Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon L = Lousy?

Go to last post
I agree with what has been stated:

1. Sample variation occurs all the time in any brand.
2. In general, testing primes against zooms, let alone wide open, is a mistake.

--

Photography, like many other hobbies, persuits and art forms, is first and foremost about having fun and exploring.
 
Ditto with Fab :)
Fabian628 said:
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/
Click to expand...
 
the 50L is a crap.

the 35L is an ok-ish.

the 24L2 is outstanding.

the 135L is great.

the 85L2 is the best L ever.

the new 70-200f2.8LIS2 is just simply the best zoom ever made by any maker in any mount.

the 16-35L2 is good.

the 17-40L is a lousy as you say.

and 100-400 is ok but for me not needed any more and I sold.

the 200f2.8L2 is not bad but the 135f2L is better.

the 200f2 LIS is just outstanding and probably sharpest lens ever made in any mount but I cannot afford it so I rent it from Canon some times.

the 300f2.8IS is a great lens but I dont usually need it so I rent it as I need it , and I am sure this lens is better than the similar Nikkor.

the Canon TSE24f3.5L2 is an outstanding lens and a lot cheaper than similar Nikon PCE24f3.5D.

so, the 50 L , the 17-40, and 24-70 may be lousy.

the 35L , the 24-105L, the 100-400L and 100L just ok.

I still have the 24-105 because my assistant guy needs it and I like it for light casual travel or walk around but all other wide -mid Canon zooms I sold.

Only one Canon zoom that I really love is the EF70-200f2.8LIS2.

So, I think the best Canon fullframe kid can be like below:

1 EOS 5D3(I strongly believe it will be announced in this Sep).
2 Zeiss 18f3.5ZE.
3 Canon TSE24f3.5L2.
4 Zeiss 35f2ZE.
5 ZEiss 50f2MP.
6 Canon 85f1.2L2USM.
7 EF70-200f2.8LIS2.
8 Zeiss 100f2 ZE.

this is the ideal Canon fullframe kit.

YMMV.
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...
 
pandalee said:
So, I think the best Canon fullframe kid can be like below:

1 EOS 5D3(I strongly believe it will be announced in this Sep).
Click to expand...
...

i agree, and the best way to travel is by hoverboard (I strongly believe it will be announced in this Sep)
 
When I first reviewed the spec's on this lens I wasn't too impressed and made sure that I bought the 70-200mm F4 to get great pics above 60mm. I should have waited to first see the pics. I process all my images with DXO and the quality is outstanding up to 105mm. I seldom pull out the 70-200 as the range to 105 seems to cover a lot of my work.

I give this lens on a Mark II 5 stars with DXO. My first opinion was 3 stars with out DXO.

I checked my Front Focus and BF and it was almost spot on. In my opinion the brokeh is good for a F4 lens. If I want more brokeh then I use my 50mm Sigma F1.4 which looks great down to F1.4 with DXO with great broke.

By the way, the Sigma 50 mm took a -18 adjustment to get the focus right.

1.0 Check your front focus. 2.0 Buy DXO or at least try it out.
 
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...
 
It's more the time it takes to do the evaluation than the money. If you're prudent you buy from a reputable retailer with a fair return policy and test within the timeframe. I almost never buy a Canon lens without testing at least 2 side by side and that includes L's. I could relate several horror stories regarding decentering and AF calibration. Over the past 6 months I've tested 5 samples of the EFS15~85 and found only one that was reasonably centered that I kept.

My question is how are you testing? I've been doing this for so long I've got several reliable test methods I use to evaluate near, mid and infinity performance but all rely on liveview and manual focus or contrast AF using silent shooting and remote release. Obviously I'm not questioning the variation between samples but one does have to have really good methods and technique to obtain valid results.

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
 
People are demanding me to send samples. It would take me another 8 hour to complete a full packages of sample for 24 mm, 50, 70 and 105, Center and the corners. I will not do that.

