Quest for the perfect copy?

[YuengLinger]

Reading the latest thread discussing the advantages of the 24-105mm versus those of the 24-70mm 2.8 II, I saw, as usual, a lot of talk about copy variation.

Couple months back while shopping for a 24-70mm and an 85mm 1.2 II, on the retail sites I also saw the usual talk about trying and trying to get a good copy.

It really makes me uneasy to know that so many lenses are getting shipped back and forth to the places I want to buy from. Is it Canon I should be concerned about or are there a significant number of OCD types going nuts looking for perfect lenses?

In fact, I myself actually returned an ef 35mm 1.4 to a big retailer because the front element was full of finger prints. Ironically, the one I got in its place was perfect at a distance but wretched up close and to about 7 feet at less than f/2.0--plus the purple fringing was way beyond what I expected. I didn't really figure this out in the first 30 days, so I sent it to Canon CPS and was told all was in spec. I sold it at a slight loss and bought a Sigma 35mm 1.4 instead--and from the same big retailer. No problems with it whatsoever after an MF adjust of +3.

Back to the 24-70mm II and the 85mm 1.2 II--bought 'em and love 'em. Neither needs any MF adjust. These I bought at a different retailer, one that specializes in photography, because from my experience, this retailer takes a lot more care with padding items for shipping.

When I first started buying expensive gear, I also got nuts. But experience and perspective have helped me realize that the pixel-peeping issues I was concerned about are not influencing the quality of my work.

In poker, there is an expression: Don't play at stakes you can't comfortably afford because you will play badly.

I wonder if some of the apparently OCD behavior with questing for the perfect lens has to do with passionate photographers well out of their spending comfort zone.

Or are there really so many bad copies of great lenses?

 

[takesome1]

I wonder if some of the apparently OCD behavior with questing for the perfect lens has to do with passionate photographers well out of their spending comfort zone.

Or are there really so many bad copies of great lenses?

Of those who spend the time to test their lens and ship back several copies many of those are not "bad" copies and most likely fall within the parameters that the manufacture would say is acceptable. I think many non discriminating owners would never know the flaws, they would take the lens use it and love it and not fuss over it.

Spending out of the comfort zone, I doubt this has any merit. I think it would be the opposite, an individual with means buying one of these lenses that carry an "L" designation would expect that the lens be a "(L) Luxury" item and that it would be without flaw. Personally I would expect a product that claims to be a luxury item and cost three times as much as a non luxury item would have the quality control that the additional money should pay for.

 

[Loswr]

I test my newly purchased lenses rigorously, both with real world shooting and contrived testing with FoCal Pro and ISO 12233-type charts (costing more than some L-series lenses). I haven't had to send one back, but I wouldn't hesitate to do so, whether it was the 40/2.8 pancake or the 600 II.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There is no such thing as perfect, but a lens should be well within spec. Those that are returned are fixed by Canon and sold as refurbs.

 

[YuengLinger]

"I test my newly purchased lenses rigorously, both with real world shooting and contrived testing with FoCal Pro and ISO 12233-type charts..."

Do you find lenses often need different AFMA values on different bodies? I've just gotten a second 5DIII, so I guess I'll be testing all over again...(But I've been using a yardstick. I'm checking out FoCal Pro now, but your charts are out of my comfort zone, neuroanatomist. )

 

[surapon]

Dear Friends.
Just Penny of my Thinking------40 years ago, I have a great Japanese Friend, who he is an engineer and come to USA to get Master Degree, He told me that" Most of Japanese companies, they made 3 levels of Products---The Best Level / First class , they send to sell in USA and Europe( For Most Perfected Products), The medium level, They will sell and use in their own country = Japan,---- and the Low end of products, They will sell Cheap to the Under develops country like Thailand( My Mom's Country), China, India , Africa and south America--Just They can get the money from the repair cost.

Well, That 40 Years ago, They might Change their Market Business ways.
Surapon

 

[mackguyver]

I test my newly purchased lenses rigorously, both with real world shooting and contrived testing with FoCal Pro and ISO 12233-type charts (costing more than some L-series lenses). I haven't had to send one back, but I wouldn't hesitate to do so, whether it was the 40/2.8 pancake or the 600 II.

+1 same here (minus the ISO chart - I use my poor man's brick walls and real world subjects) and so far, so good with my "copies".

Also, if I had a lens with issues, I'd probably send them to Canon vs. trying to exchange it unless the problems were severe. I see it as a free calibration vs. another luck of the draw...

