# 24-70 L II softest at 35mm?



## longtallkarl (Oct 28, 2013)

hi all,

i just got a 24-70 L II and while it doesn't have the clicking while zooming problem, it does seem to be noticeably softer at 35mm than at either end of the zoom range, specifically away from the center. (the center seems fine at all focal lengths.) 

does anyone else who owns one of these have a similar experience, or should i consider swapping it out - i still have a week or two left.

thanks!


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 28, 2013)

No one can give you reliable advice without you posting some images that show the extent of the issue.
As They Say:


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 28, 2013)

longtallkarl said:


> hi all,
> 
> i just got a 24-70 L II and while it doesn't have the clicking while zooming problem, it does seem to be noticeably softer at 35mm than at either end of the zoom range, specifically away from the center. (the center seems fine at all focal lengths.)
> 
> ...



The 24-70L II should be sharp at 35mm. Every copy I have checked at 35mm it was sharper than the 35mm F/1.4L.
What you describe does not sound normal. If I arrived at your conclusion I would swap it.


----------



## longtallkarl (Oct 28, 2013)

mt spokane: fair enough.

here are some jpegs that are 100% crops from the center and edge (not even the corner) shot at 24, 35 and 70. they were shot raw, processed to jpeg in lr with no sharpening, lens corrections, or any other adjustments.

they were all at 2.8 as well.

to me it seems that at 35mm, there is the biggest difference between the center and the edge, and i'm just wondering if others have noticed the middle range to be weakest with this lens.

please note i'm not complaining about a lack of sharpness at the edge when shooting wide open, just trying to get a sense of what others are experiencing.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 28, 2013)

Just shows what you described.
I would swap out for a different lens.


----------



## longtallkarl (Oct 28, 2013)

thanks takesome. i probably will.

best,

-karl


----------



## Triggyman (Oct 28, 2013)

at which corner are these? Could you please check every corner at this aperture? 

The copy I returned had terrible softness at the lower left corner even at 35mm f/8, all other corners were significantly sharper. It was worse at 24 f/2.8 (still the lower left corner gave the worst softness). 

Maybe take into account that wide open (and with vigenetting), corners will be soft, and in your example 35mm does have the softest corner(s). 

My favorite FL is the 35mm, so that's why I could not stomach not getting what I wanted with the lens for $2100.


----------



## longtallkarl (Oct 28, 2013)

triggyman - these are from the right side center - not the corner. corners are all similar, although it's possible that the right side is a little worse than the left side. stopping down certainly helps some, but again, i'm not expecting the edges and corners to be sharp at f2.8. i was simply struck with how different 35mm was compared to 24 and 70.

you mention that you returned a copy - but did you exchange it for one that was better? or just get rid of it?

-k


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 28, 2013)

longtallkarl said:


> mt spokane: fair enough.
> 
> here are some jpegs that are 100% crops from the center and edge (not even the corner) shot at 24, 35 and 70. they were shot raw, processed to jpeg in lr with no sharpening, lens corrections, or any other adjustments.
> 
> ...


 
I'd agree that its not up to spec. If You can exchange it, I'd do it. I think mine is better. Usually, 70mm is the weak point.

I don't have such good images to post, so I've nothing you can compare.

Photo zone got one of the lenses that was weak at the long end, so there is variation. Their lens was sharpest by far at 24mm


----------



## Triggyman (Oct 28, 2013)

longtallkarl said:


> triggyman - these are from the right side center - not the corner. corners are all similar, although it's possible that the right side is a little worse than the left side. stopping down certainly helps some, but again, i'm not expecting the edges and corners to be sharp at f2.8. i was simply struck with how different 35mm was compared to 24 and 70.
> 
> you mention that you returned a copy - but did you exchange it for one that was better? or just get rid of it?
> 
> -k



Oh I missed that "edge" label, my mind was thinking about corners 

I asked for a refund. I am aware of copy variations, as a matter of fact I was very happy with the lens at first, but my copy was almost perfect for my taste except for that unusual softness at the lower left corner. I'm a little scared of trying another one because of the cost despite the shop offering me another copy to test. $2100 is a lot of money for an amateur/hobbyist.

I decided to get back to primes. But still I have high regard for the 24-70 II. I agree with Mt.Spokane, try another copy while you still can. I hope you will find the best copy for you.


----------



## R1-7D (Nov 14, 2013)

I'm really sick of this lens. I had mine for literally three days over a month and took it back to the store for a decentering issue. The store refused to replace it and arranged to send it to Canon. It's been there five weeks and no word from them. 

People can argue that there is production variation on a product, but something this expensive that has been produced for over a year now has no excuse in my opinion in having this kind of trouble. Canon should be ashamed.


----------



## mackguyver (Nov 18, 2013)

R1-7D said:


> I'm really sick of this lens. I had mine for literally three days over a month and took it back to the store for a decentering issue. The store refused to replace it and arranged to send it to Canon. It's been there five weeks and no word from them.
> 
> People can argue that there is production variation on a product, but something this expensive that has been produced for over a year now has no excuse in my opinion in having this kind of trouble. Canon should be ashamed.


Wow, that's a terrible experience and I can't believe it's been at Canon so long. Did you send it directly to Canon? If so, which location? In my experience with the NJ and VA service centers, even before becoming a CPS member, they usually looked at my lens and sent me an update (warranty fix or out of warranty repair price) within 24 hours. Once I approved the repair (online) it was just a day or two before they fixed it and sent it back to me. Lens calibrations take the longest time, but usually aren't more than 2-3 days. If you know which service center it went to, call Canon directly and they should be able to give you a status based on your name or at the very least your serial #. 1-800-OK-CANON / 1-800-652-2666


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 18, 2013)

R1-7D said:


> I'm really sick of this lens. I had mine for literally three days over a month and took it back to the store for a decentering issue. The store refused to replace it and arranged to send it to Canon. It's been there five weeks and no word from them.
> 
> People can argue that there is production variation on a product, but something this expensive that has been produced for over a year now has no excuse in my opinion in having this kind of trouble. Canon should be ashamed.


Canon Canada has a hit and miss reputation for quick turnaround, and a store might just not be prompt at sending it in, but rather wait and send several back. 

I'd always send it direct and know exactly when it actually went out.


----------



## alexanderferdinand (Nov 19, 2013)

Mine is sharp. 

@ service: I too don`t like not to be able just to get a replacement.
They should invest their time having no sufficient QC.


----------

