I was gonna post something similar to this, everyone claims to have a sharp copy. Surely theres gotta be some fibbing goin on. But then again, who would buy something with the title "Non-Sharp 70-200L f/2.8 IS - LNIB $1499"
Naturally.
Only buyers experience soft lenses on occasion.
That leads to the following two conclusions:
(1) Folks never sell their soft lenses, i.e., they are held onto as KEEPERS, or
(2) Some sellers can't tell "sharp" from "soft" which in effect illustrates an all too prevalent USER ERROR.
Maybe because people return lenses that perform significantly worse than they should. I've owned 12 lenses, and all have had great optics. My Sigma 30 front focused, and I sent it back and got the Canon 28, and my 50 f/1.4 has a very mild decentering issue, and I'm having it serviced now, so it should hopefully come back very sharp.
The fact is, most lenses are 'good copies.' The squeaky wheel gets the oil, as they say.
1. "Bad copies" are not as common as people think. One or two guys whining on the web, and the bad news keeps spreading like a plaque!
2. Most people don't sell "bad copies" on FM where their reputation is at stake. Also most FMers are at advanced levels - not to be messing around with!
3. Because of #2, bad copies are seen more often on ebay, local stores, local listing etc...
4. I personally sent several "bad" lenses back to Canon for a health check!
tigerp, I'll have to take exception with the FM reputation vs Ebay statement.
I bought a 1D here which died within 2 weeks. I think people are people....
As to the sharpness question, sometimes it's a little subjective. Sharp to someone may be too soft to another. Funny thread though, it reminded me of how every new mother thinks their baby is the cutest ever...
I have buy one used 70-200 F4 and using in 300D, later I sold it out; now I have 1D and bought one used 70-200 f4 again, this time I found the pictures from the later copy seems are not sharpness then my first one. oh I just feel how fool am I, haha...
