"L" stands for lemon

99% probability of user error.

ed rader

Nifkin wrote in post #10308487
I wouldn't go too far (this time in the other direction)

So you sent this lens back to Canon not once, nor twice, but three - count 'em - three times, and it still doesn't work?

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. I think something else is afoot....

Well its not as sharp or as fast as the 200 2L, as sharp as the 300 3.8 or the 400 2.8 and certainly can't run with some lenses by Leica M and Zeiss. So the best on the planet is a bold statement and isn't based in fact.

ed rader wrote in post #10311905
99% probability of user error.

ed rader

Agree.

ed rader wrote in post #10311905
99% probability of user error.

ed rader

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10311955
Agree.

How do you figure ? If the OP did mount it on a tripod ( as he stated) and it did the same thing , I would think it's a body or lens problem.
Of course, that's if he did that test right !

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

Probably a Nikon user trying to stir up trouble.

jb1911 wrote in post #10311995
Probably a Nikon user trying to stir up trouble.

If it is a troll then he didn't do a very good job, the only argument he created was whether the 70-200mm series are the best lenses in the world.

CountryBoy wrote in post #10311978
How do you figure ? If the OP did mount it on a tripod ( as he stated) and it did the same thing , I would think it's a body or lens problem.
Of course, that's if he did that test right !

you just want it to be a bad lens because it's a canon . after having been here a few years you know as well as i that the overwhelmingly majority of complaints are user error.

most guys that know what they are doing don't have to ask the peanut gallery if they have a bad lens .

ed rader

CountryBoy wrote in post #10311978
How do you figure ? If the OP did mount it on a tripod ( as he stated) and it did the same thing , I would think it's a body or lens problem.
Of course, that's if he did that test right !

"IF" is a big word and we can only speculate but he said IIRC it wasn't as bad when he zoomed out to a shorter F/L. Thats what would make me think it could be more of a movement problem. But who knows without images and info all we can do is guess.

ed rader wrote in post #10312015
you just want it to be a bad lens because it's a canon . after having been here a few years you know as well as i that the overwhelmingly majority of complaints are user error.

most guys that know what they are doing don't have to ask the peanut gallery if they have a bad lens .

ed rader

No, you just think because it's a Canon it must be user error. You still didn't answer my question , about still doing it on a tripod. Something is going on.

It was the guys first post , so he could have been a troll or he could have been scared off.

Jay*** had a bad copy of 70-200mm f4 IS very recently and it was quite clear. he posted some tests, people suggested and he posted them again - that's how it works. He sent it back to Newegg finally and bought a 70-200mm f2.8. But, this does not happen everyday probably 1 copy out 10K if not million. But if you have that bad one it doesn't mean you just start building your own dictionary. I had a bad 24-105mm but that doesn't make all the 24-105 bad ones.

Thank God for MFA. My 70-200 seemed sharp on my 40D, but MFA'd to my 5DII and 7D really made it shine. Both cameras have the same MFA adjustment applied after independent tests. Same with my 400mm f5.6, I would have sold it if only my 40D was available to put it on. Hopefully the OP will be back so we can start to put this thread to bed.

Reading through this thread, all this tooing and froing with insults thrown in has made me think about the lenses I've owned in over 30 years in photography,,28 of those in professional photography..

I can say I've never had a bad lens.. Even when I was working for a newspaper for 17 years, where gear was thrown at us I never heard anyone say "Hey, this is a bad lens".. With 10 fulltime photographers and 2 casuals and more lenses floating about than I've had hot breakfasts. The way some people go on here on POTN you'd expect there would've been a bad lens or even two.. When we went over to Canon digital in 1999 we bought a heap of gear including Canon L lenses that would make any Canon fanboy go weak at the knees.. Guess what?? Never a bad lens..

It wasn't until I joined POTN in 2007 that I heard the term "bad copy".. Also, I've never heard of anyone actually having a bad lens..

Now,, I'm wondering.. Have we become more critical (or over critical) of our equipment and our photography?? I sometimes raise my eyebrows when I read "I've had three copies of this lens and still can't get sharp images".. In this case, look at the shooting techniques..

Since 2005 I've owned nine lenses, seven are still in my possession, two were given to my daughter,, four Canons, three Tamrons and two Sigmas.. All have worked to their design.. Am I just lucky or are my expectations low??

yogestee wrote in post #10312197
Even when I was working for a newspaper for 17 years, where gear was thrown at us I never heard anyone say "Hey, this is a bad lens"..

Printing on toilet paper at 20 dpi makes every lens a good one

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10311951
Well its not as sharp or as fast as the 200 2L, as sharp as the 300 3.8 or the 400 2.8 and certainly can't run with some lenses by Leica M and Zeiss. So the best on the planet is a bold statement and isn't based in fact.

Saying it's 'not bad for a zoom', and then trying to justify this understatement by comparing it to primes? Clever

Nifkin wrote in post #10312303
Saying it's 'not bad for a zoom', and then trying to justify this understatement by comparing it to primes? Clever.

Nothing clever, I didn't make the statement "best lenses on the planet." Like I said, thats a bold statement thats just not true. They're great lenses no doubt but