EF-S 17-55mm - Did I get a SOFT lens?

I received my lens from B&H the other day and I've taken a lot of shots with it. I do not think my lens is as sharp as this lens should be. I tried out the lens at a local camera shop before I ordered it at B&H. Below are 100% cropss. I'd like to hear your comments & suggestions. Thanks!

p.s. Pictures were shot straight to JPEG. No PP done. Focus is on the right eye.

This is a 100% crop from the lens that I tried out at the local camera store.

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

Well you didn't specify whether there was in camera processing. If there was no sharpening applied anywhere, I'd say it's a decent copy.

I checked out file #3 and it is fine. Default sharpening for JPG is rather low and if you want them to look their sharpest I suggest you add sharpening in photoshop.

The shots look good to me. What were you expecting?

Mark

Did you use a tripod, mirror-lock-up and a remote release? I would not try to evaluate a lens until I eliminated as much user error as possible.

I think he was expecting bleeding...

I think they look fine as well!

They are very sharp.

Shooting wide open can sometimes be a bit tricky, as the DOF is very short, so if you don't aim the focus perfectly, you will end up with something that's not in focus. But looking at images, it looks like you have sharpness, but maybe not always where you want it (her eyes). In the first image, the focus plane seem o be just behind her eyes (look at the cheek on the left side, very sharp bumps in the skin). Second image is hard to say, third image seem to have focus on the corner of her eye (the left from us, her right eye), fourth image the focus looks like it's on her right side, by the hair and the furry edge of the coat.

The only image that's out of focus, in my view - peeping at 100% is the last image. But you shouldn't really pixel peep... you'll always see some "softness" then.

Looks sharp to me, but then again you're posting very downsized shots. Let's see some 100% crops.

Collin85 wrote in post #2688881
Looks sharp to me, but then again you're posting very downsized shots. Let's see some 100% crops.

There is links on the bottom of his post to see the original.

Rumrunner wrote in post #2689032
There is links on the bottom of his post to see the original.

Yes, but I'm getting HTTP 404 errors. Bandwidth exceeded, perhaps? I think it might be a better idea if he posted some less bandwidth-hogging crops.

Removed the links and uploaded 100% crops. Thanks for the comments. I think I might be sending it back anyway. I've had it just 2 days and I noticed 2 specs of dust.

i was just going to say those pics look sharp , then you mentioned dust ...ahhhhhh.i just ordered this lens an hour ago.the 17-55 club says don't worry about dust just shoot pics , somehow i'm uneasy about my purchase.

i've always been excited to order my next lens, not this time ,i've convinced myself to look at pictures and not at the dust to evaluate this lens.

Yeah, I'm pretty disappointed that mine got a couple specs of dust in it. I also had a UV filter mounted to it the whole time, so there goes the theory that a UV filter will prevent dust from getting inside.

Considering the cost of the lens, you'd think Canon would at least make it weatherproof or at least less prone to dust inside the elements.

The front element doesn't actually pump in and out of the barrel like the 17-40L, so I never really saw how a UV filter would help that much. However I use a Hoya Pro1 HMC anyway for the sole purpose of protection.

So far my copy has absolutely no dust.. I really hope things stay that way.

As for your copy's sharpness.. I'd say that it doesn't look that bad. Sometimes my f/2.8 shots turn out bad.. but I'd put that down to user error. f/2.8 can give dangerous DOFs to play around with. I hope you're very careful if you're someone who likes to focus and recompose with their close portraits. You need to really nail down a few controlled test shots and see if ALL your shots are turning out soft like that.

Here's an 100% portrait crop of my copy:

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