Soft lens syndrome: Canon 16-35L vs. 24-70L

Nimai

On the subject of [thread=58016]lens softness[/thread], I have been disappointed by my 16-35L since I got it [thread=35029]repaired[/thread].
Here's a head's up comparison. I'm not past thinking it's my fault my shots are soft, believe me, but this just doesn't look right! Can anyone corroborate? Should I send my gear in for calibration?
I set my tripod up infront of my monitors, set my 30D in Manual to ISO 200, f/4.0 and dialied the shutter down until the exposure was right at 1/4 second. I let the camera focus using center point with each lens. I used the timer to take a shot to eliminate shake.
Here's some full-size crops from dead-center of the image:


Thanks for any insight.

ziggy53

Without knowing more details, like the distance from camera to subject, and knowing if this is a typical distance expectation, it's hard to pass judgement.

If you have images made of the "same" lens, before and after the repair, that's usually a better measure of changes.

Otherwise, take more tests at more typical distance situations and conditions.

The 16-35mm version does look out-of-focus, compared to the 24-70mm version. The 16-35mm "Closest Focusing Distance" is 0.28m / 0.9 ft., and the 24-70mm "Closest Focusing Distance" is 0.38m / 1.25 ft., according to Canon, so I would expect better from the 16-35mm.

I usually take test images at infinity (or close to it) when I first get a new lens, and then a few select images around my own yard and the neighbors' yards (trees and cars mostly), just so I have some reference shots for later comparison.

Nimai

Storing a few shots at the beginning is a good idea.
These were both shot at (approx) 35mm from a distance of about 3 feet.

Just this morning I shot a bunch at my sons school, stubornly using my 16-35mm because that's the range I wanted. Just for the heck of it, I changed lenses half way though to a 50mm f/1.4 and those shots looked great! The earlier 16-35mm photos - soft.

I guess I'm wondering if anyone has any experience or recommends sending the 30D and the lens into Canon?

ziggy53

Nimai wrote:

Storing a few shots at the beginning is a good idea.
These were both shot at (approx) 35mm from a distance of about 3 feet.

Just this morning I shot a bunch at my sons school, stubornly using my 16-35mm because that's the range I wanted. Just for the heck of it, I changed lenses half way though to a 50mm f/1.4 and those shots looked great! The earlier 16-35mm photos - soft.

I guess I'm wondering if anyone has any experience or recommends sending the 30D and the lens into Canon?

I haven't had to do that, but it sounds like it would be recommended in your case. If you do send it in, make sure you describe (in a written memo, included with the camera) that your other lenses are working to your expectations on that body, so you only want the "lens" calibrated to the body, with no body alterations whatsoever.

Have you tried manual focus, to see if that works? The more information you can uncover about the cause of the problem, the better your chances of a perfect resolution to the problem.

Nimai

I haven't tried manual focus. Do something like Focus Bracketing? I'll give it a shot.
Thanks again for your advice.

thedruid

my first post


My first post, hope it helps.

I would re test under better conditions, lighting is low available light and your subject matter is probably not what you shoot normally. At least try manual focus.

I just sent my 24-70L back to Canon service as I could not get a sharp image up to F8-11 at any setting, imagine that. I se up a sequence in overcast but bright light on tripod and made some tests at different settings. These I checked at 100% on my screen, they were really bad. I dumped them in a folder on my desktop and called Canon. Ten days and $120 later lens comes back and I re-shot the same test, boy it was like night and day. The 24-70L was finally delivering quality image's like it's supposed to.

h4rri

thedruid wrote:

Ten days and $120 later lens comes back and I re-shot the same test, boy it was like night and day. The 24-70L was finally delivering quality image's like it's supposed to.

You had to pay to have a defect rectified????

thedruid

Of course, once the lens is out of warranty you pay for service.

h4rri

thedruid wrote:

Of course, once the lens is out of warranty you pay for service.

Ah my apologies I assumed this was within the warranty. I wouldn't have thought they could have 'softened' with age

thedruid

Well they may not soften with age but if you use your gear a lot you'll probably end up sending a few lenses in for calibration or you'll knock something loose. This always seems to happen after the lens is out of warranty. Canon in the past repaired or serviced a lens for around $90 but said little or nothing about what they actually did to the lens, this has improved recently with a brief description of the repair.