"L" stands for lemon

mmahoney wrote in post #10312302
Printing on toilet paper at 20 dpi makes every lens a good one

Ahhhhh,,,funny how it works,, a kind of mystery.. I just press the shutter button and the images magically appear in the paper the next morning

yogestee wrote in post #10312329
Ahhhhh,,,funny how it works,, a kind of mystery.. I just press the shutter button and the images magically appear in the paper the next morning

17 years .. you guys work hard for the money, I know the locals here and it's long hours & little pay. But they love the job, which is hard to put a price on.

mmahoney wrote in post #10312400
17 years .. you guys work hard for the money, I know the locals here and it's long hours & little pay. But they love the job, which is hard to put a price on.

I enjoyed my 17 years with the 'paper but it was time to move on..

Sometimes long hours with great pay (newspapaers in Australia are highly unionised).. Terrific bunch of guys and girls, very supportive and social..

Added benefits too.. "Is anyone using the 200mm f/2L over the weekend?" "No,, I've got a freelance gig on"..

yogestee wrote in post #10312329
Ahhhhh,,,funny how it works,, a kind of mystery.. I just press the shutter button and the images magically appear in the paper the next morning

He does have a point though. I was talking to a press photographer the other day and she was waxing lyrical about her D300S and zoom lenses. I asked politely if she did not find it too much of a compromise in image quality compared to a full frame sensor and if she ever used prime lenses. She looked surprised and asked me if I was aware of how low resolution news print was. She went on to explain that she would not consider that camera/lens combination for her vacation photos but it was amazing for her work. Privately she used a 5DII and a Leica M9.

So basically image quality is of very little consequence in news print. Lens reach, AF and camera speed are the important factors. People who do this professionally are not going to get excited about features or shortcomings that won't affect their work.

Here in this forum on the other hand we have mostly amateurs who often make a significant investment when they buy a lens. It's perfectly natural for them to demand that their copy is as good as it can be. It may not have much real life impact but it is important for the satisfaction of the buyer.

The most demanding lens users you will find over at the 'Alternative gear' forum over at Fred Miranda. It's the place where you'll find the largest online community of Zeiss users. Guess what the largest group of them do for a living?

Landscape photographers? Nope.

Engineers. The majority of the active Zeiss owners seem to have an engineering background - which would sort of account for the obsession with technical perfection.

windpig wrote in post #10312075
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.

Good post. A couple of points I'd like to make...

As I mentioned before, by Canon incorporating MFA now they have ackowledged the issue of front/back focusing.

To any that still think this is so rare and that it almost has to be user error, you need to get out more
Do a simple google on "calibrating Canon lenses" or anything similar and settle in for some reading.

As to some "creating" phantoms by funky technique, that's bound to happen certainly. Many of the threads you'll read after googling indicate satisfied users after things are adjusted.

At the risk of being obvious, I'd like to see Canon incorporate MFA on ALL Canon bodies from here on. For them to charge the comsumer to make their lenses work well with their cameras, umhh.... doesn't that sound a little preposterous?

airfrogusmc wrote in post #10312318
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

I wasn't disagreeing with you on that point at all. Sorry, I think you missed the intent of the quip I made in my first post in this thread

Now where is that OP? I don't like it when a new member kicks off a five page thread with their first post and then disappears! Where are the sample pics?

@denoir: interesting points. I also think there's a tendency for amateurs to spend too much time pixel-peeping, which isn't a preocupation that'll do much for the development of their photographic skills; it's more likely to turn them into nervous wrecks! Back in the film era it simply wasn't possible for most to scrutinise their output so closely.

I'm a new member and I confess to be a compulsive pixel peeper (though I don't complain if my pictures are unsharp as I "know" this is down to my errors)

However, I have used film for the last 20 years and never heard of a bad lens. Perhaps then we did not magnify our pictures to 100% under a loupe. However, I am still in the camp that for critical work, film wins over digital. I do agree however that digital has "bred" a generation of pixel peepers who expect perfect sharpness whilst looking at a monitor from a few inches away. If one stood well back from the monitor (such as looking at a billboard from across the street), sharpness might not be an issue then. I also agree that digital is less forgiving than film so any slight movement by the photographer will render oof pictures under many circumstances.

I think if every amateur on this forum concentrated on their technique, there might be less complaints about "bad lenses"

yogestee wrote in post #10312197
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??

I haven't been at it as long as you but my experience parallels yours. I have MF on my body and I have every Lens MF adjusted to Zero. I guess we're both just lucky.

