I can't efing win..

Very frustrated here... 3rd 70-200f/4IS..

Over the past almost 2 months I've had 3 of them. The first one was super sharp, no IQ issues at all, but there was two rather large pieces of dust behind the front element that got the best of me, so I sent it for an exchange. The second one arrived with a massive dent on one corner of the brown cardboard box, which was just the same on the lens box all the way through to the styrofoam...it appeared as if it was dropped from a second story window. Called beach camera for another exchange..I wasn't even going to bother taking it out of the box. THIRD one arrived two days ago.

Mine did that. So does my 70-200 2.8 IS. It's user error for me. I make sure to two-shot things that I really need. Just in case.

Tripods solve a lot of lens issues.

Well, I can say for sure this one isn't user error. Although I only posted two images, I have some standard test subjects that I always use and took plenty of shots with this particular lens. I have never seen these kinds of results from any lens I've ever tested. Definitely a lens that should never have made it out of the factory.

Did you have a filter on it, by chance?

Nope. No filter, yes to hood, after seeing these bad results I put my 17-50 on just to be sure something funky wasn't going on with my body. Those images were as usual..very sharp.

Rather than buying another copy and taking a chance on getting another "bad" lens, send it off to Canon Service and have them calibrate it properly and make sure the elements are aligned properly. This will be a better guarantee of getting a proper functioning lens than chancing another new lens.

Do keep in mind, though, chromatic aberrations are not uncommon in the best of zoom lenses.

I just got a 70-200mm f/4L and I thought it would be sharper than it is. Whats the best way to test shoot this thing to make sure it isn't user error?

Crappy one was ISO 50, f/4.0 and 1/125th.

Good one was ISO 100, f/6.3 and 1/320th.

Both are %100 crops. Both are 70-200 2.8 IS with IS "on", handheld with both hands, steadied on my knees as I sat crouched. IS activated, composed, breathe out - shoot.

User error. I can't see your exif since you've stripped it from your jpegs to see if it's your fault. THREE versions of that lens are bad? I am going to play the numbers here and say you are the bigger varibale in the equation. I know it's hard to hear, trust me. But I have to go on math here. the odds that you got three bum copies of that lens in a row are so freakin' astronomical it's silly.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

Actually Cosworth this is the first bad copy he got.

1st one was super sharp he said, but it had dust spots in the lens
2nd one he didnt even open because the box was dented in shipping
3rd one is the one he thinks is a bad copy.

His exif will probably tell us.

cosworth wrote in post #3434468
Crappy one was ISO 50, f/4.0 and 1/125th.

Good one was ISO 100, f/6.3 and 1/320th.

Both are %100 crops. Both are 70-200 2.8 IS with IS "on", handheld with both hands, steadied on my knees as I sat crouched. IS activated, composed, breathe out - shoot.

User error. I can't see your exif since you've stripped it from your jpegs to see if it's your fault. THREE versions of that lens are bad? I am going to play the numbers here and say you are the bigger varibale in the equation. I know it's hard to hear, trust me. But I have to go on math here. the odds that you got three bum copies of that lens in a row are so freakin' astronomical it's silly.

as silly as it sounds, i will never brush off the idea of receiving numerous bad copies of a product from a company. im in the middle of a two month battle with seagate after receiving 5 malfunctioning replacement drives from them. to the OP, best of luck on the new lense!

Yeah, I am pretty sure he's adamant it's the lens and won't want to hear otherwise. So congrats on the new lens from B&H!

oldsquawk wrote in post #3434343
Rather than buying another copy and taking a chance on getting another "bad" lens, send it off to Canon Service and have them calibrate it properly and make sure the elements are aligned properly. This will be a better guarantee of getting a proper functioning lens than chancing another new lens.

Do keep in mind, though, chromatic aberrations are not uncommon in the best of zoom lenses.

Do you how I would go about sending it in to have it calibrated and checked out, and how long it usually takes them?

cosworth wrote in post #3434507
Yeah, I am pretty sure he's adamant it's the lens and won't want to hear otherwise. So congrats on the new lens from B&H!

lol

cosworth wrote in post #3434484
His exif will probably tell us.

I was going to, but Franko already corrected you. This is the first copy with bad IQ. As I said, I have methods of testing and this is the ONLY one I've seen these kinds of results...

Here's the originals for your exif data..

First
Second