Need advice on Canon 70-300 image quality... Is this correct or is my lens damaged?

[CodyLucido]

I just received my new Canon 70-300 IS from B&H and was shocked to watch the UPS guy actually throw the package up on to my porch. Plus the box was obviously crushed and when I opened it, the lens box was also crumpled.

I am worried that the lens might be damaged.

This is a sample of the quality I am getting:

Here it is at 100%

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=230425300&size=o

You can see the green ghosting. I realize this could just be because I am at 300mm, but I have no reference.

This is a crop from this image:

http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=230424913&context=photostream&size=o

[WildWolf]

That is NOT how this lens is suppossed to perform. I would send it back for another one.

[holland_patrick]

It looked ok to me but if i was buying it new.. I would send it back..

[CodyLucido]

If there is no external damage, how does one assess internal damage? I don't want to cry wolf, but I think a lens can get out of whack from being impacted. Correct?

[syntrix]

If there is no external damage, how does one assess internal damage? I don't want to cry wolf, but I think a lens can get out of whack from being impacted. Correct?

Possible. I have this lens and have never seen anything like that before. Are you shooting bare glass? (ie, you don't have a filter on do you?)

Try at around 150mm and see if it comes out the same.

[Tom W]

For some reason, all I get is a flickr log-on screen - no images.

[CodyLucido]

This was a bare lens.

Here is the shot at 150mm
http://static.flickr.com/66/230504263_9c423e2990_o.jpg

The problem seems to go away, but I was unable to get any closer to match same shot. So is the green edging normal for this lens?

Tom, try this:

100% Crop
http://static.flickr.com/66/230425300_24c3a56961_o.jpg

From this image (reduced in size)
http://static.flickr.com/91/230424913_0da8d2d366_o.jpg

[syntrix]

What was the top light? Sodium?

I can try to reproduce it with my copy. I've never seen anything like this before with mine.

[Jaime]

Edit:

Finally got in to see the images amd I do notice the green, I dont believe that should be like that at all. I would demand an exchange on the lens, I hope you did not thrown the boxes away. For future reference in a situation like that the proper thing to do, and a) I know hindsight is great, and b) I also know what it is to have been waiting for a package and what our iniial reaction is, but, the thing to do is either refuse delivery, or if the delivery man has left in a hurry or you did not seen him at all, is to save the package, do not open it and call the carrier and have them come back for the package to process a claim. Once the package is received it is hard to start a claim, but I would certainly try and raise hell about it.

[kriskent]

send it back dude

[Dorman]

I think I'd send it back just for the peace of mind. I wouldn't refused the delivery but what's done is done. Shame that they appear to be sold out again and you might have to wait for a replacement. You could always try a different lens in that price range. Sorry about your luck.

[CodyLucido]

What was the top light? Sodium?

I can try to reproduce it with my copy. I've never seen anything like this before with mine.

Full on sunlight.

[Tom W]

Looks like a little chromatic abberation. Did you shoot at full wide-open aperture? At that setting, you may get a bit. It is more prominent with wide-angle lenses, but I don't suspect that the tele zoom is immune.

I'm not familiar with the performance of this particular lens, though.

Thanks for fixing the links, BTW.

[syntrix]

Mine was wide open on the night shots.

I know that day shots are much cleaner, all the way across the frame.

Try to shoot again in the daylight, IS takes like 1/2 second to kick in, so give it that and then click.

Otherwise, that green is not CA, there's just no way.

[CodyLucido]

I reported the incident to UPS and they started a claim form.

I'm not sure if it was just my user error or what. I just got the thing and was a bit panicked by the crushed packaging. I will shoot a bunch of test images tomorrow and see what they look like.

I also took this image and it looks good (except the red and blue in the black fur).
http://static.flickr.com/85/230423205_0cd4f832c1_o.jpg

Can anybody point me to some images they took with this lens? This way I can see the quality to expect. Thanks for your help.

Cheers!

[baybud]

I reported the incident to UPS and they started a claim form.

I'm not sure if it was just my user error or what. I just got the thing and was a bit panicked by the crushed packaging. I will shoot a bunch of test images tomorrow and see what they look like.

I also took this image and it looks good (except the red and blue in the black fur).
http://static.flickr.com/85/230423205_0cd4f832c1_o.jpg

Can anybody point me to some images they took with this lens? This way I can see the quality to expect. Thanks for your help.

Cheers!

You say red and blue in the black fur? Do you mean where the edge of the dog meets the background? If so surely this is just CA?

[MillCreek]

Wow, your Sigma 70-300 probably looked better than that.

[Neilyb]

If the delivery guy treated it like that and the package was damaged I would never have signed for it.

[CodyLucido]

If the delivery guy treated it like that and the package was damaged I would never have signed for it.

I didn't have the option to sign or not sign. UPS generally doesn't require a signature. The driver literally threw the package 6 feet and immediately returned to his truck and left.

So you people think it is damaged? What kind of test can I do?

[canonblade]

return it for your peace of mind, why live with the "What IF'S"

[CodyLucido]

The wonderful folks at B&H said no problem to return it, but unfortunatey they are sold out again. Bummer. UPS SUCKS!!!!!!!!!:mad:

[baybud]

Is it not possible to get the lens elsewhere?

[syntrix]

You could buy mine ;)

[CodyLucido]

You could buy mine ;)

Don't you like yours anymore?

Is it not possible to get the lens elsewhere?

Maybe, but I first need to confirm its not damaged.
__________________________

Well I have done some tests between my Canon and Sigma. The bokeh on my canon lens SUCKS, thus leading me to believe their really is a problem with it. Check out these wildly different bokehs:

Sigma - Smooth and beautiful:
http://static.flickr.com/86/231396879_c80d6bbeae_o.jpg

Canon - fractured and ugly:
http://static.flickr.com/57/231396600_b85e0313cd_o.jpg

Do any of you other canon 70-300mm is lens users have better bokeh? Can you link me to a sample?

Thanks again for all your help. It is great to bounce this stuff off of like minded folks.

[syntrix]

I still love the lense, I do shoot more with the 70-200mm 2.8 that I have though.

[Tom W]

Sigma - Smooth and beautiful:
http://static.flickr.com/86/231396879_c80d6bbeae_o.jpg

Canon - fractured and ugly:
http://static.flickr.com/57/231396600_b85e0313cd_o.jpg

Do any of you other canon 70-300mm is lens users have better bokeh? Can you link me to a sample?

Thanks again for all your help. It is great to bounce this stuff off of like minded folks.


Just a note on comparing bokeh - it's best to use the exact same setup to compare, as many factors in the image influence the look of the bokeh.

[CodyLucido]

Just a note on comparing bokeh - it's best to use the exact same setup to compare, as many factors in the image influence the look of the bokeh.

Quite right. I'll take those down and post side by sides this weekend. I'm more curious now than anything. I will be sending the lens back on Tuesday. Maybe I will save up for the 70-200L IS. I sure would miss the extra 100mm though.

[syntrix]

Quite right. I'll take those down and post side by sides this weekend. I'm more curious now than anything. I will be sending the lens back on Tuesday. Maybe I will save up for the 70-200L IS. I sure would miss the extra 100mm though.

You'll miss the IS more!!!!