Canon 24-70L Classic - Someone told me...

I work in a camera store selling photo equipment. Long story short, someone came in who is a member of CPS, and he said that the employees at CPS view the 24-70L classic as "the worst L lens ever made" which I found hard to believe. He said the sharpness between copies was very inconsistent and it had poor autofocus.

I find this really hard to believe, but I'm wondering if there's some truth to it. My 24-70L classic has always been really sharp, except for the time when I dropped it and had to have it repaired. But then again, I've only done extensive testing with it on my 40D (which is crop and a relatively low resolution). I've shot with it on a 5D Mk ii, and it seemed fine, but it never did any formal testing with it.

He also said he preferred the 24-105L because it was sharper than the 24-70L at compatible apertures/focal lengths and had less distortion...

:confused:

~Matt

I've read about the differences in sharpness between copies of the 24-70 classic, but I've never owned one, so I can't confirm it. Bryan's review of the Mk II version of this lens indicates the issue continues with the new version, as he encountered significant differences between copies.

I am not sure if it is the "worst", I was never happy with the copy I had. I thought I had a bad copy.

Roger at Lensrentals has probably seen more of those lenses than the rest of us ever could (barring a visit to a factory or something), and he's written a nice blog here about the differences between the mk1 and mk2 of this lens, from what I've read there the new one certainly looks a lot better and more robust.
As to whether it's the 'worst', that's debatable, I suppose it's probably the worst 'most popular' one (especially considering the people who'd want it would have higher expectations and would treat it more harshly), but there's a lot more old ones to compare from that noone uses anymore...

I own a 24-105 lens- and have never used the 24-70. so just adding some internet opinions---

from what I've read it was one of the better selling L lenses, as in there are more copies out there relative to other lenses.

I speculate that CPS employees view it as the worst L lens ever.. as they work on repairing or adjusting them more than any other L lens.

Much in the same way as a VW mechanic says the golf is the worst vw.

I also speculate that a member of CPS going around bad mouthing a product may not be CPS for long.

On the other hand...it may still be a very good lens even if it would be "the worst L lens ever made". It doesn't take too much to earn that title.

Here's what I think about the 24-70 I's quality control issue, softness, copy to copy variants or whatever it is. The 24-70 f/2.8L is very popular, every Canon shooter I know has it and for most of them it is their first L lens for their xxxD and xxD bodies. Most of these newbies, myself included, thought that If we spent $1100+ on an L lens then it should produce the sharpest images that they had never seen from their 18-55 or 17-85 kit lenses. They became disappointed to find out that their $1100+ L zoom is not much sharper than their kit lens. I think 95% of the problem of the 24-70 started from this group.

If you were to take him for face value then you might have run into KR!

If I were to choose the worst L lens it probably would be the 50mm f/1.2, it's soft at any aperture (worst than the 24-70mm I), has a focusing issues at close distances. Never mind trying to get a copy that focuses on your body without AF micro adjust.

But as you can see I am exaggerating just to prove a point, as bad as I might make it sound it's still and great lens for it's intended use and one of my favorite lenses if I were shooting FF. I think that's what he meant.

John.

I own a 24-70L Classic. I've rented it several times. I own a 24-105. Roger@LensRentals has shown that the plastic sleeves on the "pins" that handle the zooming tend to wear out worse than any other lens, so with heavy use they can get inconsistent; supposedly the Mark II is vastly improved in this department. That said, my 24-70 is excellent, outperforms my 24-105 by a mile (just feel like everything shot with the 24-105 is "flat", while the 24-70 has sizzle). When I got the 24-70, my wife got the 24-105; I don't miss it, and I'm fearful of the day when she asks for a 24-70 of her own. If money were no object, I suspect the 24-70 would be the only zoom lens I'd own - I'm the kind of person who will take bodies and primes regardless of weight, and the 24-70 is good enough that I feel like I could skip a few primes in that range and not regret it. (For our last Alaska cruise in August, the 40D/10-22 got relegated to time lapse duties, while we spent the week with 1D3+14/2.8, 7D+24-70, 7D+70-200/4IS, 1DX+400DO+1.4xTCIII, and the 16-35/2.8II never got used, while our 24-105 and 70-200/2.8 stayed at home.)