Canon L = Lousy?

Sorry to hear about your unfortunate run of bad luck!

I have to say I have been most impressed with the 'L' lenses I have.

100-400mm IS L Zoom
100mm IS L Macro
500mm IS L

There did appear to be a small problem with the 100-400 when it first came out regarding sharpness. But this was sorted down the line, and from what I can gather the 100-400 has been OK for a number of years, at least. Mine needs +6 AF MA on my 7D and it then produces pin sharp images throughout its range.

My other lenses which are not 'L' class also produce cracking results. (No pun intended- cracking / glass) anyway

EFS 10-22mm
EFS 15-85mm IS

OK the 15-85 is not perfect but using it in real world situations, stopped down, I can't really fault it and a lens covering that focal range is never going to be perfect and affordable. But as long as you don't shoot lens test charts all day it's a fine lens.

The 10-22mm I find stunning myself for an EFS lens and can't really fault it. Again in real world situations , stopped down, it produces superb results.

I can only suggest you get back to the dealer and keep exchanging until you gat a good copy, perhaps there was an out of spec batch that got through?

I would imagine that lenses like the 100-400 and 24-105 are among the more popular 'L' family of lenses Canon produce. I often see these lenses by the bucket load on news reports in the press photographers throng attempting to photograph someone or the other. Usually they have two bodies with one of these lenses on each. So there must be some good copies out there?

A friend of mine had the nearest equivalent to the 100-400 L in Nikon teamed with a good Nikon body. He had terrible problems he now has a 7D and a Canon 100-400 L. He saw some of my photo's asked me what I used and decided to swap from Nikon to Canon, so far he seems extremely happy!

I am sure if you ask on the lens forum for examples of what a good 24-105 can do there will be plenty of offers.

Phil

... is tilted, you better sen 'er in! : )
--
Warren

Sonylover you must be trolling

You're comparing a 4x zoom wide open to primes. Im no fan of my 24-105mm either but I understand the optical limitations. Its a good versatile event/party lens and thats all.

I think the basis of your subject lies in your name Sonylover1

24-70f2.8L
70-200f2.8L
300f2.8L
17-40f4.0L

...the list will grow.

--



http://www.pbase.com/patgould

Cant you be serious???

Look at my profile and you can see I have used Canon for a long time. I used T90 back inte the 80-90ies.

The problem with the sorts of your kind is that you newer discuss the matter - just knitwicking details.

Mike the Viking

Dont talk about trolling.

It is more interesting that your statement for the 1000$ lens 24-105 is "partylens".
How come that the 24-105 is a partylens? Never heard of.

I compared the two samples to my 17-85 lens (one of the most discredited lenses of Canons lineup) and the "cheap but good" 50/1,8. My point is why there are so big variations between two tested lenses? Be free to discuss that matter.

-
Mike the Viking

Hi

I am aware that the resolution of the 7D might play a part when evaluating a lens.

Matter of fact - the 17-85 and the cheapo 50 looks a lot better on a 7D than my old 40D.

--
Mike the Viking

I like Canon products and have been using them for decades. I like the lens lineup and the prices compared to Nikon. But...

And it is an important but. If Canon are going the wrong way with QC (or worse) coldly calculating that people dont check their equipment then my preferences will change abruptly.

I cant read in other forums or testsites that "I sent my Nikonlenses in for calibration" or "my third example was in the specs".
Almost everyone expect such behaviour from 3rd party Sigma or whatever company.

Everyone knows that the e-bay is full of examples that never met the specifikations.
But why should we live with it?

My simple suggestion:

Propose/demand/ask for variationtests in the lenses tested. It is easy to ask that in the commentary or in a forum.
Maybe such "pressure" would make lensmakers more keen to tighten QC.
--
Mike the Viking

I don´t like this kind of introductions but yet... Serious photography has been my hobby for over 20 years now, I used to come through many this-or-that choices, experienced relatively a lot of equipment from both Nikon and Canon camp. I´m not brand biased and try to always take as pragmatic approach as possible.

