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

[Zen]

In some ways, this is a surprising thread for reasonably intelligent people to be engaged in. We all know, for example, that there is no such thing as absolute perfection. Yet we look for it and expect it. Moreover, we tend to measure how close we come to it in our "stuff" by the amount of money we pay for the stuff. We do this with cars, houses, gadgets and . . . cameras and their accessories. We pay $65-75K for a BMW or Merc and expect that it will never break down, get 60 MPG while carrying all sorts of loads at all sorts of speeds. Nevermind that the $800,000 someone might pay for a Rolls or Bentley or Ferrari also gets the buyer an occasional breakdown. So it is, I think, with our photo gear. When we put down $2500 for a new lens or $3500 for a new body, we expect them to be perfect. After all, we argue, we paid 'top dollar'! Nevermind that there are lenses out there that cost 4-5 times what ours did, and even they are not perfect, have an occasional flaw, etc. They are no more than a collection of hundreds of mechanical parts that are supposed to work together, but sometimes do not. No matter what some of us might like to believe, there is no such thing as absolute perfection.

To put it another way, we want, and expect, far more than we are willing to pay for. If we are willing to pay $7500 or $10K or more for a completely hand built lens, in which all the components are hand made, individually tested prior to assembly then hand assembled and tested, adjusted and retested, we might come closer to perfection. But, alas, we're not willing to pay for all that.

I agree with pdirestajr in reply#27 and victorwol in #31 above. Our expectations, for the price we are willing to pay, are flatly unreal. Seems to me that we get a pretty good product from Canon for the prices we pay. Let's stop carping and get on with the business and enjoyment of taking pictures.

As for me, I now own 6 L lenses, have bought and sold 1/2 dozen more as my needs have changed, mounted at times on a 50D, then a 5D2 and now a 5D3, and have never had a problem with any of them.

Best wishes to all.

Zen

 

[Marsu42]

Gotta stop it down to f/8 for optimal sharpness, but I don't think that's unreasonable for an f/4 lens.

From the quick chars I've shot with the 17-40L I'd even say on crop stopping down to f5.6 is nearly sufficient and a big improvement in comparison to f4 (which unfortunately makes Tv operation a hassle). The problem with my first copy was that no matter what aperture it was *never* sharp on the bottom, thus I'd say it's decentered.

To put it another way, we want, and expect, far more than we are willing to pay for.

I have to admit I disagree - if I buy an L lens I expect equal performance across all lens sides, i.e. no decentering. Other "issues" are ok for me like the fact that the 17-40L is not sharpest wide open, afma can be corrected (except for the 60d, thanks, Canon) and overall sharpness will be much more important on upcoming ~40mp sensors.

 

[East Wind Photography]

I expect to see a lot of lens returns once those 40MP cameras come out. Most lenses are going to "fail" the test.

Gotta stop it down to f/8 for optimal sharpness, but I don't think that's unreasonable for an f/4 lens.

From the quick chars I've shot with the 17-40L I'd even say on crop stopping down to f5.6 is nearly sufficient and a big improvement in comparison to f4 (which unfortunately makes Tv operation a hassle). The problem with my first copy was that no matter what aperture it was *never* sharp on the bottom, thus I'd say it's decentered.

To put it another way, we want, and expect, far more than we are willing to pay for.

I have to admit I disagree - if I buy an L lens I expect equal performance across all lens sides, i.e. no decentering. Other "issues" are ok for me like the fact that the 17-40L is not sharpest wide open, afma can be corrected (except for the 60d, thanks, Canon) and overall sharpness will be much more important on upcoming ~40mp sensors.

 

[skitron]

In some ways, this is a surprising thread for reasonably intelligent people to be engaged in.

I think the reason people respond is to compare notes and maybe discover if a particular lens has issues. At least that's why I bothered. Take the Sigma 50 for instance...mine might be pretty good but apparently a bunch of them are duds. That's a good thing to know if you're wanting to buy a 50, no? Same with the 50L focus shift.

