70-300 DO - Have I got bad copy?

[samdring]

Had this lens one week now and really hesitate to post this in case puts someone off but I MUST have a bad 'un.
IS, build etc all superb but have now completed tests following some pretty soft shots. My 28-135 outperforms it at all comparable lengths and apertures!! (tests were done with tripod and IS off on both and handheld with IS) I have been a strong supporter of the 28-135 and maybe have a particular good one but this is not acceptable for a lens costing nearly £900 here in England.

Have 20 or so days left to make mind up - either replace or ask for another but must say my confidence in this lens has gone.

Toss up between 70-200 and 100-400

[Belmondo]

Well, it sounds like you must have a bad copy. There is no way your 28-135 should be giving you better images. Can you post examples?

[xuxu1]

I agree with belmondo. It really does sound as if you got a bad copy. Other people having that lens are (very) satisfied.

Maybe you could post one or the other photo you have made with the lens.

I sold my 75-300IS, skipped the 70-300DO and went for a 100-400L IS. I´ll never regret that!

Regards
Ed

[samdring]

Ed
Yes thanks - will try(!) to upload some examples - think I'm going to swap it for 100-400 - presume that outperforms the 28-135 which I note you also have.

[Guillermo Freige]

Probably a bad copy. Even the old 75-300IS is better than the 28-135IS between 75 and 135 (or at least mines are)

[defordphoto]

If can post samples/comparisons do 100% crop samples.