How many times did you return (L) lenses to get a good copy?

[Dylan777]

I wonder how many people were shooting test charts and returning lenses in the film era.

I think it's crazy when people say things like, "my lens was a little soft at f/1.4 so I exchanged it", or "my ultra wide-angle lens' edges are soft wide open".  At what point are people chasing unrealistic and unnecessary expectations?

We should use today technology(Reiken FoCal, photoshop, or lightroom) as our advantages. Why settle with a  -10 back focus lens when you can select a better copy.

[victorwol]

Of course. You paid for it you have the right to demand what you expect from it. It is just some people expect unreal things. Of course a lens is a +/- 10 has a serious problem. I tested 5 with focal and no one was more than +/- 1 so I stopped because got bored of testing them.

[Botts]

Of course. You paid for it you have the right to demand what you expect from it. It is just some people expect unreal things. Of course a lens is a +/- 10 has a serious problem. I tested 5 with focal and no one was more than +/- 1 so I stopped because got bored of testing them.

Really?  Every one of my lenses is out by at least 4.

My 50mm f/1.4 is out by +7, my 70-200mm f/4 is out by +5 wide, and -1 tele.  My 40STM is a +4.

My 70-200mm f/4 is tack sharp, and even before the +5 fix, it took fabulous photos.  Some of which grace my office walls at 20x30".  There's no reason I'd send it back for being out by 5.

Similarly, the 50 f/1.4 is a great lens, it just needed a little adjustment.

[victorwol]

Yop.... But I have to try the 600 I just got, I have the feeling that one is a bit off.....

[RustyTheGeek]

I got a 35/1.4L used (eBay) that was pristine in box and at first I thought was perfect.  Then I shot with it and noticed front focusing.  It was bad enough to notice in normal photos being soft that I knew something was wrong.  At the time, all I had was a 30D, 40D and 5D so no way to do AFMA either.  Ended up eventually selling it off.  The buyer thought it was fine, didn't know what I was talking about.  Weird but fine with me.

I'll eventually get another 35L lens, I really liked that lens.  Having loads of fun with my 24L-ii for now though.  I'm burned out on spending money on this stuff for a while.  I need to sell some stuff!

Wish CR would start a buy&sell area.  eBay is too risky to sell on anymore for the seller.

[victorwol]

eBay risky? Why? I have sold so much gear lately... How can a place like this be less risky with all the protections eBay have in place? Just wondering. Not looking for a debate.

[Botts]

eBay risky? Why? I have sold so much gear lately... How can a place like this be less risky with all the protections eBay have in place? Just wondering. Not looking for a debate.

As long as you meet eBay/PayPal's conditions for seller protection you're pretty much ok.

It'd be way safer than a CR buy/sell area.

[Richard8971]

Well, I don't know if this is a true "confession" as I bought my EF 70-200 f/4L IS USM used (from a good friend of mine).

I had to send it back to Canon 2 times for blurry photos. The second time it came back I sold it promptly and bought the 70-300 f/4L IS USM.

Now when the 200mm was working it took fantastic photos, and each time Canon said the "problem" was due to "electronic" adjustments of the AF system. I couldn't take the chance so I sold it while it was under warranty of a Canon repair.

I love my 70-300 so far and I wish I had gotten one sooner.

D

[BL]

6 L lenses.  All purchased new.

No returns.  No bad copies here

[Marsu42]

I'm a bit embarrassed to admit this, but I'm not even sure what to do to test a lens.

Testing for absolute sharpness is difficult unless unless you have some lenses of the same type, but you can roughly compare to the iso crops from the digital picture. Adjusting afma is easier (or more expensive if using focal pro) - but looking for decentering is really easy and that's what I did above: Shoot a test chart so that fine patterns at the edges and corners, then compare the relative sharpness of the outer areas.

This one is very good for this purpose: http://www.bealecorner.org/red/test-patterns/EIA1956.pdf

At what point are people chasing unrealistic and unnecessary expectations?

Good question, that's why I attached the crops above. But for even for €670 (which actually is also a lot of money to me, I could nearly buy another 60d for that) I expect the lens to perform at the top 1/3rd of the potential - and it's frustrating to see that one side of the lens is visibly sharper than the other.

At times, the 17-40L has been notorious for that (a few years ago many people complained about one side being worse and every single person always mentioned the same side so I wonder if there had not been some bad runs on it a few years ago). I exchanged my first one. Pretty huge difference.

Thanks, that probably explains it (my 100L and 70-300L are just fine with the first copy), I hope the next 17-40L will be better :-o because since the lens isn't the sharpest on the block I'd really at least get the max. possible lens performance. On the 100L a small difference wouldn't matter because that one is incredibly sharp anyway.

[picturesbyme]

Might also have to do with the body it's used with. 

I'm sure everyone here know this http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/ by heart but for those who missed it its a useful read.

"By the way – for those of you who are screaming “for $2,000 my zoom lens should be perfect” let me introduce a bit of perspective. A nice, cinema quality (read the best it can possibly be) prime lens runs anywhere from $8,000 to $25,000, while a top quality cinema zoom runs from $25,000 to $70,000. And even at that price a technician will need to spend an hour or so adjusting the lens to the camera that’s using it to get the absolute best results. The best SLR lenses don’t even approach the quality (or quality control) of an entry level cinema lens. Not to mention you probably don’t have a full-time camera tech."

I know (mostly) it's easier to replace the lens however I was wondering if anyone tried the same lens with another  (same model) body and found that the lens was good on that one and replaced the body instead.. .

[Rienzphotoz]

Never! ... over the past few years I bought 7 L lenses and never returned them ... but I sold a few to upgrade to faster glass, like 17-40 f/4 L (sold to upgrade to 16-35 f/2.8 II).

[rs]

Sigma 50/1.4, once. The first copy front focused so much that even thumbnails of the images appeared badly OOF. My second copy nails the focus.

I was half asleep when I wrote my first reply, and missed the L bit.

I did also get my 70-200 II replaced for a more minor issue. At 70mm wide open the mk II was softer than the mk I which I still owned at the time. I even tried tripod mounting it and manually focusing with live view - I was unable to improve on what AF had done (either with or without IS), so AFMA would not have helped. From looking at the test chart shots on TDP, I knew what the lens was capable of. I got the mk II replaced, and the new one is better than I could have hoped for.

All my other Canon lenses (purchased 2 L, 2 non L) have been fine.

[bycostello]

never, but i don't have interest in photos of lens targets...

[FunPhotons]

Never tested, never returned. Such anal-retentiveness is not for me. And now my lenses are my friends. I don't even sell anything anymore, if a lens isn't getting any time I make it my job to figure out why and do something about it.

I would like to do a check though just to see sometime, maybe there are some focus issues I can correct for.