Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 10 Oct 2014 (Friday) 11:40
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

do you own a sharp copy

 
archer1960
Goldmember
Avatar
4,930 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 81
Joined Jul 2010
     
Oct 10, 2014 14:57 |  #16

Sir_Loin wrote in post #17205612 (external link)
As someone previously said, of course out of the huge amount of lenses Canon manufacture there are going to be some duffers, like any mass produced product. I think I've been quite lucky as I haven't had the misfortune of getting a lemon in the 30+ years of buying lenses. Also, since the advent of the micro adjust feature on Canon bodies, front and back focus issues are less of a problem.

I will say though that people who keep posting to forums saying that it took them 2,3 or 4 samples to "get a good copy" have a serious OCD problem! For some it happens EVERY time they buy a lens and to me that's not rational behaviour.

Or else they have a problematic body, and it takes several tries to find a lens that counteracts the body's tolerances properly.


Gripped 7D, gripped, full-spectrum modfied T1i (500D), SX50HS, A2E film body, Tamzooka (150-600), Tamron 90mm/2.8 VC (ver 2), Tamron 18-270 VC, Canon FD 100 f/4.0 macro, Canon 24-105 f/4L,Canon EF 200 f/2.8LII, Canon 85 f/1.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 90mmf/2.5 Macro, Tokina 11-16, Canon EX-430 flash, Vivitar DF-383 flash, Astro-Tech AT6RC and Celestron NexStar 102 GT telescopes, various other semi-crappy manual lenses and stuff.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Lbsimon
...never exercised in my life
Avatar
2,682 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 268
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Boston, MA
     
Oct 10, 2014 14:58 |  #17

Inspeqtor wrote in post #17205487 (external link)
What is AFMA and MFA I read about in this thread?

I am assuming it is calibrating the lens to the body which can be done in some bodies. I know it can not be done with the 60D which I own sadly....

That was one of the reasons I traded in the 60D for the 70D. A couple of lenses that I wanted to get rid when I had the 60D turned out to be beautiful after I MFA'd them for the 70D. Specifically - the Tamron 70-300VC and the 70-200 F4 IS with 1.4x TC.


5D Mark IV | 6D | S110
EF 17-40L | EF 24-105L (two) | EF 70-200L F4 IS | EF 100-400L II | EF 85 1.8 | EF 50 1.8 STM | Canon 1.4x III | Canon 1.4x II
Yongnuo 685 | Nissin Di622 M2 | Nissin Di422

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SVT ­ Wylde
Senior Member
Avatar
251 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Cleveland Tennessee
     
Oct 10, 2014 15:00 |  #18

I have owned 4 lenses and they all played nice with my 60D, at least to my eyes. The only differences I have noticed is corner sharpness with zooms. Some are good and others aren't.


Canon 60D / EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 / EF 70-200mm 2.8 L II / EF-S 18-135mm STM / 600EX Flash

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Sir_Loin
Senior Member
Avatar
543 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 91
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Leicestershire UK
     
Oct 10, 2014 15:13 |  #19

archer1960 wrote in post #17205622 (external link)
Or else they have a problematic body, and it takes several tries to find a lens that counteracts the body's tolerances properly.

That's quite plausible, but why don't these people get the body checked out by Canon instead of being the bane of retailers and Canon by returning perfectly good lenses just so they finally get one that plays nicely with their out of spec body?


EOS-1D MkIV, EOS 5D MkIII, EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II, EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II, EF 14mm f/2.8L II, EF 24mm f/1.4L II, FD 50mm f/1.2L, EF 50mm f/1.8 STM, EF 85mm f/1.2L II, EF 100mm Macro f/2.8L IS, EF 300mm f/4.0L IS, FD 300mm f/2.8L * EOS M5, EOS M3, EF-M 11-22mm f/4.0-5.6 IS, EF-M 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS, EF-M 55-200mm f/4.5-6.3 IS, EF-M 22mm f/2.0, EF-M 28mm f/3.5 Macro IS * Speedlite 580EX II, Speedlite 430EX III-RT

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Photo123abc
Member
236 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Dec 2012
Location: Finland
     
Oct 10, 2014 15:24 as a reply to  @ post 17205618 |  #20

Ive never had any issues with lens overall sharpness in normal use. Probably in the lab tests you could see some variations but I prefer using them instead of pixel peeping. Ive had 9 lenses of my own and had a great oppoturnity to test alot of lenses along the way.

My Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 (old, non OS version) does suffer from one sharpness issue: the lens elements are not lined up perfectly. Its not a problem shooting anything in normal situlation. But if you shoot at 300mm f/2.8 and focus to / near infinity it will show quite alot. This is mainly problem in astrophotography and stars are blurred on the right side of the image. However I can just crop that out, problem solved. ;)


You are what you eat - I dont remember eating a photographer.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Brian_R
Goldmember
2,656 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Aug 2010
     
Oct 10, 2014 15:30 |  #21

CoJM wrote in post #17205313 (external link)
There are only 5 super secret special sharp copies of each lens out there, the rest are slowly softer and softer the more of that lens canon made, therefore, the newer productiondate of an old lens design will be horrible, Hence, why people hate the 17-40, 50 1.2, 85 1.4. These are all super soft lenses that are completely horrible always, unless you have a unicorn.

So these people that have second and third copies are magicians who clone the lenses hoping to get less dull edges and really sharp glass, they frequently cut themselves on the sharp glass and they drop it, this process repeats itself until the magician learns to attach a lens hood, protecting his fingers.

HAHAHA OMFG THIS bw!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Inspeqtor
Chet,You are a genius
Avatar
8,081 posts
Gallery: 87 photos
Likes: 2016
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Elkhart, Indiana
     
Oct 11, 2014 02:45 |  #22

gjl711 wrote in post #17205521 (external link)
Micro focus adjustment. It allows a lens to be calibrated to the body. For an example, below is my 100-400 with no adjustment applied and then with a +10. Looking at the image as a whole it still looked good with it adjusted to zero but a little soft. Adjusted the lens was so much sharper. It was like shooting with a different lens.
QUOTED IMAGE

Thank you JJ! I appreciate you taking the time to explain it to me.


Charles
Canon EOS 90D * Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS * Flickr Account (external link)
Tokina AT-X Pro DX 11-20 f/2.8 * Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 DC Macro OS * Sigma 150-500 f5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM
Canon 18-55 IS Kit Lens * Canon 70-300 IS USM * Canon 50mm f1.8 * Canon 580EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Inspeqtor
Chet,You are a genius
Avatar
8,081 posts
Gallery: 87 photos
Likes: 2016
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Elkhart, Indiana
     
Oct 11, 2014 02:48 |  #23

Lbsimon wrote in post #17205626 (external link)
That was one of the reasons I traded in the 60D for the 70D. A couple of lenses that I wanted to get rid when I had the 60D turned out to be beautiful after I MFA'd them for the 70D. Specifically - the Tamron 70-300VC and the 70-200 F4 IS with 1.4x TC.

I would like to have the 70D but my wallet is not big enough or deep enough... but I'm not sure any lens I own now is in the MFA category...


Charles
Canon EOS 90D * Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS * Flickr Account (external link)
Tokina AT-X Pro DX 11-20 f/2.8 * Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 DC Macro OS * Sigma 150-500 f5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM
Canon 18-55 IS Kit Lens * Canon 70-300 IS USM * Canon 50mm f1.8 * Canon 580EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
patrol50
Senior Member
416 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 145
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Brisbane Australia
     
Oct 11, 2014 04:56 |  #24

roger at lens rentals wrote a pretty good explanation on this subject
http://www.lensrentals​.com/for-canon (external link)

edit
(as I now see noted in the 5 or 6 th post)
opps sorry missed that for some reason
cheers


