Reading mode: Light Dark

Think about; Soft copy of an "L" Lens? I mean really.

  • Thread starter Thread starter James Sarantis
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
J

James Sarantis

Guest
I've been seeing a lot of posts about how people have been getting soft versions of "L" lenses. I've been very fortunate in getting mostly L copies that have been razor sharp. My new 24-105 is unbelievable.

But getting a soft copy of a lens that supposed to be professional grade is like buying a slow copy of a Porsche Carrera GT. Oh sure we can send it back in for tweaks, but shouldn't it be good quality in the first place? Maybe I'm not understanding the whole "L" designation.

I think maybe there should be an "L+" designation or something.

Maybe I am trolling but it just hit me as I've read lots of posts on the subject.

James
 
James Sarantis said:
But getting a soft copy of a lens that supposed to be professional
grade is like buying a slow copy of a Porsche Carrera GT. Oh sure
Click to expand...
I think it has more to do with the way the lens mates to the camera.

Ie. It may be razor sharp on someones 20D, but look soft on their XT.

I would prefer if they specifically tuned L's to specific camera bodies, personally, but i'm really not sure if that would even help as i've seen people post that its sharp on one XT while soft on another XT.

Bleagh??
 
James Sarantis said:
I've been seeing a lot of posts about how people have been getting
soft versions of "L" lenses. I've been very fortunate in getting
mostly L copies that have been razor sharp. My new 24-105 is
unbelievable.

But getting a soft copy of a lens that supposed to be professional
grade is like buying a slow copy of a Porsche Carrera GT. Oh sure
we can send it back in for tweaks, but shouldn't it be good quality
in the first place? Maybe I'm not understanding the whole "L"
designation.

I think maybe there should be an "L+" designation or something.

Maybe I am trolling but it just hit me as I've read lots of posts
on the subject.

James
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen
 
There are lots of teenagers out there who take great pleasure in getting onto forums and spreading rumors. These little twirps should be doing their homework, but instead are sitting back and having a good laugh at your expense. In a few years they'll be writing computer viruses. Ignore them for now. Hopefully the FBI will deal with them when they graduate to virus writing.

--
Peter White
 
Daniella said:
James Sarantis said:
I've been seeing a lot of posts about how people have been getting
soft versions of "L" lenses. I've been very fortunate in getting
mostly L copies that have been razor sharp. My new 24-105 is
unbelievable.

But getting a soft copy of a lens that supposed to be professional
grade is like buying a slow copy of a Porsche Carrera GT. Oh sure
we can send it back in for tweaks, but shouldn't it be good quality
in the first place? Maybe I'm not understanding the whole "L"
designation.

I think maybe there should be an "L+" designation or something.

Maybe I am trolling but it just hit me as I've read lots of posts
on the subject.

James
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen
Click to expand...
--
Misha
 
Peter White said:
There are lots of teenagers out there who take great pleasure in
getting onto forums and spreading rumors. These little twirps
should be doing their homework, but instead are sitting back and
having a good laugh at your expense. In a few years they'll be
writing computer viruses. Ignore them for now. Hopefully the FBI
will deal with them when they graduate to virus writing.
Click to expand...
So you don't believe that any of the L lenses sold are defective or subpar?

--
Misha
 
Peter White said:
I didn't write that. Read what I wrote.
Click to expand...
No? The OP wrote "I've read lots of posts on the subject" (soft versions of L lenses). You replied that maybe these are just teenagers spreading rumors. As one of those who had to send an L lens to Canon for calibration, I cannot completely agree :)

--
Misha
 
Maybe justthe kit lens will do :-)

By the way, I found my kit lens focus more accurate than my just returned 300 f4 IS "L" which is front focused.

Eric.
 
The myth of the soft 'L' is by in 99.9999% of the time by people who don't have a clue how to use them and would rather whin than work with Canon to see if there is a real problem.

--
'I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated.'
-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/
 
I'm part of the .0000001 per cent then (backfocus in a 70-200 f4L at longer distances, fixed up by Canon callibration). And just in case anyone wonders I am not a teenager. Middle-aged academics can lie with the best of them, but I tend not to in public.

I do attribute some of the focus issues to user error or body probems - which is why it took me eight months to send the lens in as it took me that long to be convinced there was an issue - but when it showed the same problem on a loaner (Canon owned) 10D I became convinced, tested it extensively and found the problem.
--
Some of the least worse of my photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/susans/
 
he said:

"I've been very fortunate in getting mostly L copies that have been razor sharp."

and I said "same" :)

I am also been very fortunate with L lenses.
misha said:
Daniella said:
James Sarantis said:
I've been seeing a lot of posts about how people have been getting
soft versions of "L" lenses. I've been very fortunate in getting
mostly L copies that have been razor sharp. My new 24-105 is
unbelievable.

But getting a soft copy of a lens that supposed to be professional
grade is like buying a slow copy of a Porsche Carrera GT. Oh sure
we can send it back in for tweaks, but shouldn't it be good quality
in the first place? Maybe I'm not understanding the whole "L"
designation.

I think maybe there should be an "L+" designation or something.

Maybe I am trolling but it just hit me as I've read lots of posts
on the subject.

James
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen
Click to expand...
--
Misha
Click to expand...
--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen
 
BOTH of my L lenses had big issues and were fixed VERY well by Canon.
 
Peter White said:
There are lots of teenagers out there who take great pleasure in
getting onto forums and spreading rumors. These little twirps
should be doing their homework, but instead are sitting back and
having a good laugh at your expense. In a few years they'll be
writing computer viruses. Ignore them for now. Hopefully the FBI
will deal with them when they graduate to virus writing.

--
Peter White
Click to expand...
if my 17-40L does not come back well aligned would you like to buy it off of me then? only used a very few times so far and still under warranty. wonder if people who say issues are all a joke will pony up the money to back up their words. or my 70-300 IS if I ever get mad enough about the portrait issue to try to get rid of it?

or would you be willing to buy an almost new 85 1.8 and leave it uncalibrated, just use it as is? optics are completey fine, but it backfocuses like crazy.
 
bronxbombers said:
Peter White said:
There are lots of teenagers out there who take great pleasure in
getting onto forums and spreading rumors. These little twirps
should be doing their homework, but instead are sitting back and
having a good laugh at your expense. In a few years they'll be
writing computer viruses. Ignore them for now. Hopefully the FBI
will deal with them when they graduate to virus writing.

--
Peter White
Click to expand...
if my 17-40L does not come back well aligned would you like to buy
it off of me then? only used a very few times so far and still
under warranty. wonder if people who say issues are all a joke will
pony up the money to back up their words. or my 70-300 IS if I
ever get mad enough about the portrait issue to try to get rid of
it?

or would you be willing to buy an almost new 85 1.8 and leave it
uncalibrated, just use it as is? optics are completey fine, but it
backfocuses like crazy.
Click to expand...
or how about buying a 50 1.4, I have one I could see that has nearly full warranty left, used only twice, focus is totally random for stuff over about 20 feet away?
 
Peter White said:
There is a difference between "all" people and "some" people.

Get yourself a good dictionary.

And let's not forget the old smiley! ;-)
Click to expand...
Thanks, being called 'stupid' with a smiley makes all the difference!
--
Misha
 
Daniella said:
he said:

"I've been very fortunate in getting mostly L copies that have been
razor sharp."

and I said "same" :)
Click to expand...
I see - It's just that the main question and title of his post was about soft copies :)

--
Misha
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top