Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 22, 2012, 11:21

I really doubt that the 50/1.8 first version outperforms the 24-70/2.8, even stopped down to 2.8. The new version has to be stopped down to f4 or beyond to overtake the zoom in the corners (that's what the technical charts say, anyway) is the second version worse than the first version?

The difference between the first and second version is essentially, a metal mount vs. a plastic mount, and focus speed.  The second version focuses faster.  The first version currently sells used for more than the second version sells new.

If you read the charts, you'll find that the 50 f/1.8 is optically superior than the 50 f/1.4 on a full frame camera.  For clients, the f1/2 would be more desirable to give that "dreamy" look...which most agencies will refuse...another reason I haven't bought that lens yet.

I've also owned a 24-105L and I hated that lens even more because of the vignetting.  I know it's a popular lens (as is the 24-70) but experience has helped me form my own opinions about each product.  I prefer faster glass...I like primes over zooms unless I'm in a situation where I need to switch it up quickly (i.e. editorial, street, etc.).  That's just me and my style.  It's how I roll LOL   

I've got nothing against primes they do have advantages - curiously, one of them is that they are a bit of a straightjacket for composition which can actually be helpful forcing you to think more about how to handle a situation. Fast glass also auto-focuses faster.

Of course, if you are going to uprez files for Alamy, the sharper what you start with the better but I scarcely ever do that and with 24MB files being acceptable there image quality from the 24-70 is very unlikely to be a rejection reason.

The 24-70L is not good for stock. It is a convenient lens but with many problems. Borders are unsharp, many chromatic aberrations and uneven quality depending on the focal length. Primes trump any zoom always. Tele zooms are ok but wideangle ones in Canon territory are of borderline quality to pass the inspection process.

you have no CA on primes? yeh right...

I have no idea what exotic substances you guys are on but Canon's 24-70mm f2.8L is an outstanding lens which is perfect for stock or any other general use. Probably 98% of my port was captured using it and I get very few rejections. My only concern is that mine has now undertaken about 500K shutter operations and I'd assume that at some point the auto-focus motor may die and need replacing.

As it happens my initial batch for Alamy just been passed by QC. All 4 images were captured with the 24-70 and included full-sized images of landscapes and close-up work. It's an L glass lens __ I'd have been astonished if they hadn't passed.

Yes of course CA can be a problem (because it is a zoom lens) but only under extreme circumstances and it can usually be corrected in PS anyway. The convenience of the zoom way exceeds the inconvenience of the occasional CA.

+1 on your whole post. 

Much of my portfolio was captured using the Canon 24-70L.  Perhaps I just have an exceptional copy, but it is as sharp as my primes, to my eye.   

Over the last couple of years I am using the 24-105L more simply because it's lighter and with the image-stabilization I don't have to bother with a tripod.  Plus the extra reach is nice.  Since I shoot mostly with strobes rather than available light, F4 is not too limiting. 

Gostwyck, you'll find the QC on Alamy is less rigorous than on the micros. You should get 100% acceptance.
The CA on the 24-70 is very slight and is completely eliminated by the Digital Photo Professional software that Canon supplies with the camera. I run shots through it automatically (it only works in RAW though).

Primes trump any zoom always.

This is just silly. Have you never seen a shot taken with a Petzval lens or a Cooke Triplet? Even the Tessar does not have a flat focal plane and the Sonnar is noted for CA. The best Canon zooms not only outperform those, they also outperform the worst of its primes and even - at wide apertures - the well respected 50/1.8.

In any case, you can get photos taken with triplets or Tessars accepted at any site if you work within the lenses' limits. They can sell well, too. (So can medium format, actually, qwerty, but I don't think any of my 1940s, 50s or 60s lenses had strontium-flavoured halites in them. Maybe just the odd bit of Strontium-90 fallout form the aerial nuclear tests).

I can't see your image at 100%...but I'll give you my experience.  I'm not sure what brand you shoot, but I shoot Canon and I own the 24-70 f/2.8L.  That lens sucks...big time.  It's great for editorial and reportage but for creative stock, it's the pits.  I'm willing to bet that the "soft and lacking definition" is a result of the lens being soft in the corners.  Take a look at the image at 100% and look at all four corners.  Is it soft?  Is it in focus?

I have an image submitted on the microstock agencies of a wind farm.  I couldn't submit the image to the traditional agencies I work with because all four corners were soft.  I cropped it to a smaller size and submitted it to the micros (that allow for smaller image sizes) and it has done very well.

