The Definitive 'Soft Copy' Survey.

The Definitive Soft Copy Survey

Regarding the Canon lens 'soft copy' phenomenon (which may or may not be as bad as it seems on here), out of curiosity would like to conduct a poll, in order to gauge its extent. Apart from satisfying my curiosity, I'm sure that the results would be of interest to Canon themselves.

Some of you are reporting problems - sometimes multiple problems - whilst others claim that the 'soft copy' situation in virtually non-existent. From reading the lens forum you would be forgiven for thinking that a majority of lenses sold by Canon are sub-standard and need re-calibrating!

So, if you have actually experienced problems with a 'soft copy' of a lens, please vote in the appropriate section of the poll. If you haven't experienced problems, please also vote accordingly.

The categories have been arranged so that the 'Problem' votes allow some choice in reporting the problem, whereas the 'No Problem' votes need no further clarification. The results should be interpreted as the total of the 'Problem' categories added together, versus the result of the 'No Problem' category.

Let's see how it turns out!

Mike

Not counting the 18-55, I've only bought 4 - 50-1.4, 85-1.8, 70-300 IS USM and 24-70L, so not a large sampling. I've also had 3 Sigmas, and 1 each Tokina and Tamron with no softness issues that I could discern.

Never had a "soft copy" out of all my lenses, new or used.

My current 50 f/1.4 is pretty soft up to f/2, I'm planning on sending it in this week to get it looked at. I'm hoping it comes back ok. Out of all of the lenses I've ever owned, this is the only time I've had this issue.

My 50mm f/1.4 and 17-40L were soft until one stop down.

No problems, even with a Sigma 18-125. All problems were user error.

It seems the 80-20 Rule is applicable yet again! It would be good to have a secondary poll among the 20%, to see what fraction of the 20% are newcomers to AF dSLRs with less than 2 years experience with them, vs. those who are veteran users of AF dSLRs.

--wilt

My 100-400 was bonafide broke by Canon repair. NIB buy. My 24-70 is ok, but nothing amazing for the money. More than two years AF experience.
The soft copy thing is virtually non existent. But dud lenses happen.

I have had no softness issues (and that includes the 50mm 1.2 L) but I have had a USM die on me after 13 months use on a 50mm 1.4

Well three of my five lenses had backfocusing issues (50f1.8, 50f1.4 and 28f.18) which Canon fixed. the others had SLOW AF and some hunting (100f1.8 macro and 100-400L) . ALL tack sharp. Even my 30D was re-cal at Canon request.

All happy!!!

I had a problem with a body (not the mark III) that was fixed under warranty, but all the lenses have been fine. I'm sure bad copies exist but I think you've a lot more chance of getting a good one than a bad.

The current voting share is worse than I was expecting. It would be interesting to see how this would develop with a few hundred votes, to give a more accurate impression.

Mike

You're missing a response:

Problem: I have bought one Canon lens that was a soft copy. I sent it back for re-calibration and it came back marked "within specs".

No problems here. I thought I had a soft copy of the 16-35 f/2.8L, but it was my tesing technique that was at fault, not the lens.

I voted for the "I've had one soft copy and I had it calibrated and it came back good." even though I haven't had it serviced yet. It's not actually that it's a 'soft' copy, it's that my 50 f/1.4 has a decentered element. At large apertures it's quite visible...the left side of the image is significantly sharper than the right side of the image. In fact, I'm going to be sending it in to be fixed this week.