 

[surapon]

I test my newly purchased lenses rigorously, both with real world shooting and contrived testing with FoCal Pro and ISO 12233-type charts (costing more than some L-series lenses). I haven't had to send one back, but I wouldn't hesitate to do so, whether it was the 40/2.8 pancake or the 600 II.

+1 same here (minus the ISO chart - I use my poor man's brick walls and real world subjects) and so far, so good with my "copies".

Also, if I had a lens with issues, I'd probably send them to Canon vs. trying to exchange it unless the problems were severe. I see it as a free calibration vs. another luck of the draw...

Happy Holiday, Dear mackguyver.
I want to learn new Idea from you ( I never know before) " I use my poor man's brick walls = What is poor man's Brick walls, and how to do ?
Thanks.
Surapon

 

[mackguyver]

I test my newly purchased lenses rigorously, both with real world shooting and contrived testing with FoCal Pro and ISO 12233-type charts (costing more than some L-series lenses). I haven't had to send one back, but I wouldn't hesitate to do so, whether it was the 40/2.8 pancake or the 600 II.

+1 same here (minus the ISO chart - I use my poor man's brick walls and real world subjects) and so far, so good with my "copies".

Also, if I had a lens with issues, I'd probably send them to Canon vs. trying to exchange it unless the problems were severe. I see it as a free calibration vs. another luck of the draw...

Happy Holiday, Dear mackguyver.
I want to learn new Idea from you ( I never know before) " I use my poor man's brick walls = What is poor man's Brick walls, and how to do ?
Thanks.
Surapon

Happy Holidays to you as well, Surapon. "Poor man's" is a humorous English expression to indicate something lesser - i.e. a Miata is a "poor man's Porsche" or a Fuji is a poor man's Leica. In my case, I'm just referring to using the actual brick walls on the exterior of my home, and the correct phrase would actually be a poor man's test chart, but I was trying to be extra silly by saying poor man's brick walls.

Also, I see that you are now famous thanks to FStoppers!

 

[Loswr]

Do you find lenses often need different AFMA values on different bodies? I've just gotten a second 5DIII, so I guess I'll be testing all over again..

Definitely. For example, my 135mm f/2L needed +3 on my 7D, –11 on my 5DII, and needs no adjustment on my 1D X.

I'd definitely recommend getting FoCal - compared to the investment in two 5DIIIs and several lenses, it's a small cost that can help maximize camera performance.

 

[surapon]

I test my newly purchased lenses rigorously, both with real world shooting and contrived testing with FoCal Pro and ISO 12233-type charts (costing more than some L-series lenses). I haven't had to send one back, but I wouldn't hesitate to do so, whether it was the 40/2.8 pancake or the 600 II.

+1 same here (minus the ISO chart - I use my poor man's brick walls and real world subjects) and so far, so good with my "copies".

Also, if I had a lens with issues, I'd probably send them to Canon vs. trying to exchange it unless the problems were severe. I see it as a free calibration vs. another luck of the draw...

Happy Holiday, Dear mackguyver.
I want to learn new Idea from you ( I never know before) " I use my poor man's brick walls = What is poor man's Brick walls, and how to do ?
Thanks.
Surapon

Happy Holidays to you as well, Surapon. "Poor man's" is a humorous English expression to indicate something lesser - i.e. a Miata is a "poor man's Porsche" or a Fuji is a poor man's Leica. In my case, I'm just referring to using the actual brick walls on the exterior of my home, and the correct phrase would actually be a poor man's test chart, but I was trying to be extra silly by saying poor man's brick walls.

Also, I see that you are now famous thanks to FStoppers!

THANKSSS, Dear mackguyver.
Now I understand now, You use the Horizontal lines of Mortar and the vertical lines of the Bricks and mortar to test the Lens Quality at the adges/ Corners of the Photos.
THANKS again.
Ha, Ha, Ha---Sir, I on the Black list Now, And if next month, You not see my post any more = I am Dead----Ha, Ha, Ha.
Happy Holiday.
Surapon

 

[mackguyver]

THANKSSS, Dear mackguyver.
Now I understand now, You use the Horizontal lines of Mortar and the vertical lines of the Bricks and mortar to test the Lens Quality at the adges/ Corners of the Photos.
THANKS again.
Ha, Ha, Ha---Sir, I on the Black list Now, And if next month, You not see my post any more = I am Dead----Ha, Ha, Ha.
Happy Holiday.
Surapon

Just don't change your last name to Snowden and you should be okay

And yes, the bricks work pretty well. I set my camera perfectly level, then take photos at all full stop apertures. I bring them into my photo programs and compare the sharpness across the frame and apertures. Sometimes I'll do a white wall test as well, but generally the bricks work well and then I shoot in the wild from there.

