I couldn't wait for Christmas

[HDNitehawk]

Thanks John;

I tried to print the target on my Pixma 9500 and matt paper. I think the ink has set to long, I couldn't get it to even print pictures.
I will print a target off of the Pixma 9000 tonight on matt and run the test again.

[HDNitehawk]

I'd be concerned, and sending it back makes sense. You could pick reasonable AFMA values, maybe W = +2 and T = 0 or +1, and use FoCal to run a single-AFMA aperture sharpness test at 50mm and 70mm, to see how they compare.

I took your advice, to extremes. I printed off a new chart on the Pixma 9000 using matt paper. Rearranged the lights to make sure a bit and got a little better results and the range tightened a bit.

I ran the aperture sharpness test all the way across the board. This lens seems to back focus at 50mm and then it falls off at 70mm.

This is what the chart looks like. I think a person could take this lens and be very happy with it because it performs so well at 50mm.
I am still leaning toward sending it back.

This is tonights results and is the IQ at f/2.8 at each setting from the foCal aperture sharpness test;

Setting	24mm	35mm	50mm	70mm
-2	1139	1095		1101
-1	1109	1132	1150	1088
0	1139	1122	1147	1101
1	1125	1161	1151	1075
2	1130	1152	1169	1069
3	1012	1002	1189
4			1170
Average	1	1	3	-1

[ahab1372]

According to this table I would just dial in a +1. Is the decrease from 1151 to 1075 noticeable? I don't have any Focal experience, but it seems marginal to me

[HDNitehawk]

After 2 weeks I received my replacement lens. UPS took 14 days to deliver back to B&H. Praises to the B&H folks they offered and sent the replacement lens overnight and it arrived yesterday. They also told me that on a replacement the 30 day return period starts over. +2 for B&H. -1 for UPS of course.

So last night I checked AF, it was pretty even and checked out.
Today I took a set of real world samples and checked the lens against my 24mm f/1.4L II, 35mm f/1.4L and 70-200mm f/2.8L II and the 16-35mm f/2.8L II.

Let it be said at normal view on my 24" monitor full screen I doubt any one would ever notice much difference in these lenses. But on closer inspection I notice that the sharpness of my 24mm f/1.4L II and 35mm f/1.4 are as good or slightly sharper in the corners than the 24-70mm. I do not think this lens is as sharp as the first lens I had, using the limited number of pictures I took as comparison with the first lens (I wish I had done more now).

I just set up some make shift charts in the front room, took some shots and it confirmed what I was seeing in the field. Near equal sharpness in the middle, slightly behind the 24mm L and 35mm L in the corners.

This is what concerns me, an quote from Bryan's review;

"In this comparison, the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens turns in image quality that is remarkably similar to the incredible Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II Tilt-Shift Lens. This particular location in the frame compares especially unfavorably for the 24-70 L (and the 24 L II)."

If you look at Bryan's review this is referring to the squash and pumpkin crop out of the left corner of his picture.http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

I am getting no where close to the image quality difference with the 24mm L at f/2.8 as shown in Bryan's crop.

From the pictures I took with the first body of the brick wall, I should be seeing a bit better sharpness.

I am going to check the new lens out it again tomorrow. It looks like it may be going back as well.

Side note; even though I appear to be overly picky, which I am when buying a $2300 lens, either of these lenses exceed the 16-35mm II substantially and are a major upgrade from the old 24-70mm IMO.

[shutterdown]

This is frustrating, to say the least. Not only are you spending time sending these lenses back and forth, you're also spending a lot of time evaluating them. You've got the skills to check all of that. Imagine someone who buys this lens, and wouldn't know much about how to confirm what you've found.

It's very disconcerting and discouraging.

Let's hope that the third time is the charm.

[HDNitehawk]

Actually my skills are somewhat limited, and I don't have the high dollar charts and equipment to test with that some of the forum members have. I do have a nice set of L lenses to compare to and my homemade charts, best of all Bryan's good info. As far as spending time testing, I kind of enjoy it.

I did some more comparisons tonight, I figured it wouldn't do any good to send it back until monday. The new 24-70 is giving near identical IQ and resolution as the 24mm f/1.4 L, the checks I did more checks after I posted this initially and the more I check they are neck and neck. I just picked up some supplies at Hobby Lobby and I am going to set up different home made targets.

