With so many messages about the bad copies of this lens it is difficult to judge what is a good example. Some feedback from Canon suggests that their QC level allows for quality that most people here on the forum would not accept. So please post why you think your copy is great. Post some unprocessed sample shots with only reasonably small amount of sharpening. I think another useful piece of information on deciding if the lens is good is an approximate percentage of keepers you have.
I think you're asking for too much. The best thing to do is to go the your local camera shop & test them out for yourself. Based on each individual's shooting styles, results will vary. Taste is also another thing to put into consideration. What is good for one person may not be good for another. That's my 2 cents.
"So many messages about the bad copies of this lens?" I haven't seen a single post about a bad copy of this lens. I've read nothing but great things about this lens. Mine is no exception.
But the replacement i received few days ago kicks ass, it peform WAY better than the one I'd returned.
For those who are in doubt there are bad copies of this lens, obviously you are out of touch and have not been around long enough to see those complaints in the past. Just do a search here, or at POTN and dpreview forums about this lens. user error....ignorance is bliss.
As to OP, don't worry about getting bad copy, just buy your lens from a reputable store like BH, test your lens thoroughly as soon as you get it, they will give you an exchange within 14 days if you're unlucky enough to get a bad one.
I don't know how you could have "user error" with that lens. My copy is very sharp wide open to stopped down and from 70 to 200. I never have to think about avoiding certain settings. And the IS works great. It works best for me for landscapes and candids., but has a lot of other uses.
My only bad copy of a lens after buying (and eventually selling) over 50 lenses during the last few years was a used 24mm L f1.4 that wouldnt focus beyond 3 meters. And that was because I bought it used over ebay. I am contemplating looking into if there is something wrong with the focus motor on my quite old 85 1.2 mark 1, but I have to completely eliminate user error first. I used to have the Non-IS of the 70-200 f4, now I have the IS. Both perform(ed) spectacularly.
I don't know - my copy is one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used - including some of the L primes. It's incredible straight from wide open...and has the great color and contrast I've come to expect from L zooms in this range. The AF is spot on, and the IS saves shots I couldn't have dreamed of before. (I can shoot regularly at 1/10s at 70mm and 1/30s at 200mm without much trouble. If I'm steady, I can go slower.) I'd say in 'keepers' as in 'in focus, sharp, with great color,' probably 98% with this lens. Of course, my true 'keeper' rate is much lower, as I only consider my best images to be 'keepers.' (Though, truth be told, I keep all my photos that aren't a black frame or such.)
Mine is soft wide open, and incredibly sharp at 5.6. Prime like.
Rivals my 85L and 135L in fact.
But at f4, it's worse than a kit lens.
So I have no doubt that mine does need calibration, since the difference is more than considerable.
Yeah...of the shots above, the theater shot and the raccoon are wide open...which I find just as sharp as any other aperture with this lens, so send yours in...mine is even sharp wide open with a 1.4x TC:
My copy of the lens is very sharp even wide open. There is a slight degradation at minimum focus distance on the long end of the zoom. Many users have noticed this and some complain bitterly about it. On my copy it is not a big issue. Here are some example shots:
Thank you for posting. Great pictures. Great colors and contrast. However do you think such small images can tell that the lens is great? Do you have images that you would not be able to take without this great lens?
fraga wrote:
Mine is soft wide open, and incredibly sharp at 5.6. Prime like.
Rivals my 85L and 135L in fact.
But at f4, it's worse than a kit lens.
So I have no doubt that mine does need calibration, since the difference is more than considerable.
Yeah that doesn't sound right, my copy at f/4 is only slightly softer than at 5.6
for the disgustingly high prices we are forced to pay for lenses like these, it is nothing short of a DISGRACE that such a thing as a 'bad' or ' acceptable' copy of a lens should exist.
ALL LENSES should be of outstanding quality...after all, they arn't hand made, they are all mass produced.
I guess as long as we consumers put up with nonsense like 'bad copy' the manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank.
producing a 'bad copy' can be down to manufacturing errors...to have a 'bad copy' pass quality control and enter supply chain towards the end line user is nothing short of an absolute and total , utter disgrace ,and should be subject to legal implications of providing a consumer a product that significantly fails to comply with original specification.
if you can't provide consistant quality, then vary your pricing strucutre to reflect that you cannot deliver the required quality, or mark it clearly on the packaging telling the customer that you arn't getting what you ** think** you are getting.
Sure, It's easy to blame user error for poor results from a lens, and *sometimes* it might well be user error...but there MUST be a gazillion lens owners out there whose poor performing lenses are exactly that...sub-quality at point of manufacture, but they are keeping them thinking that it is their inability to use the equipment that is yielding unacceptable results.
bluefox9er wrote:
for the disgustingly high prices we are forced to pay for lenses like these, it is nothing short of a DISGRACE that such a thing as a 'bad' or ' acceptable' copy of a lens should exist.
ALL LENSES should be of outstanding quality...after all, they arn't hand made, they are all mass produced.
I guess as long as we consumers put up with nonsense like 'bad copy' the manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank.
producing a 'bad copy' can be down to manufacturing errors...to have a 'bad copy' pass quality control and enter supply chain towards the end line user is nothing short of an absolute and total , utter disgrace ,and should be subject to legal implications of providing a consumer a product that significantly fails to comply with original specification.
if you can't provide consistant quality, then vary your pricing strucutre to reflect that you cannot deliver the required quality, or mark it clearly on the packaging telling the customer that you arn't getting what you ** think** you are getting.
Sure, It's easy to blame user error for poor results from a lens, and *sometimes* it might well be user error...but there MUST be a gazillion lens owners out there whose poor performing lenses are exactly that...sub-quality at point of manufacture, but they are keeping them thinking that it is their inability to use the equipment that is yielding unacceptable results....Show more →
Most of the consumer lenses such as Canon L series are realitively cheap, i.e, only a couple thousand dollars. The long teles are a bit more expensive and are better built and tested, though not all meet the design criteria. None are really commercial optics which cost 50-250K or more and must deliver the demanded performance. If Canon manufactured lenses with the quality of the handmade and fully tested Leica and Zeiss lenses they would be too expensive for the market, yet I would be willing to pay.
