Results 1 to 9 of 9

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

  1. #1

    Question 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...



    ~Matt
    Digital.. Canon EOS 40D | Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM | Canon EF 35mm f/1.4​L​ USM | Canon SpeedLite 580EX II
    Film..... Canon EOS 650 | Canon EF 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 | Canon SpeedLite 430EX II

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    East Central Illinois
    Posts
    850
    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.
    Mark - Flickr
    ************************

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    3,110
    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.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    759
    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...
    An awful lot of electrons were terribly inconvenienced in the making of this post.
    Gear Photos

  5. #5
    Senior Member Kombi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Alberta, Canada
    Posts
    309
    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.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    478
    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.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Anaheim, CA
    Posts
    741
    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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member FastGass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Beautiful Ferndale Washington.
    Posts
    154
    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.
    Amateurs worry about gear, pros about the pay, masters about the light, and I just take pictures!

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,156
    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.)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •