Quest for the perfect copy?
- Thread starter YuengLinger
- Start date
keithcooper
Canon Rumors Premium
One reason I don't write many lens reviews ;-) ... and when I do, they have a lot of warnings of what not to expect (i.e. lots of numbers/measurements/charts)unfocused said:
I know from my email, that lens reviews and colour management are two subjects that I'll always get a lot of 'detail' questions about.
They are both areas where it is possible to expend a lot of time and money chasing 'something'. I'm aware of the 'something' but choose that old engineering adage that 'Perfection is the enemy of excellence' ;-)
Upvote
0
FoCal has an interesting compilation of data on their website from user submitted testing of equipment.
While there is not a ton of data points there for every lens/camera combo it does indicate that some lenses have really high copy variation and some do not. For all of the grief that the new 24-70ii is getting, the limited data from FoCal indicates that this lens is pretty good from copy to copy.
No offense to all you engineers out there, but you folks are the people who seem to have the most problems with all camera bodies and lenses. I have a couple of very good shooting friends who are 30+ year career engineers and they are constantly complaining about gear. I don't think there is anything wrong with this, its just to illustrate that some people have much lower tolerance for variation (and engineers are so analytical by nature) while others do not sweat some of the issues.
I believe that ever since lenses have been built there has been copy variation. It's just now that we have more sophisticated means of analyzing gear available to the general public that it is now becoming a common concern to the photo masses.
Check out this link from FoCal:
http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/online-tools/lenscamera-information/
Compare the 24-70ii with the 100-400 (a lens that has had a notorious copy variation reputation).
This is not gospel, but kind of a neat tool that will hopefully continue to improve as more data points are collected.
P.S. - I just bought a new 24-70ii. It is simply awesome. It is sharper then my 24-105 all the way to the corners and all the way from f2.8-f11. Just awesome!!!
P.S.S - compare the 24-70ii with the 24-105 on the focal chart. This would indicate that the 24-105 had more copy variation then the 24-70ii. No one gripes about bad copies on the 24-105. Maybe because at the price point a little variation is more tolerable?
Happy shooting.
While there is not a ton of data points there for every lens/camera combo it does indicate that some lenses have really high copy variation and some do not. For all of the grief that the new 24-70ii is getting, the limited data from FoCal indicates that this lens is pretty good from copy to copy.
No offense to all you engineers out there, but you folks are the people who seem to have the most problems with all camera bodies and lenses. I have a couple of very good shooting friends who are 30+ year career engineers and they are constantly complaining about gear. I don't think there is anything wrong with this, its just to illustrate that some people have much lower tolerance for variation (and engineers are so analytical by nature) while others do not sweat some of the issues.
I believe that ever since lenses have been built there has been copy variation. It's just now that we have more sophisticated means of analyzing gear available to the general public that it is now becoming a common concern to the photo masses.
Check out this link from FoCal:
http://www.reikan.co.uk/focalweb/index.php/online-tools/lenscamera-information/
Compare the 24-70ii with the 100-400 (a lens that has had a notorious copy variation reputation).
This is not gospel, but kind of a neat tool that will hopefully continue to improve as more data points are collected.
P.S. - I just bought a new 24-70ii. It is simply awesome. It is sharper then my 24-105 all the way to the corners and all the way from f2.8-f11. Just awesome!!!
P.S.S - compare the 24-70ii with the 24-105 on the focal chart. This would indicate that the 24-105 had more copy variation then the 24-70ii. No one gripes about bad copies on the 24-105. Maybe because at the price point a little variation is more tolerable?
Happy shooting.
Upvote
0
Canon1 said:
That is very good to hear. I really am happy for you, if not a little jealous.
But I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss what is being reported For comparison, my 24-105 was sharper at 70 mm from f/4 through f/11 than copies 3 & 7 of the 24-70 II I received. Would you have spent $1,700 for a lens that was less sharp than one currently in your bag?
I had reviewed the Reikan data. My aperture sharpness tests for Copy 4 look almost exactly like the average data from Reikan for the 5DIII....but it had a bubble in the front element. Copy 8 looks very similar except imagine from f/4 to f/2.8 the graph plummeting to ~0.75. If you had multiple aperture sharpness tests all doing that and could see Reikans data, would you have kept those lenses?
Of course, those are rhetorical questions. I am comfortable with what I did.
But Reikan's data, along with the various comments I've seen, are part of the reason that I think that there is a recent production line issues and that there are very good copies of this lens out there. I will be interested to see if the Reikan values change as more data is gathered. I will be more interested to hear reports, such as yours, of people getting good copies of the lens. I may try to buy the lens again after a few months, depending on the price.
Upvote
0
docsmith said:
Particularly a much-maligned lens like the 24-105. You know, I'd heard rumors that Canon was going to make a couple of good, sharp copies of that lens. Apparently, you got one, and I got the other.
docsmith said:
Depending on where you got it, there's a good chance that some of yours were customer returns, still going through the "Send it to two or three customers before you give up, in case someone is willing to live with the flaws" treatment. Some of them might even be the same lens (unless you checked the serial numbers).
Upvote
0
@Canon1---I sent back my last three copies a week ago. I bought my first copy in mid- to late-October. I evaluated Copies 1-4 over November and 5-8 in December.
@dgatwood---All I can say is that I find my 24-105 to be pretty darn sharp. From my tests I can say that I am not as disappointed with softness from 70-105 mm as others have said. I can see some softness, but it really isn't that bad. Distortion at 24 mm is pretty severe.....but it has worked pretty darn well for me. So I can't complain.
