right, I simply ask for refund or exchange --- within store return policy of course.
> ...



What do pics taken outdoors at more normal distances look like? Like my samples above? Sharper? Less sharp?
Despite the copy variation, my early tentative feeling is that all the copies I've seen are nonetheless the best overall standard zoom I've seen.


----------



## cliffwang (Oct 18, 2012)

K-amps said:


> cliffwang said:
> 
> 
> > K-amps said:
> ...



Compare to my old Canon 24-70mm MK1, I love this lens a lot. It's sharper, and the VC is super impressed. I have couple photos taking in high ISO and about 1/8 seconds for parties. They looks still good.
However, the AF speed is not as good as Canon 24-70mm MK1. Since AF is not so critical, Tamron 24-70mm is good for me. I still don't get why Canon has no IS for it MK2. Otherwise, I am willing pay 2.3K for it.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 18, 2012)

cliffwang said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > cliffwang said:
> ...



I tried a copy of the Tammy.... the AF was spotty, even though the optics (i.e. MF) were sharp. After all the hype on the 24-70 mk.ii, I am a bit disappointed.... this is NO 70-200 mk.ii class zoom.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 18, 2012)

Interesting Article at Lens Rentals about the effects of decentering on AF consistency and accuracy. 
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/the-effect-of-a-decentered-lens-on-autofocus


----------



## K-amps (Oct 18, 2012)

Thanks for link, very helpful.

I just returned it over lunch... a bit relieved. I will wait a bit till I bite again on it. For now the 17-40 works for WA, albeit F8ish and the 70-200 mk.ii is a God send... I will play with those... but I am missing a Big aperture prime. 50mm perhaps. I want something sharp and dreamy... would Ziggy f1.4 fit the bill?


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 18, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Thanks for link, very helpful.
> 
> I just returned it over lunch... a bit relieved. I will wait a bit till I bite again on it. For now the 17-40 works for WA, albeit F8ish and the 70-200 mk.ii is a God send... I will play with those... but I am missing a Big aperture prime. 50mm perhaps. I want something sharp and dreamy... would Ziggy f1.4 fit the bill?



honestly if you dont have the shorty forty then try that, its sharper across the frame than the 24-70 mk1 wide open, bokeh is very very similar to that from the 70-200 mk2 I have the siggy 50mm (the new one) its also good
probably not as good as the siggy 85 though (but better than the canon 50s) i'm waiting for the siggy 35 to come out and see how that goes, i'm hoping its up the standard of the 85. but for the money if you want sharp and nice bokeh at f2.8 the 40mm pancake is pretty hard to beat at the moment


----------



## cliffwang (Oct 19, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> honestly if you dont have the shorty forty then try that, its sharper across the frame than the 24-70 mk1 wide open, bokeh is very very similar to that from the 70-200 mk2 I have the siggy 50mm (the new one) its also good
> probably not as good as the siggy 85 though (but better than the canon 50s) i'm waiting for the siggy 35 to come out and see how that goes, i'm hoping its up the standard of the 85. but for the money if you want sharp and nice bokeh at f2.8 the 40mm pancake is pretty hard to beat at the moment



I am also looking forward the Sigma 35mm. If the IQ good and price, it will be my another collection from Sigma.


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 19, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Thanks for link, very helpful.
> 
> I just returned it over lunch... a bit relieved. I will wait a bit till I bite again on it. For now the 17-40 works for WA, albeit F8ish and the 70-200 mk.ii is a God send... I will play with those... but I am missing a Big aperture prime. 50mm perhaps. I want something sharp and dreamy... would Ziggy f1.4 fit the bill?



K-AMP, I did more test shots(indoor & outdoor at 24mm), my lens seems to be ok. All shots @ 24mm have little vignetting, other then that, the lens looks very sharp. I will compare my current lens to new lens that Crutchfield going to send me. I'll keep the better copy at the end.

I might pull a trigger on 50L this coming x-mas through Crutchfield, since I have little more than 10,000 reward points with them($500ish cash value). Hoping Canon will have SUPER rebate on all lenses through holidays.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 19, 2012)

Good Luck Dylan!

It feels better when you can test 2 or 3 lens and keep one like I did with my 70-200 f2.8 mk.ii. Just feels good! ;D


----------



## Bosman (Oct 22, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Thanks for link, very helpful.
> 
> I just returned it over lunch... a bit relieved. I will wait a bit till I bite again on it. For now the 17-40 works for WA, albeit F8ish and the 70-200 mk.ii is a God send... I will play with those... but I am missing a Big aperture prime. 50mm perhaps. I want something sharp and dreamy... would Ziggy f1.4 fit the bill?