I'm sure it's not as good as Neuro's ISO charts, but it works for me.

Definitely. For example, my 135mm f/2L needed +3 on my 7D, –11 on my 5DII, and needs no adjustment on my 1D X.

I'd definitely recommend getting FoCal - compared to the investment in two 5DIIIs and several lenses, it's a small cost that can help maximize camera performance.

Same experience here and FoCal is definitely worth the money, especially with fast glass (f/1.2-f/2.8), particularly with the f/1.2 lenses where + or - 1 AFMA unit can make or break focus.

 

[Eldar]

Has anybody tried the Mac version on Focal? Is it stable and OK to use, or is it a pre-release?

 

[Loswr]

Has anybody tried the Mac version on Focal? Is it stable and OK to use, or is it a pre-release?

I've been using it for quite some time, it's as stable as the Win version (which isn't perfect).

 

[Eldar]

Has anybody tried the Mac version on Focal? Is it stable and OK to use, or is it a pre-release?

I've been using it for quite some time, it's as stable as the Win version (which isn't perfect).

Thanks, I´ll give it a try.

 

[surapon]

THANKSSS, Dear mackguyver.
Now I understand now, You use the Horizontal lines of Mortar and the vertical lines of the Bricks and mortar to test the Lens Quality at the adges/ Corners of the Photos.
THANKS again.
Ha, Ha, Ha---Sir, I on the Black list Now, And if next month, You not see my post any more = I am Dead----Ha, Ha, Ha.
Happy Holiday.
Surapon

Just don't change your last name to Snowden and you should be okay

And yes, the bricks work pretty well. I set my camera perfectly level, then take photos at all full stop apertures. I bring them into my photo programs and compare the sharpness across the frame and apertures. Sometimes I'll do a white wall test as well, but generally the bricks work well and then I shoot in the wild from there.

I'm sure it's not as good as Neuro's ISO charts, but it works for me.

Definitely. For example, my 135mm f/2L needed +3 on my 7D, –11 on my 5DII, and needs no adjustment on my 1D X.

I'd definitely recommend getting FoCal - compared to the investment in two 5DIIIs and several lenses, it's a small cost that can help maximize camera performance.

Same experience here and FoCal is definitely worth the money, especially with fast glass (f/1.2-f/2.8), particularly with the f/1.2 lenses where + or - 1 AFMA unit can make or break focus.

Ha, Ha, Ha " "Just don't change your last name to Snowden and you should be okay "----0----That make sense for me----Ha,

 

[docsmith]

I wonder if some of the apparently OCD behavior with questing for the perfect lens has to do with passionate photographers well out of their spending comfort zone.

Or are there really so many bad copies of great lenses?

My context, I am one of the people having had issues with the 24-70 II. I had eight ( 8 ) copies that I returned. So, I have a little perspective on the sample variation of this "elite" lens.

Regarding the first part, I can only speak for myself and I was comfortable with the amount I spent. Matter of fact, I was ecstatic to be getting that lens for the $1,699 price (actually closer to $1,550 after all the different points, etc). But I wanted that lens to be in my kit has a main stay for years to come. So I did test it vigorously.

My tally was: 4 sent back for the "clicking" sound. Three were very loud, one slightly less so, but I did not need to hold it to my ear to hear the clicking on any of them. I contacted Canon, they advised I return the lens. But these returns were really out of fear of the unknown. Why is it clicking? What will happen in the future? Some people say the clicking goes away....but that sounds like either metal fatigue or wearing off small parts to me. Long term impacts? To me the clicking sounded like metal being compressed and released, like something was over torqued during assembly. Hard to tell, but people on the forum said it was atypical...canon said it was atypical. So 4 copies went back. I tested one of them optically, the first, and it was optically great. I didn't optically test the other three.

Copies 3 & 7. Both these copies were incredibly sharp at 24 mm, especially copy 7 (sharpest at 24 mm of all the lenses I tested). But they both had issues at 70 mm. In addition to being significantly softer than the other copies I optically tested at 70 mm, there was an odd AFMA issue where I had different AFMA values at different apertures. I still do not understand why and have been worried it was me, my camera, my tests, etc. But I did multiple tests using Focal, and the tests were pretty consistent. In addition, I lined up more real world tests for Copy 3 and I could see the center focal plane shift depending upon the aperture.

