17-40L bad copy?

[K-amps]

Guys:  Can you please look at these pics I took for my 4 lenses (File names tell you what lens and settings they were shot at):

All were manually focussed
ALl on tripod
IS disabled where applicable
100mm did not have a UV filter attached, rest did

Which one looks good?

17-40mm L F4
28-135mm IS
70-200mm L IS F4
100mm L Macro F2.8

[neuroanatomist]

MF, ok.  Shoot the same target with AF (a few shots).  If MF is sharp and AF is soft, you can either exchange the lens or send it to Canon (that's where a body with AF microadjust is nice!).  If both are sharp, relax and enjoy your new lenses.

[Hillsilly]

When I use my 17-40 while shooting film, the results are sensational.  On a 30D, the results are as described above - a bit soft.  My 10-22 walks all over it.  I'm confident that it is due to how the lens mates with the camera body and small differences in manufacturing tolerances.  Micro adjustment probably would fix this up.  Although, it seems odd that so many people have the same complaint.

[K-amps]

Returned the 17-40L, and the 70-200L f4, got the 24-105 f4L and the 70-300mm f4-5.6L IS. And they are both noticeably sharper than the ones I returned...

2 chart crops.  All settings default Camera raw for these. (just did auto exposure/ tone to get some contrast) all other settings of Adobe camera raw = default.