As for the current Canon 24-70, all I can say is: Yes, watch out, unfortunately this lens differs quite a lot piece by piece. Really.... Even the respected German reviewer site http://www.photozone.de writes this about the 24-70L:

"...It took me 4 (f-o-u-r) samples of the lens to get a good one - please note: "good", not a "great" sample. The first three variants showed rather hefty centering defects which spoiled the results quite a bit. "

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/184-canon-ef-24-70mm-f28-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1

Since I´m from the Czech Republic, I can give you even one more source:

http://www.digineff.cz/art/jaknato/100609ostreni.html This article is not about 24-70, but this lens was used here and the author is quite surprised by the "softness" of this glass at 2.8 (take a look - it is the third pic from the top - the 1:1 detail of the head of the sculpture taken at f2.8 from the tripod).

I think this is totally unacceptable for 1000$+ lens... And even in the "full frame" test at Photozone.de (as you can find out) the lens wasn´t excellent at all (+ it suffers from huge field curvature problem here).

Simply, there IS STRONG sample variation with this lens, Im sure about that. But what other choices you have? Sigma (24-70/2.8) sucks, so does Tamron´s 28-70... Yes, you can switch to Nikon but even if you were that crazy to switch because of this one particular lens, Nikon has its problem with this lens too (zoom grinding, the rubber peeling...). But yes, Nikon´s 24-70 2.8 is much better and sample consistent then the current Canon 24-70/2.8.

If I were in the Canon camp, I wouldn´t buy it or I would compare 3 samples of this lens at least before buying it.

Big shame of both Canon and Nikon for not being able to produce consistent quality (more to Canon here) without stupid troubles like zoom mechanism grinding and the rubber coming off (Nikon). We are talking here about pricey, profi lenses which are the key lenses for every company (now that the full frame cameras start to dominate) and such QC is NOT ACCEPTABLE. Unfortunately, I´m afraid the Japanese don´t care (knowing you don´t have much other options here).

I've had 5 L lenses, still have 3, and they were/are all superb. I sold the 17-40L when I got the 24-105L and 10-22, because those two lenses made the 17-40 redundant (for me). I sold the 70-200 F4L when I got the 70-200 F2.8L IS. I recently got the 35L. Perhaps I'm just lucky, but I've had nothing but great experiences with L lenses so far.
--
Alastair
http://anorcross.smugmug.com
Equipment in profile

Seems that I am not out in the water with this issue.
Thanks for your contributions. I hope Canon will listen.

There was a time when only "pros" could buy the stuff and they didnt care if they had to swith it. Now when amateurs and semi-pros are buying those top-lenses we either do wrong in using them or are just more demanding (it is our money). Either way - I dont think photozone makes crappy tests. So it is something wrong going on.
--
Mike the Viking

Hi again.

It seems that the entire 7D forum is debating focus or softness problems.
I dont feel alone.

An old article..but interesting. He has a lot on focusing, misalingment and so on.
http://diglloyd.com/articles/ask/tip-build-quality.html

Perhaps most interesting:
http://diglloyd.com/articles/ask/tip-depth-of-field-megapixels.html

It could be that the tolerance/variations didnt show up when we had 4 Mp and 6 Mp cameras? Now we are up in the air with 18-24 MP. Seems like it is putting a lot more pressure on the photographer (and the lens manufacturing).
--
Mike the Viking

Well, there are so many subjective things going on, it's hard to separate facto from fiction, so to speak. From my experience with 20 years of doing photography with Canon EOS, I would offer some ideas for debate and possible explanations:

1. When people were using film, most would hand over their film at the counter and get the prints. A smaller number of people would order large prints, say A4 or A3. Most would never look at a photo in their computer. Well, most didn't even had a computer!

2. Still in the film days, some photographers would use slide film (as in my case). They would hand over their slide film to good quality labs. They would select and inspect their slides in a light box under a loupe, and throw the bad ones in the bin. Again, perhaps not much computer involved.

