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

[Badger]

Thank you all for the feedback!

[madspihl]

Actually I'll be going to the post office in 5 minutes to send back my new Sigma 35mm 1.4 because it can't lock focus properly (changes between front, back, and no proper focus at all), and AMFA seems to be unable to correct the irregular focus (obviously since the lens can never decide what to do). But I am definitely getting a new copy and not just making a return - the shots I did manage to get were amazing, and the lens holds a lot of promise.

Btw - that was my first Sigma lens in a lineup of Canon and Tokina lenses - none of which have ever had to be returned.

(But judging from the general comments all over the place I got a very rare lemon).

[victorwol]

My first and only Sigma lens went back for exchange too... Right out of the box could not focus at all

[neighborsgoat]

Had troubles only with the first version of the 24-70 f2.8. Went shopping in a pro shop, and always will do, due to the following facts: First copy of the lens was focus hunting right out of the box, in the shop. Tried a second copy, thought that was "the one". Went home, took about 60 pictures, went back the next day to exchange it, again for focusing problems. Tried two more copies and the last one worked as expected. And, thank God, still is

[7enderbender]

None. They're all good out of the box and AFMA adjustment turned out to be unnecessary. Maybe I'm just lucky. Maybe I'm not picky enough. Maybe buying locally helps? Don't know.

[eyeland]

Are there any open source or free alternatives to Focal or the likes out there?
I don't care enough about these issues to pay top dollar for a testing suite, but I wouldn't mind playing around with it a bit on a rainy day
It is also worth noting, that a lens in need of adjustment is a bigger problem when used on a non-afma body

[silat shooters]

The only L lens I have ever returned has been the 50mm f1.2L.  I just couldn't get past the focus shift.  No matter how many micro adjustments I made on the body, I never seem to get the focus where I wanted.  It was disappointing because I sooo wanted that creamy blur action.

I have to say that the most surprising L lens I own is the 16-35 f2.8 II L, that just delivers the goods every time!  I didn't expect it to be great as I continually read the Canon wide angles are weak with the TS-E lens being the exception.  But I'm very impressed and pleased with it.

The 300mm f2.8 IS II L is just magnificent.  Superb in every way.

Would love to get the new 24-70 but having a hard time with the price.

[drmikeinpdx]

I shot with a 5D classic for a few years.  It did not have MFA so front and back focus was a big problem.  I gave up using lens resolution targets, because the problem wasn't absolute sharpness, it was poor focus.

I had to learn where each lens focused and compensate by putting my focus point either in front of or behind the actual target.  Of course if your lens shifts as you change focal length, aperture or distance, it gets more difficult.

After much experimentation, I ended up with a target like the one you see in the link below, although mine is a cheaper cardboard version.  You just throw it on the floor, put your camera on a tripod and aim your lens downward at about 30 degrees from horizontal.  I put a short length of black friction tape across the center of the sheet to create a solid target for the autofocus to lock onto.

http://www.hayneedle.com/sale/sewezboard.cfm?source=tellapart

I like this approach over other focus calibration systems, because I feel it is more like real world shooting.  I can vary the distance from one meter to maybe 10 meters.  I can take it outside and test in natural daylight or indoors to check for low light focus accuracy.  You don't even need to uploadload the images to your computer to see exactly where the lens is focused.  Just use the LCD screen and magnify as needed.

I normally do this in my studio using the strobes, so I don't even need to use a tripod if I don't want to.  For a quick and dirty focus accuracy test, it works fantastically well.  It just takes me 5 minutes to test a lens for autofocus accuracy.  You can also easily see the effects of tilted or misplaced lens elements.  Grrrr...     I hate it when that happens!

With my lovely 5DIII, all my Canon primes focus right on the money with no MFA.  I have a 28, 85, 100 and a 135L.  My 50mm prime is the Sigma 1.4 which needs a tiny bit of MFA.

Zoom lenses are another story.  I've tested Canon, Sigma and Tamron zooms.  Most of them have an annoying amount of focus shift with changes in zoom.  The best one I've found is my beat up old Tamron 28-75 that I paid $260 for via Craigslist.  I will keep that lens till it dies and probably buy another.  I tried a copy of the new Tamron 24-70 OS and it was less accurate than my old Tamron.

I am not compulsive about absolute sharpness or corner-to-corner sharpness, because I mostly photograph people.  I spend a lot of time with Photoshop blurring wrinkles and hiding blemishes.  Sometimes I wish my lens was softer!  LOL

[ashmadux]

Once for my beloved 70-200 mk2. Ill be damned if im paying thousands for anything and its only 'okay'. Not happening.

Twice for my 24-105 but the first two copies were from the used section, then i just exchanged for a new, superior sharpness copy.

I need more L's

PS- I rented a 24-70mk2 to shoot a show as a press guy- and it sucked in sharpness. Never again considered it. Yuck.

[ashmadux]

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?

I really dilsike this argument. Lenses should be sharp, unless they are just not made that way. Period. At these prices? Cmon man. What possibly could be unrealistic about that? Who cares if others are not pixel peepers, or if soft i okay for some...that isnt nor should be the standard to judge by.

It took 4 copies for me to find a 50 1.4 that could focus consistently/beyond 10 feet. 2 from canon refurb, 2 from the shop. Ridiculous.  Even now, its temperamental...someday it behaves, other days its so off that i just put it away.

[jthomson]

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.

Maybe its your camera that's out by 4 and all your lenses are pretty much okay .

[Marsu42]

Never tested, never returned.

I'm surprised to read how many people don't care if they've got a bad copy - but on the other hand there have to be customers who end up with the returned lenses like the 17-40L I just sent back :->

However the 17-40L might really be a special case because it's older and the cheapest L in the linup so problems are visible on the current 18-22mp sensors while newer, sharper zooms outresolve these sensors anyway.

[V8Beast]

0

[V8Beast]

However the 17-40L might really be a special case because it's older and the cheapest L in the linup so problems are visible on the current 18-22mp sensors while newer, sharper zooms outresolve these sensors anyway.

Canon may have very well had quality control issues with the early versions of the 17-40. When that lens first hit the market, there were lots of unhappy customers. In the last couple of years, however, the reviews seem to be overwhelmingly positive. I've had mine for four years now and absolutely love it. Gotta stop it down to f/8 for optimal sharpness, but I don't think that's unreasonable for an f/4 lens.

[Rienzphotoz]

Once for my beloved 70-200 mk2. Ill be damned if im paying thousands for anything and its only 'okay'. Not happening.

Twice for my 24-105 but the first two copies were from the used section, then i just exchanged for a new, superior sharpness copy.

I need more L's

PS- I rented a 24-70mk2 to shoot a show as a press guy- and it sucked in sharpness. Never again considered it. Yuck.

Maybe all your purchases are cursed ... the witch doctor might remove the curse  or you could read this article by canon rumors: "http://www.canonrumors.com/tech-articles/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths/"