"L" stands for lemon

Saint728 wrote in post #10309875
Can you say troll?

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

Patrick,,I agree with Brian,,we need pics with EXIF intact to analyse any problems whether user error or equipment failure..

Brian's post is valid..

Here's my tale...

I was having no problems shooting with a 350D using relatively short focal length lenses but, when I bought a used 400mm f/5.6 Tokina ATX, the focus was off. I automatically blamed the lens. I thought that like Sigma lenses, the Tokina had been retroengineered and would not work on the 350D (which was the new kid on the block at that time). However, I bought a new 70-200mm f/4 (non-IS) and experienced the same slight focus problem at longer focal lengths.

The camera focus was off at bit. Not enough to cause any visible problems at shorter focal lengths but, when I used it at the longer lengths the focus was slightly soft - especially when I was shooting wide open or close to wide open.

A trip to the Canon doctor solved that problem and magically both the 400mm Tokina and the 70-400L started giving me sharp imagery.

philwillmedia wrote in post #10308924
Photos with EXIF...or it didn't happen

I dumped the majority of my test shots, specifically the ones at 40 feet using a grid target and tape measure. Here is one at about 25', focused on #1 (one). These fence boards are about 5 1/2" on center. At the angle I'm shooting at one could estimate the target differential at about 5" for each number in sequence.

BTW, your comment........ it's obnoxious.

Phil, et al, it's a REAL phenomenon. It may not be happening to YOU, but it does occur.
PLEASE spare me the Canon is infallible bull****.

Added:
I checked and the exif data didn't make the journey, for some reason. SO, before somebody calls me a liar, here is a jpeg of the exif data as per preview on my Mac.

FWIW, the OP's initial title and premise is provacative IMO. Canon's L lenses have a good, and deserved, reputation. Having said that, there are some issues that need to be recognized.

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

mmahoney wrote in post #10309851
Is this hex wrench self-calibrating procedure for the body or lens?

I recall seeing online instructions on body calibration which involves a (modified) wrench but have never seen anything about do-it- yourself lens calibration .. I'm sure both are simple procedures once you know what to do and have the tools.

Still, I've seen the guts of a modern lens and can tell you there are a whole lotta wires in there .. not for the faint hearted.

The calibration trick is for the body, unfortunately, and one can only be assured to get one lens talking to the camera properly. Though, you may get lucky

A 1.3 mm hex wrench, bent at required odd angles, did the trick for me.

yogestee wrote in post #10309885
Patrick,,I agree with Brian,,we need pics with EXIF intact to analyse any problems whether user error or equipment failure..

Brian's post is valid..

Who's Brian? I'm talking about the original poster leo_jb.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

philwillmedia wrote in post #10308924
Photos with EXIF...or it didn't happen

corndog cabernet wrote in post #10310143
I dumped the majority of my test shots, specifically the ones at 40 feet using a grid target and tape measure. Here is one at about 25', focused on #1 (one). These fence boards are about 5 1/2" on center. At the angle I'm shooting at one could estimate the target differential at about 5" for each number in sequence.
BTW, your comment........ it's obnoxious.

Ummm...corndog, I was referring to the OP, leo_jb
It's commonly used on forums (or fora, if you prefer) and is usually, as in this case, used lightheartedly.
What's more obnoxious is YOU HIJACKING this thread.

corndog cabernet wrote in post #10310143
Phil, et al, it's a REAL phenomenon. It may not be happening to YOU, but it does occur.
PLEASE spare me the Canon is infallible bull****.

I never said it doesn't happen nor did I say "bull****", as you put it, like "Canon is infallible.
Maybe you could point that out so we, including myself, can all see where I did.
As someone else has pointed out - the lens has been back to Canon THREE times and still "isn't right".
I reckon there might be something in that...user error, maybe. Just maybe.
Canon may not be infallible. I'd suggest too that neither is the OP.

corndog cabernet wrote in post #10310143
Added:
I checked and the exif data didn't make the journey, for some reason. SO, before somebody calls me a liar, here is a jpeg of the exif data as per preview on my Mac...

