Canon 24-70 2.8

Haha love his reviews! His opening words: "I think I just jizzed in me pants". :lol:
 
daugirdas said:
The weight of the extending bit is heavy enough to exert enough force to wreck the lens collar. Or if you like it it wasn't back-heavy enough to balance properly
Click to expand...
I've got nearly 20 of the 24-70 Mk I lenses, and they see a lot of use, and that really hasn't been a significant issue.
 
StewartR said:
I've got nearly 20 of the 24-70 Mk I lenses, and they see a lot of use, and that really hasn't been a significant issue.
Click to expand...

how many of them have wobbly lens assembly when extended? I am guessing a few would... That leads to rather soft sides I believe. If it goes further, 70mm becomes rather soft. These issues are well documented. I paid £140 to Canon earlier this year to sort out the former. Of course once can ignore it and treat £1000 lens like a Sigma.
 
daugirdas said:
how many of them have wobbly lens assembly when extended? I am guessing a few would...
Click to expand...
Currently: none. We test every single lens, every time it comes back to us, and we simply wouldn't allow a lens with a wobbly lens assembly to stay in circulation.

Of course things do come loose from time to time, on all sorts of lenses. The design of the 24-70 make it look like it would be more prone to issues with the front assembly, and I bet that's why you hear so much of it. It happens to someone, they don't have experience of dozens of identical lenses so they have no idea whether it is a common fault, they look at the design of the lens and they think it must be common, and the chatter on the internet supports them.

But, statistically, we've had just as many wobbly front assemblies on 70-200mm f/2.8s, and you don't see people complaining about that all the time.
 
Last edited:
There's some ISO charts up on thedigitalpicture website now. Maybe my eyes need testing or something, but to me it looks like the mk1 is better at 70mm than the mk2, and better in the mid-frame and corners at 24mm :thinking:

Perhaps I was expecting better for twice the price, but I assumed the mk2 would clearly better across the board, like it is in the center at 24mm.
 
Xenon54 said:
There's some ISO charts up on thedigitalpicture website now. Maybe my eyes need testing or something, but to me it looks like the mk1 is better at 70mm than the mk2, and better in the mid-frame and corners at 24mm :thinking:

Perhaps I was expecting better for twice the price, but I assumed the mk2 would clearly better across the board, like it is in the center at 24mm.
Click to expand...

Looks much better to me. Maybe not the same leap forward as the 70-200 Mk1 vs Mk2 better but, to continue the analogy, definitely more of a good jump than a small step.
 
As a matter of interest, how wobbly should the 24-70mm be?

Mine definitely wobbles and makes a "clicking" noise when it wobbles.

Also if you shake the lens slightly, I can also hear a slight "clicking" as if the barrel is moving.

I have been feeling that the lens is not performing as it should be, especially at larger apertures...
 
HoppyUK said:
Looks much better to me. Maybe not the same leap forward as the 70-200 Mk1 vs Mk2 better but, to continue the analogy, definitely more of a good jump than a small step.
Click to expand...

Arrrragh! now you've got me thinking I'm going crazy, so I just looked again (70mm @ 2.8 center) and I'm fairly certain the mk1 wins by quite a bit. Oh well, perhaps I should stop measurbating and go take some pictures instead.
 
Xenon54 said:
Arrrragh! now you've got me thinking I'm going crazy, so I just looked again (70mm @ 2.8 center) and I'm fairly certain the mk1 wins by quite a bit. Oh well, perhaps I should stop measurbating and go take some pictures instead.
Click to expand...

LOL you're quite right, centre at 70mm f/2.8 is sharper! I can't believe that's right though, maybe just a testing glitch they'll put right. Edges there are much better on the new lens, old version is showing both CA and astigmatism. And the Mk2 is better everywhere else.
 
StewartR said:
Currently: none. We test every single lens, every time it comes back to us, and we simply wouldn't allow a lens with a wobbly lens assembly to stay in circulation.

Of course things do come loose from time to time, on all sorts of lenses. The design of the 24-70 make it look like it would be more prone to issues with the front assembly, and I bet that's why you hear so much of it. It happens to someone, they don't have experience of dozens of identical lenses so they have no idea whether it is a common fault, they look at the design of the lens and they think it must be common, and the chatter on the internet supports them.

But, statistically, we've had just as many wobbly front assemblies on 70-200mm f/2.8s, and you don't see people complaining about that all the time.
Click to expand...

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/01/lens-repair-data-2011 statistically it came up quite high in another rental company's lists (there are a few other worse lenses from all manufacturers of course) - problems: soft 70mm, and zoom mechanism

Xenon54 said:
Arrrragh! now you've got me thinking I'm going crazy, so I just looked again (70mm @ 2.8 center) and I'm fairly certain the mk1 wins by quite a bit. Oh well, perhaps I should stop measurbating and go take some pictures instead.
Click to expand...

At 70mm mk2 is much more uniform and better in the corners. At every other setting it is simply better, but just a little bit...
 
StewartR said:
I've got nearly 20 of the 24-70 Mk I lenses, and they see a lot of use, and that really hasn't been a significant issue.
Click to expand...

I've hammered mine for 10 years, bought it shortly after release, still going strong, one of the most reliable lenses I've ever used :)

Must be just me, I've never had a bad copy of a lens, never done micro adjust, still wonder why I get loads of sharp pics...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top