I can here from you that you have the experience and the possibility to test several samples before the final buy. In Sweden it is seldom you can do that. They only take it back if DOA. Some firms do have incredibly good service but their prices is up 15-20%. I cant afford it.

And as you say - it is not so much the money (of course it is important but...) than the time you must spent testing the lenses. I think expensive lenses should have narrower variotions between samples. I really hate to read user saying "my lens is a gem but I know people that was less fortunate" It should be luck.

I finally got me a decent 24-105. It is a tad better than 17-85 in contrast and general IQ. But fringing and distortion at 24mm is as the 17-85.

Its shines in the 105 range. Incredibly sharp and useful in macro, portrait and landscape.

I will use my 10-22 as wide lens.
--
Mike the Viking
 
Here's a thread I participated in on the Nikon lens forum regarding a decentered new Nikkor 70~200f2.8VRII.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=35769565

Apparently Canon is not the only culprit. The problem is if you don't test for it specifically you'll probably never know the problem exists until you see it in an image under the right conditions and then most will probably explain it away as their fault or some strange phenomena they can't explain and just forget about it.

It's interesting when you have 3 samples of the same lens and the camera is locked down tight on a heavy tripod. You carefully frame with the first sample, take the shots using a remote release and then carefully remove the lens without disturbing the camera or tripod. After mounting sample two the framing is significantly different and requires realigning and sample three is many times different again. This is all due to decentering of the lens elements and it's a real problem even with L zooms though many don't want to believe it so no, you're not going crazy. The variation you see is most likely real.

We have the luxury of a more liberal return policy with most retailers in the US so testing is easier in that regard.

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
 
Like you say - the variation is definitely there even with most "affordable" L lenses. In my previous post, I said Canon´s 24-70 in general definitely suffered from more sample variations then Nikon´s 24-70. Many retailers told me so as well. However, I´m not sayin Nikon is the holy grail here - they will have their sample variations problems as well; it is just their 24-70 that I was told nobody had ever complained about copy differences.
 
Sonylover1 said:
People are demanding me to send samples. It would take me another 8 hour to complete a full packages of sample for 24 mm, 50, 70 and 105, Center and the corners. I will not do that.

I can here from you that you have the experience and the possibility to test several samples before the final buy. In Sweden it is seldom you can do that. They only take it back if DOA. Some firms do have incredibly good service but their prices is up 15-20%. I cant afford it.

And as you say - it is not so much the money (of course it is important but...) than the time you must spent testing the lenses. I think expensive lenses should have narrower variotions between samples. I really hate to read user saying "my lens is a gem but I know people that was less fortunate" It should be luck.

I finally got me a decent 24-105. It is a tad better than 17-85 in contrast and general IQ. But fringing and distortion at 24mm is as the 17-85.

Its shines in the 105 range. Incredibly sharp and useful in macro, portrait and landscape.

I will use my 10-22 as wide lens.
--
Mike the Viking
Click to expand...
8 hours to grab a couple pictures and post them? More like 8 minutes.
 
The 50L and 35L crap: what utter BS.
pandalee said:
the 35L is an ok-ish.

the 24L2 is outstanding.

the 135L is great.

the 85L2 is the best L ever.

the new 70-200f2.8LIS2 is just simply the best zoom ever made by any maker in any mount.

the 16-35L2 is good.

the 17-40L is a lousy as you say.

and 100-400 is ok but for me not needed any more and I sold.

the 200f2.8L2 is not bad but the 135f2L is better.

the 200f2 LIS is just outstanding and probably sharpest lens ever made in any mount but I cannot afford it so I rent it from Canon some times.

the 300f2.8IS is a great lens but I dont usually need it so I rent it as I need it , and I am sure this lens is better than the similar Nikkor.

the Canon TSE24f3.5L2 is an outstanding lens and a lot cheaper than similar Nikon PCE24f3.5D.

so, the 50 L , the 17-40, and 24-70 may be lousy.

the 35L , the 24-105L, the 100-400L and 100L just ok.

