Canon, why does this happen ?

After much soul searching and experimentation I have come to the conclusion that my $1,000 lens is not up to par. The Tamron 17-50, the Tamron 28-75 and the Canon 75-300 are undoubtedly, and consistently, sharper. It is not me, nor is it my "OLD" 20D.

So for the first time I will be sending one of my lenses to be

" calibrated " ( let's call it what it is...FIXED ). I may not even need to buy a 40D, after all. For the time being I will go back to my trusted Tammy 28-75mm.

If Tamron can make a very well built, cheaper, and sharp lenses for $400, why does Canon's elite L need to be "adjusted". These expensive lenses should be tested by a human before they are shipped. If need be, add another $25 to the price.

On a happier note, the gal that took care of me at Canon's Virginia call center was without a doubt, the nicest tech support person EVER. She was pleasant, witty, knowledgeable and efficient.

--
Guillermo

I've sent back one of every two lenses I buy, occasionally more than once. It's the nature of the beast, but happily covered under warranty.

I don't suppose you could mention which particular lens is giving you problems?

Any lens manufacturer can have bad copies.

All L lenses are checked visually AND electronically (having a test pattern projected through them with computer analisys), but an element may still be a bit loose and shift during shipping for example.

Canon L lenses are still lower in faults than any of the 3rd party lenses.

It's the Canon 24-105mm L.
--
Guillermo

I assume he's talking about 24-105L judging by the price and comparing it to 28-75... I recently got one myself (the 24-105) and it's nice and sharp, but it has CA problem, even at center and at all appertures. While testing, I used a Tamron 17-50 as a comparison among others and let me tell you, Tamron has nothing to be ashamed of with that particular model. As sharp as it gets, color reproduction is perfect, contrast is even better than the 24-105L and 17-40L (and the later also had it's share of problems). And 17-50 costs about $350. The only gripe with it could be the AF noise and speed to a degree, but it's really just a minor difference... So, if you're planning on staying with 1.6 crop bodies, take a good look at alternatives before going for L glass. If you get a bad copy of a cheaper lens, at least it won't hurt as much as it does at L price point

I agree. The Tamron 17-50mm is probably the best lens I have.
--
Guillermo