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

I think Canon should make a joke of this whole "soft lens" internet legend and sell "L Lens" neck rests to take with you while you're flying.

I'd buy one.

"What's that?"

"Oh, it's a soft L lens."

"Huh?"

"Never mind, it doesn't make any sense unless you're an internet troll."

"What's that?!"

"Er... never mind."

--
Nimnar

canon is just another camera maker that makes pro photo gear. and just like any other product there's sample variation among lenses and bodies, no matter who makes them. if you get a soft copy, send it in get it replaced or get it fixed. A printed letter 'L' on the barrel or a red ring doesn't gurrantee anything. Marketing and QA are totally different matter.
Max

What I don't understand is why Canon do not add a lens focus tweak setup in the camera body.
Then people could start with "calibrated" lenses, but adjust each from the body.

I'm not suggesting the body does a permanent calibration of the lens, just allow a focus offset for the lens.

It would be a simple matter to select which lens you are using and have an offset database for each one in the camera.

This would avoid most calibration returns.

How about it canon?

I'm thinking about buying this lens but have been holding off since I've read many complaints about it. I guess I'll wait for a little while to see if Canon quality improves.

--
ToL

http://www.pbase.com/taleoflens

I've just read all the posts and I guess I don't know what to think about half of them.. I'm still not sure if some people people know what I'm talking about. I've only had one L lens in the past that wasn't as sharp as a friends used on my old D60. It was quite noticeable. I've been lucky since with great copies.

I'm still amazed that a company wouldn't have the necessary QC in their premier line. No more "it's all about the photo taking" lines please.

GoldenSpark said:

What I don't understand is why Canon do not add a lens focus tweak
setup in the camera body.
Then people could start with "calibrated" lenses, but adjust each
from the body.
I'm not suggesting the body does a permanent calibration of the
lens, just allow a focus offset for the lens.
It would be a simple matter to select which lens you are using and
have an offset database for each one in the camera.

This would avoid most calibration returns.

How about it canon?

Click to expand...

GREAT idea.

--
Regards,

Deepak
http://www.rnhinfo.com/Photographs
http://www.bangalorephotographyclub.com/galleries/deepakvrao

My 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 work perfectly, and have since day one. As does my 16-35L. Since the 16-35L was the lens I chose over the 17-40L last summer, I see no reason to buy a 17-40L now. Since I prefer manual focus, an f/4 maximum aperture is not my prefered lens.

But thanks for your kind offer.

--
Peter White

GoldenSpark said:

What I don't understand is why Canon do not add a lens focus tweak
setup in the camera body.
Then people could start with "calibrated" lenses, but adjust each
from the body.
I'm not suggesting the body does a permanent calibration of the
lens, just allow a focus offset for the lens.
It would be a simple matter to select which lens you are using and
have an offset database for each one in the camera.

This would avoid most calibration returns.

How about it canon?

Click to expand...

why don't they just release the software that lets one adjust calibration of camera and lenses like they used to? although I do have one from canon with bad optics and one with the whole portrait issue, all other issues appear to be calibration and nothing to do with out and out bad optics.

Now, I know what you think, I also agree that most people who say there's something wrong with their lenses (like the 28-70/2.8 myth) actually are poor testers. I said MOST, to all you good testers about to complain.

But I had AF trouble with both the 20D and 50/1.4. I know you have a 5D, have you tried that lens on a 20D? The lens reportedly works flawlessly on a 5D and up (that from someone who had AF trouble on the 20D as well).

I'm not saying that the 50/1.4 has good and bad batches ('cause I don't know for sure) and also not saying that it is a bad lens. My hypothesis is that the lens' rather lower quality micro USM reacts unexpectedly with the 20D's AF, or the 20D's AF behaves unexpectedly in some specific conditions, that the 50/1.4 just happens to create more often.

For instance, these pics I took with the 135/2 + 1.4xTC:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=17639986

Notice that I wasn't testing for AF when I took the pics. But I just noticed two of them were very OOF (the first and the last, which are similar but different, and taken at different times with other shots in-between).

There's also people who say they don't have this trouble, but then again there's different circumstances involved. It wasn't always that I got OOF pics with the 50/1.4, but many times in what should be rather easy conditions of AF'ing.

So my opinion on the subject is that while I really don't think there are as many "bad copies" as so many people may lead others to believe, there should be at least a little bit, since nothing is perfect.

Peter White said:

My 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 work perfectly, and have since day
one. As does my 16-35L. Since the 16-35L was the lens I chose over
the 17-40L last summer, I see no reason to buy a 17-40L now. Since
I prefer manual focus, an f/4 maximum aperture is not my prefered
lens.

But thanks for your kind offer.

--
Peter White

Click to expand...