I still have the 24-105 because my assistant guy needs it and I like it for light casual travel or walk around but all other wide -mid Canon zooms I sold.

Only one Canon zoom that I really love is the EF70-200f2.8LIS2.

So, I think the best Canon fullframe kid can be like below:

1 EOS 5D3(I strongly believe it will be announced in this Sep).
2 Zeiss 18f3.5ZE.
3 Canon TSE24f3.5L2.
4 Zeiss 35f2ZE.
5 ZEiss 50f2MP.
6 Canon 85f1.2L2USM.
7 EF70-200f2.8LIS2.
8 Zeiss 100f2 ZE.

this is the ideal Canon fullframe kit.

YMMV.
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...
Click to expand...
--

Photography, like many other hobbies, persuits and art forms, is first and foremost about having fun and exploring.
 
Hank3152 said:
http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.12.22/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths
Click to expand...
Yes that is an interesting link that I've read before. I don't totally agree with them and feel they have an agenda that independent test sites don't. If you think about this it's really in Lens Rentals best interest to promote that there is little to no sample variation in lenses otherwise they'd be admitting that at times they are renting less than optimum lenses to their customers. It's easier (and many times true) to blame lens/body AF calibration but that's not the whole story. Admitting that some lenses are decentered or just not as tack sharp as another sample is not good for their business and their statement goes completely against my experience and research. I highly doubt they invest the time and effort to test each lens when new and after it returns from the field at multiple FL's (for zooms) and focus distances for decentering and focus accuracy. Canon and Nikon don't do it before they ship but their most expensive lenses and I'd bet Lens Rentals doesn't either.

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
 
rwbaron said:
Hank3152 said:
http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2008.12.22/this-lens-is-soft-and-other-myths
Click to expand...
Yes that is an interesting link that I've read before. I don't totally agree with them and feel they have an agenda that independent test sites don't. If you think about this it's really in Lens Rentals best interest to promote that there is little to no sample variation in lenses otherwise they'd be admitting that at times they are renting less than optimum lenses to their customers. It's easier (and many times true) to blame lens/body AF calibration but that's not the whole story. Admitting that some lenses are decentered or just not as tack sharp as another sample is not good for their business and their statement goes completely against my experience and research. I highly doubt they invest the time and effort to test each lens when new and after it returns from the field at multiple FL's (for zooms) and focus distances for decentering and focus accuracy. Canon and Nikon don't do it before they ship but their most expensive lenses and I'd bet Lens Rentals doesn't either.

Bob
--
http://www.pbase.com/rwbaron
Click to expand...
Great post. Very valid statements you make.
 
Dont you believe me?
Did you try out 7D yourself with Canon lenses?
8 min. You are not serious.

What is your point?

Should we buy and never ask questions about consistency? If you like LensRentals statement and find variations a minor problem - fine. I find the article pretty patronizing in the end. Microadjustment is not the holy grail. It doesnt work if you have inconsistencys in a zoom lens.

So what is your point? You need to see pics for yourselves? Ill bet you will denounce the technic used and so on.

It is pretty obvious 7D is stressing the hell out of Canon lenses. You didnt see variations like that in 30D and 40D. I dont sell the lenses are bad - just that variations are bad.

--
Mike the Viking
 
Seems like more people have issues with 7D and L-optics.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1029&message=35829893

Could be that 7D misses focusing in certain situations (hard to believe when I find it fast and accurate compared to my 40D). But using 19 AF sucks - you have focus all over the place and its impossible to understand the logic behind.

Interesting though - I will test all my lenses wide open comparing 40D and 7D.
All in all it is a good way to get to know you new equipment.

--
Mike the Viking
 
I only have 2 L lenses, both are great. I've used several others and they were great too.

Sounds like a user issue to me.

Gene
 
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