 

[serendipidy]

The enemy of good is best...Voltaire

 

[infared]

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).

I know this comment is off topic,sorry...but mad spill did you read the review about your lens at The Digital Picture?

"About auto-focus:

While it is not perfect, I’m finding the Sigma 35 to perform close to the Canon 35 L in AF accuracy. A somewhat consistent and quite noticeable front focus problem on both of my 5D Mark III bodies required AFMA to correct. You may want to capture multiple images in situations with especially shallow DOF – which will be closer to MFD (Minimum Focus Distance). Note that the focus-and-recompose technique can begin to fail as shallower DOF is achieved."

 

[rs]

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).

I know this comment is off topic,sorry...but mad spill did you read the review about your lens at The Digital Picture?

"About auto-focus:

While it is not perfect, I’m finding the Sigma 35 to perform close to the Canon 35 L in AF accuracy. A somewhat consistent and quite noticeable front focus problem on both of my 5D Mark III bodies required AFMA to correct. You may want to capture multiple images in situations with especially shallow DOF – which will be closer to MFD (Minimum Focus Distance). Note that the focus-and-recompose technique can begin to fail as shallower DOF is achieved."

I can't comment on the Sigma 35/1.4, but I do have the Sigma 50/1.4. Many reviews slate the AF performance. My first copy was front focusing by a massive margin, but it seemed consistent. My second copy, while slower to AF than the Canon 50/1.4, never misses. I've tried it on four bodies and I've never needed AFMA to get sharp results, even at f1.4.

Expecting results close to perfection from a Sigma prime these days isn't unreasonable.

 

[skitron]

My experience is pretty limited but no insurmaountable issues that required return so far. Lets hope it holds up since a new 70-200IS2 should be here in about 30 minutes now...

Verdict on the new 70-200: no centering issues, AFMA/T = -1, AFMA/W = 0, is now the sharpest lens I own at 2.8.

...Plus I get an upper body workout every time I use it...

 

[Marsu42]

I just bought a new 17-40L, and I'm happy that I didn't get it from ebay because the lens shows visible decentering

... a quick reply to my own thread if anyone cares:

I just got the replacement 17-40L and it's a lot better with equal performance on all sides, thus I'd really advise anyone interested in good lens performance to do some quick chart shots and look for decentering - imho a €670 L lens must not have this problem.

 

[Dylan777]

My experience is pretty limited but no insurmaountable issues that required return so far. Lets hope it holds up since a new 70-200IS2 should be here in about 30 minutes now...

Verdict on the new 70-200: no centering issues, AFMA/T = -1, AFMA/W = 0, is now the sharpest lens I own at 2.8.

...Plus I get an upper body workout every time I use it...

LOL...and if LRPhoto see this comment, he would tell you to get 135L

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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?

OTOH what is the point of paying twice as much for a 70-200 2.8 II or 24-70 II and whatnot over other versions only to get a poor copy that delivers the same as a very solid copy of some some earlier version?? The only reason you pay that extra is to get that extra bit of quality.

Granted you have to accept that you might not get one of the tippy tippy top copies on a LR plot. But you don't want one of the bottom outliers either once you are into the lenses that are $$$$ solely because they are supposed to be deliver that bit extra compared to all the rest.

 

[bycostello]

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?

OTOH what is the point of paying twice as much for a 70-200 2.8 II or 24-70 II and whatnot over other versions only to get a poor copy that delivers the same as a very solid copy of some some earlier version?? The only reason you pay that extra is to get that extra bit of quality.

Granted you have to accept that you might not get one of the tippy tippy top copies on a LR plot. But you don't want one of the bottom outliers either once you are into the lenses that are $$$$ solely because they are supposed to be deliver that bit extra compared to all the rest.

aren't you paying for better IS, faster focusing... IQ was the least concern when i went from 70-200 mk1 to mk2

 

[rs]

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?

