New 1D3 and 24/1.4L - not happy with IQ

I picked up a new 1D3 10 days ago and received a new 24/1.4L in the post yesterday. The date code for the lens indicates it was manufactured over a year ago, so I'm not sure where it's been all this time.

Anyway, my initial test was just to poke the lens at things in the garden and fire off some random shots to see how sharp my wonderful new "L" prime was. The IQ was appaling - just rubbish. I've had a go at fiddling around with microfocus adjustment but I feel I'm getting nowhere. Sometimes, especially very close up (18" or less), it seems like maybe +5 will do the trick, but even moving to only 3' away it seems like I need +20 or maybe even more.

Test calibration, adjusting MFA by just +1 from one shot to the next yields an inconsistency in results that I find alarming. The softness in the images doesn't even look like regular poor focus, there is some unpleasant roughness to the poor IQ, but it varies at random. It looks like it might be camera shake, but at 1/1000?

I've uploaded an ALBUMof 100% centre crops with microfocus adjustment from +10 to +20. I'd be grateful for any opinions on the IQ. These were shot raw and cropped and converted to JPEG in DPP with standard picture style and sharpening set to 3. Apart from click WB there are no other edits. EXIF is....

24mm, f/1.4, 1/1000, 400 ISO.

Here's the setup. I know the tripod is not 100% rock solid, given that one leg is on carpet, but I think that with a shutter speed of 1/1000 the setup is more than adequate. I didn't use MLU or a remote/timer release, but quite honestly, if that's what it takes in order to get a sharp image at 24mm and 1/1000 then you can kiss goodbye to handheld photography.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

does the rear element look correctly fitted or a bit sloppy?

I haven't prodded the element and the mount appears to be screwed down properly, but there is something moving around in there. I can hear it and feel the inertia of whatever it is. Given there is no wobbly IS mechanism to move I would expect everything to be snug as a bug and all that, but clearly that is not the case.

I've got a strong feeling this will need to go back for replacement by the shop. They actually told me that it was a brand new lens, received from Canon the same day they shipped it to me, yet it has two price stickers on the box, neither of which bear any relation to the price I paid. I'm also very suspicious about the UV11 date code (November 2007) for a lens allegedly received brand new from Canon in January 2009. Is it realistic that Canon UK could ship a lens that was manufactured over a year ago? Would Canon really keep a lens like that, or any other, in storage for a year? Something smells not quite right with this lens.

I'd be a tad worried about a UV date code new lens. Like you said, it's probably been sitting around somewhere, or, someone purchased it and returned it, and it made it back into stock.

I'd try another copy.

I just tried a few more "real world" focus tests outside and the results were an unmitigated disaster. This was with MFA = +17, which seems as good a setting as any with this lens. I've added the examples to the album but here are some favourite picks. The focus point should be whatever you see in the centre of the crop...

I've no idea where the sharp point ended up on this one - nothing was sharp....

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

sending PM

Since it's brand new; it's definitely up for replacement.

Did you have some kind of filter atached to the lens?

jmagdiel wrote in post #7066093
Did you have some kind of filter atached to the lens?

No, I don't do filters, other than a CPL when necessary. I've just run off some similar "real world" tests with the lens on my 50D and MFA set to 0. Once again the results are shambolic. The lens is going back, no question.

50D 100% crops....

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Byte size: ZERO

Yep, that's pretty horrible. Send it back

oh my.

tdodd wrote in post #7065895
Can anyone else with a 24/1.4L MK I comment on whether the lens should give a soft rattle when shaken gently?

Mine does that too. Checking your test shots theres certainly something fishy going on.

Here's a quick test on FF from 70cm (2' 4"). I dont know if it's a sharp copy or not, but works for me. It's 10 years old.

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

Shuko wrote in post #7066259
Mine does that too. Checking your test shots theres certainly something fishy going on.

Here's a quick test on FF from 70cm (2' 4"). I dont know if it's a sharp copy or not, but works for me. It's 10 years old.

Thanks for posting. It's impossible to comment on sharpness without knowing your exact workflow. That's why I was clear to state that my images were shot raw and cropped/converted in DPP using sharpening = 3.

To my eyes your image looks softer than I'd be happy with, but has it been sharpened at all or is that from an unsharpened raw original?

tdodd wrote in post #7066302
or is that from an unsharpened raw original?

Yep, just opened raw with Lightroom, exported without sharpening to CS4 where I copy-paste-cropped and resized. Saved without any sharpening at all.

Shuko wrote in post #7066321
Yep, just opened raw with Lightroom, exported without sharpening to CS4 where I copy-paste-cropped and resized. Saved without any sharpening at all.

Phew