There's a guy, over on the evil sight, who switched from Canon to Nikon. He was always claiming issues with Canon.....so he switched. Now he has complaints and problems with his Nikon rig! - Go figure, I guess it takes all kinds of people to make the world go round.

corndog cabernet wrote in post #10312816
Good post. A couple of points I'd like to make...

As I mentioned before, by Canon incorporating MFA now they have ackowledged the issue of front/back focusing.

I'd say they saved themselves a bundle of money by not having to adjust perfectly normal lenses for obsessive compulsive disorder customers.

HKGuns wrote in post #10313192
I'd say they saved themselves a bundle of money by not having to adjust perfectly normal lenses for obsessive compulsive disorder customers.

I guess you missed the part about Canon charging people handsomely for their benevolence.

I suppose you also missed post #33 in this thread and/or have never inquired to any depth this issue in an attempt to substantiate it, or not.

Maybe you just have a very broad definition of obsessive compulsive. Familiar with mental health issues, are you?


For arguments sake let's say you're right and that Canon is saving themselves a bundle (whew, that was difficult to write) by incorporating MFA for no other reason than to appease the nut jobs.
Why stop with the Rebels? Why not nip this in the bud? There's crazy people out there!


Last, what's the "evil site"? Excuse my ignorance as I'm not familiar with common vernacular around here, as has already been pointed out. Citing one guy to fortify the idea that there are no focus issues with Canon lenses and/or cameras is painting with a roller, don't you think? As you already know, there are people with mental health issues out there.

corndog cabernet wrote in post #10313228
I guess you missed the part about Canon charging people handsomely for their benevolence.

Actually most of the calibrations should be occuring under warrenty when it comes to soft new copies of lenses. So outside of paying for postage costs warrenty repairs should not cost anything for the consumer whilst canon still have to pay for the repairs.

corndog cabernet wrote in post #10313228
Last, what's the "evil site"? Excuse my ignorance as I'm not familiar with common vernacular around here, as has already been pointed out.

The "evil site" is the home of all things Nikon (ugly word that) and is their "nikon only" forum (I assume the one where they ban you if they find out you're not a nikon shooter )
http://www.nikonians.o​rg/
that place (I hope I don't get caught posting that link - I might get banned here for doing so!!! :oops

corndog cabernet wrote in post #10313228
I guess you missed the part about Canon charging people handsomely for their benevolence.

I suppose you also missed post #33 in this thread and/or have never inquired to any depth this issue in an attempt to substantiate it, or not.

Maybe you just have a very broad definition of obsessive compulsive. Familiar with mental health issues, are you?


For arguments sake let's say you're right and that Canon is saving themselves a bundle (whew, that was difficult to write) by incorporating MFA for no other reason than to appease the nut jobs.
Why stop with the Rebels? Why not nip this in the bud? There's crazy people out there!


Last, what's the "evil site"? Excuse my ignorance as I'm not familiar with common vernacular around here, as has already been pointed out. Citing one guy to fortify the idea that there are no focus issues with Canon lenses and/or cameras is painting with a roller, don't you think? As you already know, there are people with mental health issues out there.

I have bought may be 100 items brand new and only one (24-105mm) had to go back. $15 in shipping; took 7-8 days to come back. Not bad at all! In fact, I have found Canon has been very reasonable when things happened even after warranty.

hsmoscout wrote in post #10312013
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.

one post by the o.p....72 replies...i'd say that he did a good job...

robert7111a@yahoo.co.u​k wrote in post #10312953
However, I am still in the camp that for critical work, film wins over digital.

Digital won the resolution war a couple of years ago (vs. 35mm), but film still can produce better dynamic range, particularly the new color negative films (e.g., Ektar).

Seems to me that it's either in focus or it's not. The equipment shouldn't matter.

Everyone should learn film first, then move to digital! I'm all for that.

I was being a bit sarcastic here..

Irrespective of the low image quality in newsprint there are still steps from pressing the shutter to seeing the images in the newspaper.. The first step is to actually open up the image on a 21 inch monitor (if filing from the office).. As most people here know,, at this point any image quality problems will be evident..

It is my experience newspapaers always supply their shooters the best equipment... I was issued with 1D MKII,20D with grip and a host of Canon L lenses..

Sh!t in, sh!t out..

I've used "funny how it works,, a kind of mystery.. I just press the shutter button and the images magically appear in the paper the next morning" this more than once while working for the 'paper.. One occasion, we had this young intern journalist working for us,, a very ambitious young lady.. I was assigned to shoot an assignment for her.. After the gig I dropped her back at the office and continued on with my rounds.. She rings me on my mobile about an hour later almost blasting me why her images weren't in the system..