a couple of thousand dollars might be nothing to a pro, but for the rest of us who want quality glass, this is a serious investment of money, and one that deserves to give us what we are paying for. wheather it'sa cheapo(!!!) L lens or a commercial optic, you as a paying customer deserve to buy somehting thats supposed to do what it's supposed to do
Before people start thinking it is a total crap shoot about getting a good lens, go look at the reviews on this site. This lens is rated at 9.7 out 10, and I don't think that people who don't like the lens are less likely to leave a review. So a whole lot of people have to really like this lens. Often on the internet when 2 or 3 people complain about something it gets totally blown out of proportion. The odds are pretty good you will be very happy with this lens if you buy it.
mstolpner wrote:
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.
With all respect , there are to many of you here that rely on hear say and reviews to sway your conviction on camera gear.
bluefox9er wrote:
a couple of thousand dollars might be nothing to a pro, but for the rest of us who want quality glass, this is a serious investment of money, and one that deserves to give us what we are paying for. wheather it'sa cheapo(!!!) L lens or a commercial optic, you as a paying customer deserve to buy somehting thats supposed to do what it's supposed to do
Since when are pros rich and are able to throw thousands around?
mstolpner wrote:
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.
People write - often angrily - about any problem and even any _perceived_ problem with their gear. People rarely if ever write about their gear when it works just as expected.
danmitchell wrote:
People write - often angrily - about any problem and even any _perceived_ problem with their gear. People rarely if ever write about their gear when it works just as expected.
The whole "bad copy" thing is way overblown.
Dan
Well said
The Internet seems to breed more complaints then good news......
When's the last time you've seen an hour of news on TV that was ALL positive for the hour
Well, most reviews don't test lenses in all possible conditions (close up/mfd focusing vs infinity)...So, focus shifts are easily overlooked (in both 50 1.2 L and 70-200 f/4 L IS), it's more of a lens design thing than a ''bad'' copy thing.
!!!) L lens or a commercial optic, you as a paying customer deserve to buy somehting thats supposed to do what it's supposed to do 
That's sad.