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?
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?
)