C:- 7D Mk11 ; 7Dc ; 600D & SX10 IS / L:- EFS 10-22 f3.5-4.5 USM ; 55-250 f4-5.6 IS 11; 18 -200 f3.5-5.6 IS ; & EF 16- 35 f4 L IS USM , 24-105 f4 L IS USM; 70-200 f4 L IS USM; 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS 1 USM (V1 and V11); + C 1.4 Ext Mk3 & Tam 150 - 600 f5-6.3 DI VC USD.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bratkinson
Senior Member
643 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Western MA
     
Oct 11, 2014 06:42 |  #25

I have to concur that most of the "This lens is soft" threads I've read is the result of individuals with OCD. In those threads that the OP supplies pictures, preferably with EXIF, in nearly every example I've looked at in this forum and others, typically, the issue is 'operator error', not equipment fault.

Perhaps the 3 biggest 'soft' causes are:
1)the camera focused on some point other than where the photographer 'wanted' it to focus,
2)shutter speeds in the 1/60th and slower range resulting in a slight blur due to subject movement,
3)shooting wide open with an f2.8 or faster lens with the subject at 10 feet giving a too-thin DOF.

Other photographers are expecting $3,000 lens image quality using a $200 'kit' lens.

A variation of the $200 kit lens is someone with high end gear trying to distinguish 1mm lines from 500 yards away with a 400mm lens...totally unrealistic expectations, if you ask me.

Then there's the 24"x48" print from a 5mp camera JPG output that isn't "razor sharp".

Or the too-often maligned Canon 24-105 f4L as 'soft' because it's a 'kit' lens. OK, when I had a 60D, my 24-105 was fully sharp enough, and only by pixel peeping would I see a bit of softness. But after performing MFA on it once I got a 5Diii, I think it'll stand up to comparison with the 70-200 f2.8L mark I.

And, as Roger wrote and previously linked to above, every now and then, there really IS a clinker in the pile. And just how many 'perfect' cars get manufactured every day?

Lastly, back in the "good old days" of 35mm film photography, we were literally 'overjoyed' with anything that was accurately focused. And in those days, the film plane had some 'wiggle room', and the film itself could be a bit 'wiggly' in the frame, as well. It seems to me that everyone today is expecting Hubble Telescope quality for everything they shoot with their $400 camera kit.


"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity." General George S Patton, Jr 1885-1945

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Inspeqtor
Chet,You are a genius
Avatar
8,081 posts
Gallery: 87 photos
Likes: 2016
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Elkhart, Indiana
     
Oct 11, 2014 10:15 |  #26

patrol50 wrote in post #17206652 (external link)
roger at lens rentals wrote a pretty good explanation on this subject
http://www.lensrentals​.com/for-canon (external link)

Your link does not go to the article you mention....


Charles
Canon EOS 90D * Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS * Flickr Account (external link)
Tokina AT-X Pro DX 11-20 f/2.8 * Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 DC Macro OS * Sigma 150-500 f5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM
Canon 18-55 IS Kit Lens * Canon 70-300 IS USM * Canon 50mm f1.8 * Canon 580EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Naturalist
Adrift on a lonely vast sea
Avatar
5,379 posts
Gallery: 93 photos
Likes: 761
Joined May 2007
Location: Tallgrass prairies of northwest Minnesota
     
Oct 11, 2014 10:23 |  #27

I've never had a bad lens so I'm thinking that those with bad lenses are most likely bad technique: Hand holding the camera at too slow a shutter speed, shooting at high ISO speeds or improper focusing may be the lead culprits.


Doug
My Gear List
http://www.douglasbrow​nsr.com (external link)
Entered: 2-16-84 Passed: 5-22-84 Raised: 6-19-84

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,371 posts
Likes: 2363
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Oct 11, 2014 10:34 |  #28

Naturalist wrote in post #17206923 (external link)
I've never had a bad lens so I'm thinking that those with bad lenses are most likely bad technique: Hand holding the camera at too slow a shutter speed, shooting at high ISO speeds or improper focusing may be the lead culprits.