K-Amps
I just got an 85LII, i paid 1G more than the sigma 85 because the results in my test shots were showing the Sigma going crazy on Purple Fringing around black text. I do know from my previous 85LI that chroma, purple are the nature of the beast so i realize when shooting chrome i don't want to shoot to the right as much as i might. I also might not use it when i have heavily backlit subjects or with brightly lit trees in the background but i have yet to put that to the test as i just got it. I just know the 70-200LII will handle those situations with ease. Basically I will prob shoot a little diff when using the 85 to bring out the dreamy goods! I wish we could shoot 1/16,000 sec. Also when shooting a static person at F1.4 the face had some in some out of focus yet @ F1.2 the canon 85 rendered the whole face sharply. This was a 3/4 length shot as you think about distance from subject. Also when around the store i shot various subjects and repeating patterns and the 1.2 was consistently focused on the same spot @ F1.2. This may be that the siggy was out of calibration but it was close if it was. I preferred the color balance of the 1.2 over the 1.4 Sig. I cannot comment on the sigma 50, i have no experience with that one.


----------



## Bosman (Oct 22, 2012)

This thread has helped relieve a little lust for the V2 of the 24-70. So happy to enjoy my 24LII as it is. I sold my 24-70 VI last week among other equipment to get the 85LII. This year I have not shot with the 24-70 outside of sports and occasionally in a wedding. I plan to use the 24LII on my 1dm3 for finishline, i typically shoot 35mm for that anyway so 31mm on the 1dm3 will be close to that. I have been noticing how many times i zoom with my legs now. When shooting portraits while standing on a chair i shot the 50L on the 5dm3 and i had to move the chair i stood on to get level with the diff size groups several times. That's where i thought the 24-70 makes more sense and would cut out the calisthenics. I generally like to shoot full length and 3/4 of each formal. I personally prefer close up shots over the full length but this keeps me out of trouble with the clients.


----------



## K-amps (Oct 22, 2012)

Hi Bosman, I tried the 85L2 as well. Wonderful lens... but i don't make money off photography... I realized it was one splurge I did not need.  I might go for the 85 f1.8 for 1/5th of the price with 80% of the goodness... or something wider? If the 50L was sharper that would have been a no brainer... so between the Sig 50 1.4 and Canon 50 1.4 any thoughts?


----------



## Bosman (Oct 22, 2012)

I dont have experience with the sigma 50 but its probably better than the canon 50 1.4.


----------



## drjlo (Oct 22, 2012)

K-amps said:


> so between the Sig 50 1.4 and Canon 50 1.4 any thoughts?



I had both Sig 50 and Canon 50 1.4 at one point, and honestly, after you get over Sig's newer appearance and bigger size, I did not see a reason to own the Sig 50 over Canon 50 image quality wise. I ended up with 50L, but that's for f/1.2 to f/2.8 use, beyond which Canon 50 f/1.4 is at least as sharp, although without the bokeh magic.

You can find comparisons on the web, and here's one of Canon and Sig 50 1.4.

http://www.pbase.com/peter_dumont/sigma_50mm_f1_4


----------



## wickidwombat (Oct 23, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Hi Bosman, I tried the 85L2 as well. Wonderful lens... but i don't make money off photography... I realized it was one splurge I did not need.  I might go for the 85 f1.8 for 1/5th of the price with 80% of the goodness... or something wider? If the 50L was sharper that would have been a no brainer... so between the Sig 50 1.4 and Canon 50 1.4 any thoughts?



i have both the canon 1.4 and the sig 1.4

wide open the siggy is better than the canon stopped down they are similar
the canon is smaller and lighter but the siggy has superior build quality (this is the new sig not the crappy old one)
the siggy 50 f1.4 is not as good as the 85 but it is good and better than canon's 50s IMO
the siggy 50 has better bokeh due to the 9 circular blades vs 8 straight ones


----------



## K-amps (Oct 23, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> K-amps said:
> 
> 
> > Hi Bosman, I tried the 85L2 as well. Wonderful lens... but i don't make money off photography... I realized it was one splurge I did not need.  I might go for the 85 f1.8 for 1/5th of the price with 80% of the goodness... or something wider? If the 50L was sharper that would have been a no brainer... so between the Sig 50 1.4 and Canon 50 1.4 any thoughts?
> ...



Thanks Wombat!


----------



## gilmorephoto (Oct 23, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> [F]or the money if you want sharp and nice bokeh at f2.8 the 40mm pancake is pretty hard to beat at the moment



+1. It's surprisingly good.


----------



## hammy (Oct 23, 2012)

Bosman- i just bought the 85 1.2 L2 as well and i cant seem to get sharpness at 1.2. I can only get it sharp at 2.0. on my 1Dx.


----------



## rpt (Oct 24, 2012)

hammy said:


> Bosman- i just bought the 85 1.2 L2 as well and i cant seem to get sharpness at 1.2. I can only get it sharp at 2.0. on my 1Dx.


Did you AFMA it yet? Set it on a stand and take a picture of some still object... Sorry, since you did not give any details of what you shot this is what I could think of.


----------

