Soft, bad L lenses??

Agree with #14.

I thought my 17-40 was bad because it looked a bit soft at the long end. Reading the posts here fuelled my suspicion. I even returned it to Canon and they sent it back unchanged saying it was fine.

I've since persevered and taken many nioce shots with this lens. I've learnt that user error is most likely the cause of 'problems' reported here, mainly misfocusing and shooting in bad light. Sounds easy to avoid but you'll be surprised. I was!

Thanks Hockeyphoto,

I don't think these concerns are at all unfounded!!

hhmmm..Mabey I should start a poll....

grego wrote in post #2188908
Most times its user error. But if there's an error, its probably back or front focusing.

Grego,

User error I can understand, I'm guilty of that too often.

Now back or front focusing....do you mean to say a faulty lense could focus in front or behind your focus point?

Two questions:
1. Have you considered the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 ?
2. Since you have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, why are you dissatisfied to the point of trading it in and buying the Canon 24-70L? If you read the reports on photozone.de, Both the Canon 17-55 and Tamron 17-50 have stellar MTF and surpass the Canon 24-70 in that measurement. So why else the consideration of the 24-70?

Dunno. I bought four L lenses this year and they're all excellent. *shrug*

Wilt,

The Tamron I have is soft, wide open. I thought it was user error at first but I found out this particular lens has that drawback.

If you are talking about the 17-55 f/28 IS, then yes. I have considered it. It's about $100 cheaper than the 23-70mm I'm interested in, so why not just fork over the extra cash for an "L"?

30Der wrote in post #2190327
=30D'er;2190327]If you are talking about the 17-55 f/28 IS, then yes. I have considered it. It's about $100 cheaper than the 23-70mm I'm interested in, so why not just fork over the extra cash for an "L"?

You can have a superior MTF (and see https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=2190365&p​ostcount=5 for realworld experience), with a more useful range of focal lengths for your 30D, or

You can have lower MTF, a 2 lb. brute with less useful range for 30D, but with a red stripe on it and the ability to insert a red L in your signature line on POTN

I know which of the two I would rather pay for, with ownership of an APS-C format body!

It's absolutely a dilema for me. I've been thinking about the 24-70mm f/2.8 Vs. 17-55 f/2.8 IS for a while. There are aurguments for both lens, and i appreciate you strong opinion! Thank you.

My puzzler is sore.

Three of them - IS on the 100-400 packed up after about 8 months; Canon had it back within 10 days. No other problems with any of them.

I'm loving the 24-70 and don't see it coming off of the camera very often. I tend to favor portraits/candids over landscapes so the 24mm seems wide enough to me, especially for a walk-around. That said, I also find myself shooting at the long end of the 24-70 despite buying it to fill the void of a nice lense below 50mm.

As I'm in the middle of buying two new major L lenses I'm a bit afraid of the backfocusing issue some people report, especially on the cropped bodies. Those shooting with 5D and the 1D's seem to have almost no issues at all with 24-70/2.8L USM at all. Which is worrysome for me as I want to buy good glass before I replace my bodies. I'm not 100% confident its a user issue alone, as many of those reporting these issues are professionals (in my case wedding photographers) who swears by the 24-70 on anything *but* 1.6x crop.

Input?

Well, of course laying out the big money for an L is daunting...you expect perfection.

I have two L's. Both are incredible...I did think that the 24-70L might have been soft when I bought it, but when it came down to it, I think I was getting used to the weight of it and had to get used to shooting. Really concentrating on keeping it steady.

Since then I have done tripod tests between it and my 50 1.4 and at f8, I can't see a difference at 50mm, the color on the L is better as is contrast.

I do think that when an L is slightly off, you'll hear more people bitchin' as they paid a lot for perfection, but honestly, NONE of my lenses turned out to be lemons after I took a bit of time to learn how to use them. I think that is the biggest issue...L's don't make you shoot better...fundamentals help.

sugarzebra wrote in post #2188668
You probably will miss the wide end with a 24-xx lens on a crop body, so make sure you keep your 17-50 until you buy a 10-22 I think very few L lenses are soft, but the only way to know is by testing your copy (preferably before you buy). Dont worry about degradation over time and yes Canon can correct any problems with the afterwards, most likely under warranty.

Slight correction: The above text needs to be rewritten as follows "yes Canon USA can correct...."

Thanks for your reply dmstraton, thing is I need to replace my Tamron 28-75/2.8 that's never been right in any way or form since I got it, so I really *need* my lens to be perfect. I'm sick of having to send in lenses. I have replaced the Tamron 3 times, had one copy sent in for recalibration, etc. So I don't want to go through this route again if I buy the Canon 24-70/2.8.

Due to this bad rep it has, I'm right now debating between the 24-70 and the 24-105, with the problem that I'll lose an f-stop, something I do need indoors, especially shooting wintertime here in northern Sweden.

All my other Canon lenses are prefect and sharp, so that's why I worry why this particular lens is so unlucky. It's the perfect lens really for me as it covers the focal length I want (well actually the ultimate would be the 24-105 if it had been f/2.8 instead of f/4) and I really can't see myself using higher f-numbers than f/2.8 really.

I will replace my older L glass with new ones, and especially the *faints* 70-200/2.8L IS USM that's finally going to be mine! My old 80-200/2.8L is excellent, but the IS is a big factor, especially where I live. And my other oldie 20-35/2.8L will probably be relplaced eventually with the 16-35/2.8L as I don't want an EF-S lens again (with no chance to upgrade to FF).

It's rough to make decisions when you are going to fork out a lot of money and it's one of those "once in a lifetime moments".

30Der wrote in post #2190000
=30D'er;2190000]Grego,

User error I can understand, I'm guilty of that too often.

Now back or front focusing....do you mean to say a faulty lense could focus in front or behind your focus point?

If you had a line of batteries, that were slightly stagged and used the center point to focus on the center battery, and one of the other batteries were in focus, then you'd know if it front or back focused.