What you are saying is that because this has never happened to you, than everyone who is complaining is obviously wrong. That's as silly as me saying that because this has happened then all those not complaining are just to unenlightened to know any better.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
AlanU
Cream of the Crop
7,495 posts
Gallery: 126 photos
Likes: 1282
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Oct 11, 2014 10:49 |  #29

gjl711 wrote in post #17206940 (external link)
What you are saying is that because this has never happened to you, than everyone who is complaining is obviously wrong. That's as silly as me saying that because this has happened then all those not complaining are just to unenlightened to know any better.

Fully agree with you here regarding hardware faults. Its only logical to have physical or software issues in a lens.

Yes there is potential for user error. In my case I have a love hate relationship every time I buy a new lens. I test it so thoroughly to assure I have no issues in landing the focus or de centered issues. Once my obsessive behavior verifies I have a "good copy" I shoot as per usual and do critical pixel peeping less frequently.

I have the worst luck in the world in finding a good copy of a 50L. I have now deemed this lens not suitable for my style and working distance. Challenging lenses that do not jive with my style simply cannot be in my gearbag. My canon 50 f/1.4 is not stellar but very good for what I ever need it for.

I'll have to say I'm confident when I shoot f/1.2 with my 85mm so I feel my hands are not that shaky after couple cups of coffee and my breathing pattern technique is another part of my hand holding techniques that work for me.

I've had my share of bad copies... if the lens is within one end of its loose range of its specification and the camera body is within specs on the opposite end of the scale. This does NOT necessarily mean there will be a happy marriage between the two even if both are within specs. Thank goodness for AF micro adjust.


5Dmkiv |5Dmkiii | 24LmkII | 85 mkII L | | 16-35L mkII | 24-70 f/2.8L mkii| 70-200 f/2.8 ISL mkII| 600EX-RT x2 | 580 EX II x2 | Einstein's
Fuji - gone
Sony 2 x A7iii w/ Sigma MC-11 adapter | GM16-35 f/2.8 | Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 | GM70-200 f/2.8 |Sigma Art 24 f/1.4 | Sigma ART 35 f/1.2 | FE85 f/1.8 | Sigma ART 105 f/1.4 | Godox V860iiS & V1S

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
panicatnabisco
Senior Member
Avatar
968 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 308
Joined Apr 2012
Location: san francisco, CA
     
Oct 11, 2014 13:19 |  #30

99.9% of the time, bad copies are the results of bad owners. These people spend more time reading up on everyone's complaints on a particular lens than actually shooting with it. Medical school syndrome kicks in after hours of looking at horribly done tests and they've convinced themselves that their copies are bad after rigorous OCD testing, then vocally broadcast their "findings" online for someone else to pick up and the process starts all over again.

I used worked in an online camera gear rental company as a tech, so I go through hundreds of different lenses daily and test them out before we put them back in circulation. One thing people don't know realize is there are so little variances between copies and that the only time you see this is when you pixel peep long enough to specifically look for it (at this point, ALL lenses are bad copies within that tiny percentile of tolerance). The only "bad" copies are lenses with obvious de-centered elements or circuit board/motor malfunctions that causes extreme font/back focusing, and this is on a very rare occasion. The worse offenders are customers with their bodies calibrated along with their lenses a certain way so the moment you mount a fresh lens, it's out of spec.

Don't get me started on the 50L. It's the one lens most people call in for and I've wasted hours on the phone and on my work bench troubleshooting "issues" that never exist


Canon 1DX | 6D | 16-35/2.8II | 24-70/2.8II | 50/1.8 | 70-200/2.8 IS II | 85/1.4 | 100/2.8 IS macro | 200mm f/2 | 400/2.8 IS II | 2xIII
Leica M8.2 | Noctilux 50 f/1 | Elmarit 90/2.8
afimages.net (external link) | Facebook (external link) | flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,420 views & 0 likes for this thread
do you own a sharp copy
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is gardenchefs
1942 guests, 299 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.