So how is one of YOUR photos and YOUR exif data going to help the OP with HIS lens and camera?
Just wondering?

corndog, If you want help solving a problem you might have, start your own thread and not hijack someone elses. As I said above, this is more obnoxious than what you may perceive as a poor attempt at humour.

leo_jb wrote in post #10307670
I invested in an EF 70-200 f/4 USM lens a while back primarily to take photos of my kids playing soccer. The focus of the photos I took were inconsistent - about half were sharp and half were very soft, blurry even. I thought it was me and played with the settings on the camera, higher shutter speed, etc., to no avail. I finally set the camera and lens up on a tripod and tested it. What do you know - the lens can not focus at 200mm wide open. Just goes from blurry to blurrier (is there such a word?). It gets better at shorter focal lengths and is pretty clear at 135mm. I sent it to Canon (Irvine, CA) for repair, and even though it was just out of warranty, they attempted to fix it for free. Problem is, they never did fix it, even after three tries. I am about to give up. Anyone else ever had this problem? Suggestions on how to proceed?

Were you the first buyer? If so, why did you wait until the very end of the warranty to get it done? If not, that's the risk you take with buying used. How to proceed: consider yourself lucky that this happened on an inexpensive lens, sell it as is fully disclosing the issue, pocket a couple hundred dollars and go buy the IS version.

Well Phil, maybe I overreacted a bit. The combination of "I suspect that your experience with the 70-200 is 1-in-a-million. This lens and the lot of canon 70-200 are the best team of lenses that exist on earth." and your "Photos with EXIF...or it didn't happen" caused me to be assertive. I know my two longest lenses, 70-200 F4 and 400 f5.6 both have focusing issues, on my XT body anyway.

Regarding your accusing me of hijacking this thread, maybe your reading comprehension is in question. I pointed out I had/have a similar problem and that it was/is front and back focusing. I also described what I did to mitigate the problem in lieu of sending the kit to Canon.

For your edification, et al means and others. The comment spare me the Canon is infallible BS was for any Canon evangelists who tend to get rather defensive. You did not say that, you know that, so why the red herring?

The OP should post a sample pic when he gets a chance. My pic demonstrates my focus issue which may or may not be what his issue is. I do now know that using long lenses, opened up, on Canon bodies does not always work so well.

I do apologize to you if your intent was truly to be helpful to the OP, as it didn't read that way to me. Such is the nature of the written word and these forums.

Cheers,
Kevin

The title of this thread is inflammatory, however emotions have yet to solve technical problems, other than to throw the whole kit in the bin.

That said, in my experience about all methods of tracking down AF problems short of using LensAlign and correct light sources all have their foibles. Then comes the camera body's AF system, dust on the mirror or some other random anomaly. Keeping a cool head and working through variables A-Z, analyzing each step and settings until you reach a consistently repeatable result is the only way to get to the bottom of the problem. In worse case it may be that both lens and camera body need to be sent in to Canon for adjustment.

Whatever, if your aren't prepared to go through the processes necessary to get the results that your equipment is certainly capable of, you should go back to P&S or give up photography and take up knitting in front of the TV.

I always thought "L" was for [COLOR=black]Love because I Love my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS I

That really sucks! Must be a bad lens

When you define something in a different fashion I guess you should explain a bit more. Also to one of the posters above - that was more or less hijacking as I thought you were the OP.

Saint728 wrote in post #10310657
Who's Brian? I'm talking about the original poster leo_jb.

Take Care,
Cheers, Patrick

OK,,I'm dyslexic I meant Brain as in Brain Mechanic

JJD.Photography wrote in post #10311104
Must be a bad lens

Must be a troll----1 very critical post, not heard from since.

Apollo11 wrote in post #10311478
Must be a troll----1 very critical post, not heard from since.

GUYS! The thread is not even 1 day old. Not everyone lurks forums on a 24*7 basis
At least give the him/her time to respond to the thread and some of the questioned raised within rather than swamping them with advice, personal experiences and then slander when the OP doesn't respond within seconds.

Did I miss it, what camera body does he have?