I have had eight and returned none of them. Maybe I should look at them again with some test screens, but I've never seen anything that stood out in my photos.
Upvote
0
How many times did you return (L) lenses to get a good copy?
- Thread starter Marsu42
- Start date
- Status
Hmmm...I have 8 lenses and I have never tested ( with a chart), any of them. I did go out and run them thru the paces and give a real close look to the clarity, sharpness across the frame, and AF accuracy...but only real world images.
That's good enough for me....if you have a great shot...nobody notices any of the super, analysis tweaking anyway....
Just a fact.
That's good enough for me....if you have a great shot...nobody notices any of the super, analysis tweaking anyway....
Just a fact.
Upvote
0
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.
Also exchanged a 24-70 II, they do seem to vary a bit in terms of how even all the edges are and how f/2.8 performance is, difference wasn't as radical as with the 17-40L though where one was just awful on one side and DOF was configured really weirdly.
Haven't returned anything else, L or not.
Also exchanged a 24-70 II, they do seem to vary a bit in terms of how even all the edges are and how f/2.8 performance is, difference wasn't as radical as with the 17-40L though where one was just awful on one side and DOF was configured really weirdly.
Haven't returned anything else, L or not.
Upvote
0
The only "L" lens I returned was a 24-70mmL. It was average, which is to say not very good. I owned five total of them before giving up on the likelyhood finding one I thought was excellent.
Now, I prefer primes and have not tried the new 24-70L.
Now, I prefer primes and have not tried the new 24-70L.
Upvote
0
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 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?
Upvote
0
Hey there, I'm a Productions Manager at Flashpoint Photographic Rentals based out of Vancouver, BC. Since we don't primarily rent camera equipment, we don't have the same numbers of Canon gear as an establishment like LensRentals. That being said, we do have 20 L series lenses in our rental pool. While we've never done an official testing on our gear (though I'm considering it with the slow winter months in the shop), We've never had a single complaint regarding sharpness on any of our lenses from any of our professional clients. I myself use many of these lenses extensively for my personal shoots, and have no complaints with any specific glass.
The only problem we've ever had (in the past 3 years that I've been on board) in the shop was a brand new (out of the box) EF 24-70mm f2.8L II, and that was a mechanical issue where the zoom was jamming up around 28mm (This lens was quickly replaced with no charge to ourselves).
Hope this helps your choices! We of course are dealing with a situation where AFMA is not an option because almost all of our clients are using their own cameras. Perhaps I can give you guys a followup if I get around to doing a full test as laid out by Roger Cicala.
The only problem we've ever had (in the past 3 years that I've been on board) in the shop was a brand new (out of the box) EF 24-70mm f2.8L II, and that was a mechanical issue where the zoom was jamming up around 28mm (This lens was quickly replaced with no charge to ourselves).
Hope this helps your choices! We of course are dealing with a situation where AFMA is not an option because almost all of our clients are using their own cameras. Perhaps I can give you guys a followup if I get around to doing a full test as laid out by Roger Cicala.
Upvote
0
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.
Upvote
0
victorwol said:
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.
Upvote
0
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.
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.
Upvote
0
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
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
Upvote
0
Re: How many times did you return lenses to get a good copy?
This one is very good for this purpose: http://www.bealecorner.org/red/test-patterns/EIA1956.pdf
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.
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.Badger said:
This one is very good for this purpose: http://www.bealecorner.org/red/test-patterns/EIA1956.pdf
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.pdirestajr said:
LetTheRightLensIn said:
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.
Upvote
0
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.East Wind Photography said:
"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..
.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