Copies 4 & 8 I almost kept. Copy 4 was probably the best copy. It wasn't the sharpest of the copies at any focal length, but it was close enough. More important it was consistently good. But it had a small bubble in the front element. Despite that, I did almost keep copy 4. I couldn't get the bubble to optically interfere with any shot that I took. The deciding factor for me was resale value. While I plan to keep this lens for years to come, plans change. And I know me, I would probably have been right up front and advertised that the lens had a bubble in the front element, likely killing my resale value, if I was to ever sell it. I thought about sending it to Canon to replace the front element, but that introduced a huge unknown factor for me.

Copy 8. I almost kept this one as well. But, by 8 copies, I was pretty sour on this wave of lenses coming from Canon. Copy 8 was pretty solid. It was actually better than Copy 4 at 24 mm and 70 mm from f 4 through f/11. Which was fantastic. But from f/2.8 to f/4 the IQ was noticeably worse. By noticeably, at 70 mm the Focal score was ~25% lower. At 24 mm the Focal score was ~15% lower. Worse yet, I printed off online copies of the ISO 12233 chart and I could see the difference in the center IQ. The edges were very comparable. Like I said, I almost kept this copy. But, through this testing, I have come to appreciate my 24-105 f/4 as I was always comparing the varies copies of the 24-70 II to it. My 24-105 f/4 actually seems to be a very good copy and had only slightly lower performance than the various 24-70 II copies from f/4 to f/11. So it got down to I am willing to spend the money for a 24-70 f/2.8 II that was sharp overall, but it needed to be sharp from f2.8-f4, because I already have sharp covered from f/4-f/11 with my 24-105. This was true for copy 1 (but it had clicking) or copy 4 (but it had a bubble in the front element), but not copy 8.

So all 8 copies have now gone back. So, was I OCD? I am an engineer. I am always a little OCD. But I would have happily settled for a reasonable copy of the 24-70 II. I tried two sources (amazon and adorama), had lenses made from Sept 12 through June 13, and had 8 copies that had at least 4 different types of issues. I am sure there are good copies of this lens out there. But my experience tells me that I should give Canon awhile to fix whatever issues they have going on before I try to buy this lens again.

BTW. I also jumped on the 70-200 f/2.8 II sale ($1,799, closer to $1,675 after all points). It isn't perfect, but it is good enough. I also tested several of my other lenses as I went through this process. They tested out fine. The 24-70 II is the only lens I have ever returned. And it just so happens I have returned it 8 times.

So my conclusion...to speak to your final question, unfortunately, IMO there are a number of bad copies of the 24-70 II out there right now.

 

[alexturton]

Reading the latest thread discussing the advantages of the 24-105mm versus those of the 24-70mm 2.8 II, I saw, as usual, a lot of talk about copy variation.

Couple months back while shopping for a 24-70mm and an 85mm 1.2 II, on the retail sites I also saw the usual talk about trying and trying to get a good copy.

It really makes me uneasy to know that so many lenses are getting shipped back and forth to the places I want to buy from. Is it Canon I should be concerned about or are there a significant number of OCD types going nuts looking for perfect lenses?

In fact, I myself actually returned an ef 35mm 1.4 to a big retailer because the front element was full of finger prints. Ironically, the one I got in its place was perfect at a distance but wretched up close and to about 7 feet at less than f/2.0--plus the purple fringing was way beyond what I expected. I didn't really figure this out in the first 30 days, so I sent it to Canon CPS and was told all was in spec. I sold it at a slight loss and bought a Sigma 35mm 1.4 instead--and from the same big retailer. No problems with it whatsoever after an MF adjust of +3.

Back to the 24-70mm II and the 85mm 1.2 II--bought 'em and love 'em. Neither needs any MF adjust. These I bought at a different retailer, one that specializes in photography, because from my experience, this retailer takes a lot more care with padding items for shipping.

When I first started buying expensive gear, I also got nuts. But experience and perspective have helped me realize that the pixel-peeping issues I was concerned about are not influencing the quality of my work.

In poker, there is an expression: Don't play at stakes you can't comfortably afford because you will play badly.

I wonder if some of the apparently OCD behavior with questing for the perfect lens has to do with passionate photographers well out of their spending comfort zone.

Or are there really so many bad copies of great lenses?

For me it is making sure I get my monies worth. If I spend £1000 on a lens to replace a £100 kit lens, I want to make sure it is as perfect as possible to ensure my purchase was justified.

 

[unfocused]

...are there a significant number of OCD types going nuts looking for perfect lenses?

Five minutes on this forum should give you the answer to that question.

 

[Jack Douglas]

...are there a significant number of OCD types going nuts looking for perfect lenses?

Five minutes on this forum should give you the answer to that question.

Part of the reason I read CR is for a chuckle, well done.

Jack