Does Canon have quality control?

I bought a new Canon 300mm f4 IS and was very unhappy with the images taken with my 1D mk3. Had been wanting a 7D so I bought one, and the images were no better.
So, I did some MA on the 1D, took +8 to get it sharp. Today I did the 7D, and this is the differance between 0 and +9.
Should not have to MA a new lens that much, IMO
MA at 0

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

But there is a working "tolerance" for the lens produced and a working "tolerance" for the body. Sometimes a lens and body from the extreme ends of those tolerances are going to marry up.....thankfully there is MA.

That what microadjust is for. It is perfectly sharp at +9, so what is the problem?

Lenses that are 0 on one body are +10 on another. It just depends. That is why MA is so nice.

Invertalon wrote in post #14289448
That what microadjust is for. It is perfectly sharp at +9, so what is the problem?

Lenses that are 0 on one body are +10 on another. It just depends. That is why MA is so nice.

But, only a couple of bodies have MA, 50D, and above. So the poor sap that shoots with a 40D just has to send his new lens to Canon or put up with soft images? They should make an attempt to get it closer.

peregrineflier wrote in post #14289484
So the poor sap that shoots with a 40D just has to send his new lens to Canon or put up with soft images? They should make an attempt to get it closer.

They can't get it any closer.

Read up on lensrental.com blog articles 'this lens is soft and other issues'.

Basically tolerances required to get every lens perfect on every body would make them unaffordable.

First I bought a 100-400 that I finally figured out was front focusing bad. Took it back and bought a 300 f/4 instead, and it took soft pictures, and the exposure value went up as you went from f/4 to f/9. By the time you got to f/9 the exposure was at least plus 1 1/2. Needless to say I took it back. I got a second 100-400 and it seems to be OK. The very first 24-105 I got wouldn't work with my 7D either. Took pictures that looked smeared. I have one now that is perfect.

So my opinion is either Canons quality control stinks, or they have some problems during shipping and should be packing better and using air ride trucks.

Now as far as having to micro adjust your primes, I think that is probably reasonable. You can't make every camera and every lens with 0 tolerances. But focusing and exposure issues are something else.

Hitthespot wrote in post #14289543
First I bought a 100-400 that I finally figured out was front focusing bad. Took it back and bought a 300 f/4 instead, and it took soft pictures, and the exposure value went up as you went from f/4 to f/9. By the time you got to f/9 the exposure was at least plus 1 1/2. Needless to say I took it back. I got a second 100-400 and it seems to be OK. The very first 24-105 I got wouldn't work with my 7D either. Took pictures that looked smeared. I have one now that is perfect.

So my opinion is either Canons quality control stinks, or they have some problems during shipping and should be packing better and using air ride trucks.

Now as far as having to micro adjust your primes, I think that is probably reasonable. You can't make every camera and every lens with 0 tolerances. But focusing and exposure issues are something else.

you need to stop buying crappy glass for a VERY dense sensor.


to achieve the sharpness levels I am assuming(and that is dangerous) you are looking for you will pretty much need:

70-200 IS2, 17-55IS(the canon version, not the sigma or tamron), 35L(stopped down a touch), 100mmL macro, and any of the supers.

but that is pretty much missing the point of photography...

100-400 and 300/4 are not crappy glass.

I have used a 2003 example of a 100-400 on ny 7D and got excellent results.
The 300/4 is as good as my 400/5.6 which is also excellent.

pyrojim wrote in post #14289637
you need to stop buying crappy glass for a VERY dense sensor.


to achieve the sharpness levels I am assuming(and that is dangerous) you are looking for you will pretty much need:

70-200 IS2, 17-55IS(the canon version, not the sigma or tamron), 35L(stopped down a touch), 100mmL macro, and any of the supers.

but that is pretty much missing the point of photography...

The 300 f4 is the best damn lens on my 7D out of any lens I own. It's FAR from crappy.

SVTmaniac wrote in post #14289752
The 300 f4 is the best damn lens on my 7D out of any lens I own. It's FAR from crappy.

SVT how about that 17-40L. How do you find the sharpness of that lens on your 7D?

If the OP needs just about the same adjustment on two bodies, I'd question the alignment of the lens and not the bodies...

As the proud Mother said at Boot Camp graduation:
"Look! Everybody's out of step but my Johnny!"

Hitthespot wrote in post #14289776
SVT how about that 17-40L. How do you find the sharpness of that lens on your 7D?

Works great for me.. some people say it's not the best for a crop body but I have no complaints.

SVTmaniac wrote in post #14289833
Works great for me.. some people say it's not the best for a crop body but I have no complaints.

Well it isnt the best option for crops ( 17-55 is) but it doesnt mean its a bad option! Plenty of people used them before the 17-55 turned up.

RobDickinson wrote in post #14289844
Well it isnt the best option for crops ( 17-55 is) but it doesnt mean its a bad option! Plenty of people used them before the 17-55 turned up.

I actually sold my 17-55 for the 17-40. Just can't live without the L