@dgatwood---All I can say is that I find my 24-105 to be pretty darn sharp. From my tests I can say that I am not as disappointed with softness from 70-105 mm as others have said. I can see some softness, but it really isn't that bad. Distortion at 24 mm is pretty severe.....but it has worked pretty darn well for me. So I can't complain.
Upvote
0
I just purchased the 24-70 II from B&H Photo on Friday. The first one that I received via UPS from the online warehouse in Brooklyn had already been opened by someone else and there were finger prints all over and lint on the lens. Moreover, the box had a barcode sticker on the side from B&H that said "RA on 12/19/2013" which definitely meant that someone had returned the lens. This lens had the ticking sound when zooming down from 70mm to 24mm (serial number 062).
Luckily, I live in Manhattan and I went to B&H to exchange the lens. At the store in Manhattan, the B&H employee pulled up two brand new, unopened lenses. I could tell that they were unopened because there were no fingerprints or lint and they both had the lens lock on by Canon factory default (the first returned lens that I received had the lens lock disengaged which further indicated that it had been returned and re-shipped out to me). The boxes were also in pristine condition with no B&H RA stickers on them. The two lenses that I looked at in the store had serial numbers of 062 (ticking audible) and 042 (no ticking!). The B&H employee was very patient and even said that he was used to these ticking and clicking sounds on some Canon lenses. The 042 copy that I ended up with is perfect - no ticking or clicking, smooth as my other L zoom lenses.
I wanted to post here to let you know that I did receive a returned, obviously handled lens when I ordered online from the Brooklyn warehouse. It was the first time that I ordered from the website. Every other time, I have purchased the items in person and I have previously received perfect gear from both B&H and Adorama. I believe the warehouses (Brookyln for B&H and New Jersey for Adorama) might function a bit differently from the physical stores in Manhattan. I don't know if my experience was unusual but I thought I would post my experience here.
Luckily, I live in Manhattan and I went to B&H to exchange the lens. At the store in Manhattan, the B&H employee pulled up two brand new, unopened lenses. I could tell that they were unopened because there were no fingerprints or lint and they both had the lens lock on by Canon factory default (the first returned lens that I received had the lens lock disengaged which further indicated that it had been returned and re-shipped out to me). The boxes were also in pristine condition with no B&H RA stickers on them. The two lenses that I looked at in the store had serial numbers of 062 (ticking audible) and 042 (no ticking!). The B&H employee was very patient and even said that he was used to these ticking and clicking sounds on some Canon lenses. The 042 copy that I ended up with is perfect - no ticking or clicking, smooth as my other L zoom lenses.
I wanted to post here to let you know that I did receive a returned, obviously handled lens when I ordered online from the Brooklyn warehouse. It was the first time that I ordered from the website. Every other time, I have purchased the items in person and I have previously received perfect gear from both B&H and Adorama. I believe the warehouses (Brookyln for B&H and New Jersey for Adorama) might function a bit differently from the physical stores in Manhattan. I don't know if my experience was unusual but I thought I would post my experience here.
Upvote
0
allclad said:
One thing to keep in mind is when someone returns an item to B&H they ask if it has anything wrong with it.
If that person indicates that there is not they most likely would just check it out to make sure it was still in like new condition and resell it again as new.
This is one reason I like dealing with B&H, I have never been hassled about an item I sent back. You can return an item whether it has something wrong or not.
I would have thought they would have cleaned it up a bit before shipping it out again.
Upvote
0
My advice to docsmith would be . . . forget the 24-70, now or any time in the future! You won't be satisfied, no matter how good the next one you try might be. Perfection just doesn't exist at this price. Try Leica of Hassy . . . By the way, mine is fine!
Zen
Zen
Upvote
0
Zen said:
....ahhh...no...that isn't the answer....
I guess it is hard to imagine if it never happened to you. But let's stay with the obvious. In response to the OP wondering if there are really some bad copies of this lens out there, five of the eight lenses I tested had either the clicking while zooming issue or a bubble in the front element that CANON themselves advised be returned.
Upvote
0
I have *terrible* luck with Canon L's....
Some examples with brand new lenses (some issues over multiple copies)...
70-200 II - decentering, broken IS, build quality issues, scratched front element, excessive CA.
35L - USM squealing.
24-70 II - decentered, scratched front element.
16-35 II - USM high pitch squealing.
17-40 - decentering.
I am sure there are more I am forgetting... I almost expect to go through a few to get good a good copy. The 16-35 issue is from yesterday! Waiting for my replacement copy now.
Some examples with brand new lenses (some issues over multiple copies)...
70-200 II - decentering, broken IS, build quality issues, scratched front element, excessive CA.
35L - USM squealing.
24-70 II - decentered, scratched front element.
16-35 II - USM high pitch squealing.
17-40 - decentering.
I am sure there are more I am forgetting... I almost expect to go through a few to get good a good copy. The 16-35 issue is from yesterday! Waiting for my replacement copy now.
Upvote
0
I'm not looking for a perfect copy, but I just want to ask if someone experienced could look attached photo and compare between each corner. I made one (very!) amateur test with my 70-200 lens. For me, it seems like the right side is more blurry then the left one. Opinions? Probably in case of decentering it would be much bigger difference between sides?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23585527/_N3A9066.CR2
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23585527/_N3A9066.CR2
Upvote
0
Similar threads