That's my experience.

this will force a new habit for me. Often when I do final sharpening I take some off if the image has areas of shallow DOF, and usually that means the corners! shall pay more attention in the future.

btw, I LOVE your image, it's the exact type of thing I love to shoot. I've got quite a few like that from my days at college shooting in b&w film and my teacher used to teasingly call me "house & garden", and then say "sorry, it's cute, but not commercial". *sigh* she'd easily get a job as a stock reviewer!

hmmm ...who is going to buy a photo of Fence in b/w ? 

hmmm ...who is going to buy a photo of Fence in b/w ?  

It it was sharp, I'd far rather have the fence than this one:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/2011/11/15/142342119/meet-the-worlds-most-expensive-photo-part-ii
@OP: that said, ignore your friends and family unless they have relevant stock experience. My friends and family don't understand why NatGeo isn't beating down my door, and we can ignore that as a valid opinion.
Ask them, seriously, how much they'd pay for the image if it wasn't you who took it. That'll let you know what they really think. "Um, well, I don't buy photos" shows they aren't in the market and probably know little about it.

http://www.alamy.com/contributor/help/prepare-images.asp#QC

Once you've passed your QC test we only check a sample of images in subsequent submissions.
A submission is defined as any group of media that are awaiting QC at the same time regardless of the day they were submitted (they will all have the status “Awaiting QC”).
If we fail one image, we will reject all images in all media awaiting QC at that time.
Media grouped together as a submission will be QC’d together and will have the same QC date in “Track submissions”.
We will indicate the media which contains the failed image, with an information icon in Track submissions.
Avoid rejection by always checking each of your images at 100% looking for all possible QC failure reasons.
The average amount of time for a contributor to wait for their QC outcome is 48 hours – please note that we do not undertake any QC at the weekend.
QC waiting time is dependent on your QC history, failing QC successive times harms your QC rank meaning that it will take up to four weeks to receive notification that you have failed QC. Blog post on QC time dependent on your QC history.
Ongoing QC failures can result in your online upload privilege being frozen for six months and in extreme circumstances your account being terminated.

All I am saying is that "in my experience" the best L zoom are not even close to the best L primes. May be it was my copy (because I sold it a few weeks ago) but the 24-70 2.8 from 2.8 to f4 was garbage. My 24L 35L 24 TS II trumps on it every day at the wide angle end. And if I want longer the 50 1.4 or the 100 macro also were much better than "my copy".

An interesting article specifically on the 24-70L (Sorry for the OT): 
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation

I own one and I love mine, but it does appear to have a wider variation than some of Canon's other Ls.  Which probably explains all the mixed reviews you see online. 

Quote from: fieldsphotos on February 28, 2012, 02:20

An interesting article specifically on the 24-70L (Sorry for the OT): 
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/10/the-limits-of-variation

I own one and I love mine, but it does appear to have a wider variation than some of Canon's other Ls.  Which probably explains all the mixed reviews you see online. 

^^^ That is a superb article. Thanks for posting.

Ditto and Super article.

There's also another, which I will hunt up on demand, where the variance of the camera and the lens are discussed. For example (making it all up) Say you have a 5D and it's a Plus 2 camera. Out from perfect +2% and you have a lens that's a Plus 2%. Well they are going to be nuts on and a nice match.

You buy a camera that's a -2% and have your same old lens that was perfect before, now it's 4% off and starts to have problems. Blame the camera, blame the lens, or Neither, they are just out of tolerance, within limits, but opposing each other.

That's why the micro adjustment on cameras is such a nice feature. And it needs to be done for every lens you own, one every camera.

Going back to the original hijack of this thread  one 24-70 may be at the one end of the limits for QC and the camera at the other end, and it's going to make something look bad. Change to a lens that's closer to the variation of the camera and suddenly everything is better.

Anyway, excellent article, especially the part about the plastic spacers on zoom lenses.

Thats called religion.

Thats called religion.

With personal respect to religion, it's all faith based, and that's the end of that story.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on February 22, 2012, 11:21

I sometimes think people just repeat what they read somewhere, without paying attention to their own real-world experience.

amen to that! and not just in photography.... I come across ppl repeating "truths" all the time. (will some clever person please invent a new work that combines "myth" "truth" "misconception") we are in dire need of such a term.

Well lets see, POLITICS comes to mind and it's pretty close to religion. Repeat the party line, without any facts? Spew hateful "truths" about the other side?

But I think what might do for what you asked is a Factoid?

A factoid is a questionable or spurious (unverified, false, or fabricated) statement presented as a fact, but with no veracity.

Things like, if you have a photo go live on Monday, it will sell better for it's lifetime than if it goes live on Friday. (my viewpoint is a good photo will sell whatever day it's uploaded or approved) How does someone prove the myth of better sales. Any documentation or is it just a factoid?

A better one than that, which refuses to die, is "resize in increments of 10% each time, and it will look better". Maybe in 1999 but we aren't shooting 640 x 480 anymore either. 

Oh and the top of the list for almost everyone here... "Microstock is just a passing fad."