Canon L = Lousy?

Hi

A question and a suggestion for dpreview lens tests (and all the other like photozone and slrgear):

What is it with Canon L lenses? How come they are so inconsistent between samples? Bought a 24-105L. Tested against 50/1,8, 17-85, 100 Macro on 7D.

I was amazed to see the 50/1,8 killing the 24-105. And was perplexed when my 100 Macro lost against the 105. Then...

Sample 1:
4,0 8,0
Sharpness:
24 mm Mushy Sharp
50 mm Mushy Good
105 mm Good Stellar!

Fokus:
24 mm OK
50 mm Backfokus by 8
105 mm Perfect
On the midrange it was impossible to get fokus in the pictures.

Sample 2:
4,0 8,0
Sharpness:
24 mm Sharp Good
50 mm Good Good
105 mm Sharp Good

Fokus:
24 mm Perfect
50 mm Perfect
105 mm Perfect

What should I do. Get a lense that shines in one aspect and sucks in the other. Cant I expect more from Canon??
My companion have Nikon and there seems to be less variation. I dont know.

Suggestions for lens tests.

Take 10(!) samples and test them for consistency. A big variation should render a lower rating. Perhaps Canon then sharpen up the quality check.

We ordinary people cant spend all the money it takes to calibrate 1000-2000$ lenses

Tired!
--
Mike the Viking

Really!
L means lousy, according to you?

Yeah, there are sometimes sample variations as Canon produces these lenses in millions. But who told you that Nikon lenses have no sample variations?

I dont know of Nikon. Read instead and discuss.

Perplexed by the variations in the 24-105.

The 100-400 was the same story. Compared mine to friend. His f8 couldnt beat my f4,5. Strange when you pay 2000$
--
Mike the Viking

Cmon man.

Starting a thread like this is fine. Discussing such things are fine.

BUT!!!!

You need to post pictures of the tests (surely you have them) and show us your results and how they were tested.

If not this thread holds no merit and really there is no discussion to be had. Its like a Salem witch trial. Your a witch no no your a witch.

Sounds like the usual Canon focus issues.
--
Grizzly bears of Glacier National Park
http://www.parkcamper.com/Glacier-National-Park/Glacier-grizzly-bears.htm

Most of the time, people complain when it's user error, not any issue with the lens.

I have been using L lenses without any issues. In fact, I have used three 35mm L. No issues.

Your companion is probably just a better photographer, ever think of that?

Coming from Nikon, I've never had any QC issues with my bodies or lenses, especially their pro grade items.

Since I've been with Canon these past couple of years I'm getting to be fairly familiar with the NJ service/repair center and have the highest respect for their capabilities, but on the other hand a decreasing respect for Canon's factory QC.....two crippled 24-70s, 40D and a new 7D (lasted up to 50 actuations).....and now, most recently I sent them a 1DmkIII for the inherent AF issues and loose mount only when coupled together with a brand new, month old 70-200mkII.

I was expecting issues with the 1D3 but was stunned when they found problems with the lens and replaced some wiring and other parts.......sure, I can sleep better now knowing that they corrected these problems but that certainly raises questions about their QC regarding future purchases of their high end items.......
--
Regards,
Hank

I dont know about nikon but I agree it is not tolerable to pay 1500 à or more for lenses and never knowing what you'll have.

Sigma is even worth but is cheaper usually.

No excuse for canon.

what I dont get is why some lenses often seem to have variations (24-105, 100-400) and other almost never have (100mm macro, 300 2.8, 16-35II, 70-200 f4). More complicated optical design maybe?

--
http://picasaweb.google.com/vcx123456/

Sonylover1 said:

What is it with Canon L lenses? How come they are so inconsistent between samples?

Click to expand...

They aren't actually samples.

Oh, and my old Sony Trinitron monitor was nothing special, either.

Hank3152 said:

Coming from Nikon, I've never had any QC issues with my bodies or lenses, especially their pro grade items.

Since I've been with Canon these past couple of years I'm getting to be fairly familiar with the NJ service/repair center and have the highest respect for their capabilities, but on the other hand a decreasing respect for Canon's factory QC.....two crippled 24-70s, 40D and a new 7D (lasted up to 50 actuations).....and now, most recently I sent them a 1DmkIII for the inherent AF issues and loose mount only when coupled together with a brand new, month old 70-200mkII.

I was expecting issues with the 1D3 but was stunned when they found problems with the lens and replaced some wiring and other parts.......sure, I can sleep better now knowing that they corrected these problems but that certainly raises questions about their QC regarding future purchases of their high end items.......
--
Regards,
Hank

Click to expand...

Well, with Canon it would seem one more or less has to factor in the time nedded to have any new lens or body calibrated before the first "serious" use.

The local Canon service is very good, but the out-of-the-box quality for new Canon gear is not so good.

BR,

David

it would give you better results.
--
Eugene

The only time a smaller sensor with the same pixel count is superior to a larger sensor (aka higher pixel density) is when you are focal-length limited.

Quote by Lee Jay

I don't know but many Canon L lenses users are now selling them for Zeiss glass.
--
Feel free to visit my photo sites:
http://tom.st , http://www.foto.tom.st

How many?
--
Eugene

The only time a smaller sensor with the same pixel count is superior to a larger sensor (aka higher pixel density) is when you are focal-length limited.

Quote by Lee Jay

L also means lots of money. What do you expect for $1000? Do you want them to calibrate all lenses before they go out? Canon and Nikon have a monopoly. Don't expect good service. I hope I'm wrong, but my experience says no.

Sorry about your bad luck. I've been shooting canon bodies and lenses since 1978 and have never had a single lens that did not at least meet my expectations. Good luck ? Maybe...maybe not. I think if you really did a lot of homework on these forums with regards to poor lens performance, a pattern would emerge. I've always seen complaints, but nothing like the sheer numbers since the release of the 50D/7D bodies. I don't know if these bodies are just hard on glass, if QC problems are that bad, or if there is another cause. What ever the case may be, I hope your problems get sorted out.
Best regards.

tom sugnet said:

I don't know but many Canon L lenses users are now selling them for Zeiss glass.
--
Feel free to visit my photo sites:
http://tom.st , http://www.foto.tom.st

Click to expand...

Can you back that statement? Zeiss makes excellent glass - well sort of of you are OK with mustache distortion for an $1800 lens that has no AF motor.

My 300L F4 is really bad.





So is my 24-105





And my 70-200 L F4. Really bad



--
The solution is always simple. Getting there is the hard part.

how are you going to get the soft romantic images you want when the rubbbish L glass keeps showing every whisker in such extraodinary detail? (I have the same problem with my 300 F4LIS too, must be a design fault! )

Brian Wadie said:

how are you going to get the soft romantic images you want when the rubbbish L glass keeps showing every whisker in such extraodinary detail? (I have the same problem with my 300 F4LIS too, must be a design fault! )

Click to expand...

--
The solution is always simple. Getting there is the hard part.

never had any problems with any canon lens i have ever used. There has been a few

2x 18-55mm IS
75-300mm
18-200mm
60mm macro
100-400mm L
35mm f/1.4 L
17-40mm L
mpe65mm
50mm f/1.8
10-22mm

i have bought and sold along the way to make space for higher quality and consequentrly much more expensive lenses, but i have found each performed well as i expected. I do check to see if they focus well and do slight micro adjust if needed, and also to see if the lens is acceptably sharp but nothing major.

I did own one sigma lens the 24-70mm f/2.8 which was sharp but the ergonomics and size of the lens was not to my taste.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/41942460@N04/sets/