I have always thought my 24mm L was an exceptional lens. I bought a TSE 24mm a year or so ago then returned it. My 24mm was sharper in the center and only slightly less sharp on the edges. I thought at the time that I had gotten a bad copy of the TSE. Now I wonder if I just have a really good copy of the 24mm f1.4 L.

But to your comments about someone without the ability to test buying this lens. Either of the 24-70 lenses I had were producing near prime quality. If a person had never owned a prime or just moved up to this lens, I think they would be very satisfied with even a model giving the lowest results. Going from an old 24-70 they would say "wow". For me I am just to picky.

[shutterdown]

But to your comments about someone without the ability to test buying this lens. Either of the 24-70 lenses I had were producing near prime quality. If a person had never owned a prime or just moved up to this lens, I think they would be very satisfied with even a model giving the lowest results. Going from an old 24-70 they would say "wow". For me I am just to picky.

Well, maybe you're picky (I don't think so), but for $2300, I'd expect to be picky, too. And, for that kind of money, the lens needs to perform near flawlessly without having to send back two copies. The Canon hype demands that it does.

[eldarhau]

This has been an interesting read. I got my 24-70 II a few weeks back and the results it has given me has been outstanding. I did not buy the version I, because I thought it was too big and heavy, so my basis for comparison has primarily been the 24-105mm f4.0L. But I also upgraded to the 1DX at the same time, so in all fairness, I have not done a very thorough quality control on the lens.

Having read your experience H, I became a bit worried and decided to give it a more dedicated check. I have verified it against the 24 mm f2.4L II, 50mm f1.2L, 24-105mm f4.0L IS and the 70-200mm f2.8L IS II. I do not have the expensive charts either, so I had to create scenarios I believed would show any weaknesses. I checked focusing with a LensAlign MkII and concluded on an even -1 throughout the zoom range. I shot enough images with it to conclude that AF is both very fast, stable and accurate from very low to very high temperatures.

Color is a bit more difficult to be totally objective about, but it looks good to me on my iMac 27". CA is also very well controlled. The main problem in my view is vignetting. It falls off a bit more than I like, but when required, I fix it in Lightroom or Photoshop.

Sharpness and resolution is then left, and what I have seen from my copy of the lens is very good. Center is as good or better than any of the lenses I compared to, throughout the zoom range. corners are slightly behind the 24mm, but not much. It competes very well with the others. The 70-200 is sharper, but then that lens is just incredible. Compared to the 50mm, I´d have to conclude that the 24-70 is better.

I hope Canon is reading your posts here. When charging USD2300 for this lens, you should certainly expect and get both first class and consistent quality.

Good luck with No.3!

[HDNitehawk]

Center is as good or better than any of the lenses I compared to, throughout the zoom range. corners are slightly behind the 24mm, but not much. It competes very well with the others.

Mine is pretty much as you describe at 24mm. The vignetting is just part of this lens I think.

I posted this earlier, but this is from Bryan's review and talking about the corners;
"In this comparison, the Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L II USM Lens turns in image quality that is remarkably similar to the incredible Canon TS-E 24mm f/3.5 L II Tilt-Shift Lens. This particular location in the frame compares especially unfavorably for the 24-70 L (and the 24 L II)."

In my mind it leaves a few possibilities. Bryan's copy of the 24mm f/1.4L II is not as good as the copy I have, which I have a hard time believing he would have a low performing version considering the amount of testing he does on these lenses. Another option, which is the direction I would tend to believe, is that my copy of the 24-70mm is not performing as well as his fourth copy.

Here is some info that might help, and some charts you can print off to test with;
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010...to-test-a-lens

The same link had a link to this site, I am trying some of their free charts today;
http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF5.html#using

For those reading the thread, I have been talking mostly resolution. Then trying to figure out if a zoom lens is resolving better than one of Canon's finest prime lenses. That should speak volumes about the quality of this lens. If we compare other factors like lens distortion, vignetting, flare and chromatic aberration these factors all make the 24mm f/1.4L the better lens.

[bob williams]

HD, I bumped this thread to see where you stand with the new 24-70 II or if you have even rec'd copy 3 yet. This is a lens I have been droooling over and am seriously considering getting rid of both my 50 1.2L and my 100L macro to finance it. But, after reading your experience I am, to say the least, reluctant.

Any new info you have would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Bob