3. Some photographers started using computers and film scanners, to make digital bakcups of their work, to cater for client submissions, and so on and so forth. the digital age in photography came many years before the affordable SLR! People complaining about noise should have a look at what a Velvia tranny looks like at 100% on screen...

4. Now, with the advent of cheap computers and high count megapixel sensors, EVERYBODY can blow up their images to 100% or more...) on screen. Concurrently, all of a sudden, everybody is an expert on optical quality... mind you, it is great to be able to inspect images at this detail, but with this amplification power, what is happening is that we are seeing the lens defects as well. This would not happen in the past.

5. There has always been, and there always will be, sample variation, even in a multi thousand dollar L lens. Premium lenses from Canon, or Nikon, or Pentax, or Sony, are still manufactured subject to a samll bandwith/range in terms of specs. Perhaps Leica are still the only ones that assemble lenses manually, with the result that their assemly quality is much more stringent, and with the resulting prices!

6. I thik it is foolish to assume that Canon are worse than Nikon, or some other brands. You just have to go to a reputable dealer, or one that is authorized to provide technical assistance, and will see cameras and lenses being handed over for repair from both brands. I have been using Canon EOS for 20 yeras, never had a problem with my gear.

7. These days it is very easy to go online and just complain, but how many of the stories are attributable to manufacturing issues, and to user error or inexperience? For example, how many posts do we see here about people venturing into micro focus adjustment, admiting that they do not know very well what they are doing? When you buy a lens, you will have at least 1 year warranty in the EU it is two years); take that time to use it, and of course if you think there is a problem, return it. The truth is, if you take time and research the opinion and experience of seasoned pros, you will see that they can report stories of all brands of equipment failing out of the box even.

Sonylover1 said:

Dont talk about trolling.

It is more interesting that your statement for the 1000$ lens 24-105 is "partylens".
How come that the 24-105 is a partylens? Never heard of.

I compared the two samples to my 17-85 lens (one of the most discredited lenses of Canons lineup) and the "cheap but good" 50/1,8. My point is why there are so big variations between two tested lenses? Be free to discuss that matter.

-
Mike the Viking

Click to expand...

"partylens" lol i never said "partylens" I said event/ party lens, if you've never heard this lens' main function being for events then i'd suggests thats due to your ability to understand what that means.

so you've got a bad copy of canons cheapest zoom L lens and you're claiming that every L lens is lousy? = troll

how about you take it back to the store u got it from... or do you have a grey import or second hand version?

RustyRus said:

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.

Click to expand...

SonyLover.....Why cant you respond to this then if you are very serious? Post examples of your tests and your bad shots.

Maybe because L lens owners subject their lenses to extreme scrutiny.

Sonylover1 said:

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

Click to expand...

--
Michael Thomas Mitchell

I predict that this is another thread that will get 153 responses before it dies.

Regards, Bill

Bill MacBeth said:

I predict that this is another thread that will get 153 responses before it dies.

Regards, Bill

Click to expand...

Yet so many people never respond to anyone asking valid questions. It amazes me that these threades get all the attention and someone asking how to use lighting, shoot night shots, fireworks and so on get 3 replies maybe.

This guy should post shots of his "tests" and show us what he did or people should move on and ignore.

Sample variation is going to happen with any equipment this complex (notice how zooms and particularly the more exotic ones, are the biggest offenders) produced in the quantities and at the price of these lenses. I know $1-2K is a lot of money, but it would be much, much more expensive if every lens were built and tested by hand: look at Leica's prices for instance (care to pay $3k for a 35/1.4 or $6k for a 24/1.4?). The nice thing is, most L lenses are more than acceptable and if you happen to hit on a sub-par sample, just exchange it or have it calibrated. They do it for free if it's under warranty, which IMO is better than having to pay 2 or 3x every time just to know that it'll be perfect.

To say that this doesn't happen with Nikon or any of the other brands is ridiculous; they all have this "issue".

--
-Scott
http://www.flickr.com/photos/redteg94/