OTOH what is the point of paying twice as much for a 70-200 2.8 II or 24-70 II and whatnot over other versions only to get a poor copy that delivers the same as a very solid copy of some some earlier version?? The only reason you pay that extra is to get that extra bit of quality.

Granted you have to accept that you might not get one of the tippy tippy top copies on a LR plot. But you don't want one of the bottom outliers either once you are into the lenses that are $$$$ solely because they are supposed to be deliver that bit extra compared to all the rest.

aren't you paying for better IS, faster focusing... IQ was the least concern when i went from 70-200 mk1 to mk2

I fully agree with LetTheRightLensIn. I spend more than I can really afford on expensive lenses because they're meant to out perform cheaper lenses, and as a result I want to know I'm getting what I paid for. If I didn't care about having equipment that can perform well, I'd save a lot of money by getting cheap lenses, or just use a compact camera instead.

I set my expectations by reading various reviews, having a look at it in person if possible, and also reading forums for feedback about QC issues etc. Only if I'm happy with that will I order it. When I get a lens delivered, a simple check that all is in order when I first get it is all I put it through - I don't shoot test charts at regular intervals or anything like that. If its up to my expectations, great. If not (as has happened twice, one of which was a 70-200 II which was noticeably softer than the mk I at 70mm wide open), I get it replaced.

The end result is I know I've got equipment as good as I can get. That means any problems with my images are down to me, not my equipment.

 

[garyknrd]

I've only had four Canon lenses two L series I lenses I bought used, and two L II lenses I bought new. All have been very good with no complaints. IMHO the new II lenses are the best out there hands down. Light weight, sharp as a tack, well balanced. Just a joy to use. IMO even if you get a de-centered copy or whatever. Canon would of fixed it very fast and efficiently.
I have taken my lenses in for testing and calibration and the service dept. in Bangkok is very nice and professional.
Doesn't get any better IMO.

 

[Marsu42]

Canon would of fixed it very fast and efficiently.

Unfortunately that's not true for the cps service I had tried in Berlin - if you're not a cps member (the EU system is other than US, you *have* to own at least two camera bodies) then anything takes about two weeks. And they'll probably tell you that there either is no real problem or (after 6 month of EU warranty) it was your own fault so the extended warranty doesn't cover it. That's why I'm so set to get a "good" lens from the store in the first place.

Btw Tamron service seems to be more lenient, you can have a free lens-body adjustment, service takes less time than Canon and the warranty is 6 years :-o

 

[Arthur Morris]

I have owned probably 30 different L series lenses, mostly super-telephotos (including three different 100-400s) over the past three decades. I never do any tests and I have never returned a lens. For the past few years I have been micro-adjusting all of my long lenses with the LensAlign. I have done OK over the years with my bird photographs. I think that it might have been Micheal Reichmann who said, most lenses are sharper than most photographers.

I just checked. He said, "Most lenses are better than most photographers. In either case, I agree whole-heartedly.

 

[Arthur Morris]

ps: If anyone can tell me why it says Powershot G-15 below my name I would appreciate it. Went to edit my profile but could not find that....

 

[rpt]

ps: If anyone can tell me why it says Powershot G-15 below my name I would appreciate it. Went to edit my profile but could not find that....

Try harder. More responses under your belt and you may see a "better" camera under your alias...

 

[Marsu42]

ps: If anyone can tell me why it says Powershot G-15 below my name I would appreciate it. Went to edit my profile but could not find that....

It's the equivalent to other fantasy names on other boards and simply changes with the number of posts you've written ... the most senior members that obviously have nothing better to do than to write on CR have a 1DX besides their name :->

 

[ewg963]

ps: If anyone can tell me why it says Powershot G-15 below my name I would appreciate it. Went to edit my profile but could not find that....

It's the equivalent to other fantasy names on other boards and simply changes with the number of posts you've written ... the most senior members that obviously have nothing better to do than to write on CR have a 1DX besides their name :->

LOL