Lucky me?

I've so far bought two lenses: a 50mm f1.4 and a 24-70 f2.8L, both new, both Canon.

Both of these lenses had me sweating bullets waiting for them to arrive because of the plethora of complaints about softness and focusing issues I've read on this site.

In each case the lens I received has turned out to be tack sharp, so my questions are:

Are the complaints about these lenses greatly over exaggerated?
Am I not pixel peeping enough (don't think that's the issue as I'm pretty self-critical)?
I've got an old Rebel 400d body, could it be that my body is properly calibrated and therefore the lenses are working with it correctly (doesn't sound right)?
Are other people getting bad copies by buying used lenses instead of new?
Has quality control improved significantly and the majority of complaints are coming from people who may have purchased an older lens?

Any ideas?

I hope I haven't blighted myself now!! Plan is to get a 70-200 f2.8L later this year and would hate to get a bad copy!

evo5ive wrote in post #10343370
I've so far bought two lenses: a 50mm f1.4 and a 24-70 f2.8L, both new, both Canon.

Both of these lenses had me sweating bullets waiting for them to arrive because of the plethora of complaints about softness and focusing issues I've read on this site.

In each case the lens I received has turned out to be tack sharp, so my questions are:

Are the complaints about these lenses greatly over exaggerated?
Am I not pixel peeping enough (don't think that's the issue as I'm pretty self-critical)?
I've got an old Rebel 400d body, could it be that my body is properly calibrated and therefore the lenses are working with it correctly (doesn't sound right)?
Are other people getting bad copies by buying used lenses instead of new?
Has quality control improved significantly and the majority of complaints are coming from people who may have purchased and older lens?

Any ideas?

I hope I haven't blighted myself now!! Plan is to get a 70-200 f2.8L later this year and would hate to get a bad copy!

User error is usually to blame for complaints. You'll hear whines more than praises.

evo5ive wrote in post #10343370
I've so far bought two lenses: a 50mm f1.4 and a 24-70 f2.8L, both new, both Canon.

Both of these lenses had me sweating bullets waiting for them to arrive because of the plethora of complaints about softness and focusing issues I've read on this site.

In each case the lens I received has turned out to be tack sharp, so my questions are:

Are the complaints about these lenses greatly over exaggerated?
Am I not pixel peeping enough (don't think that's the issue as I'm pretty self-critical)?
I've got an old Rebel 400d body, could it be that my body is properly calibrated and therefore the lenses are working with it correctly (doesn't sound right)?
Are other people getting bad copies by buying used lenses instead of new?
Has quality control improved significantly and the majority of complaints are coming from people who may have purchased and older lens?

Any ideas?

I hope I haven't blighted myself now!! Plan is to get a 70-200 f2.8L later this year and would hate to get a bad copy!

That's what it was for me, not the body but the lens. I could get tack sharp pics when manually focusing but not with AF. Took two trips back to Canon before all was right. No issues since.

the people with complaints will always make more noise than ppl that are satisfied. same goes with the sigma primes

plasticmotif wrote in post #10343413
User error is usually to blame for complaints. You'll hear whines more than praises.

My view too. I've never had any problems with any of my lenses.

half the photos that are posted here are out of focus and improperly shot.. you may just be one of those people that can't distinguish good vs. bad.. no offense! we all start at that point

js09 wrote in post #10343907
half the photos that are posted here are out of focus and improperly shot.. you may just be one of those people that can't distinguish good vs. bad.. no offense! we all start at that point

Perhaps so, but take the following image for example.

Looks plenty sharp to me. There are lots of reasons for soft shots, and the lens is often not to blame, or at least not totally (for example, does the lens or photographer get the blame when using a lens at its widest aperture when that lens is known to be somewhat soft wide open?).

stsva wrote in post #10344196
Looks plenty sharp to me. There are lots of reasons for soft shots, and the lens is often not to blame, or at least not totally (for example, does the lens or photographer get the blame when using a lens at its widest aperture when that lens is known to be somewhat soft wide open?).

If a lens is known to not be as sharp wide open and the user still utilises it wide open then there really can't be a complaint. Or at least there shouldn't be.

I'm more talking about a 'bad copy' of a lens, one that seems to be slightly soft all round.

evo5ive wrote in post #10344440
If a lens is known to not be as sharp wide open and the user still utilises it wide open then there really can't be a complaint. Or at least there shouldn't be.

I'm more talking about a 'bad copy' of a lens, one that seems to be slightly soft all round.

My point was that you often see complaints about lens (and camera) image quality that, when investigated, turn out to result from user error. To me, there's a difference between a "bad copy" and a lens generally acknowledged to be soft, at least under some conditions. Your post above with a sample from the 50 shows that you know what a sharp image looks like and are able to get it from your copy of the 50, so I wouldn't worry that some people have not been as happy with it, so long as you are.

Not relevant to this thread, but I saw your sample image above along with a number of others in the People photo sharing forum - very nice shots!

Just go out and shoot some!
This really reminds me of people who go to car mechanic to start fixing the car if everything works, and try to prove to mechanic that they've heard some rattle in the dashboard....start replacing all hoses, radiators, e.t.c...
Seriously: why look for issues if you're satisfied with the images???

stsva wrote in post #10344488
My point was that you often see complaints about lens (and camera) image quality that, when investigated, turn out to result from user error. To me, there's a difference between a "bad copy" and a lens generally acknowledged to be soft, at least under some conditions. Your post above with a sample from the 50 shows that you know what a sharp image looks like and are able to get it from your copy of the 50, so I wouldn't worry that some people have not been as happy with it, so long as you are.

Not relevant to this thread, but I saw your sample image above along with a number of others in the People photo sharing forum - very nice shots!

Thanks!

aboss3 wrote in post #10344509
Just go out and shoot some!
This really reminds me of people who go to car mechanic to start fixing the car if everything works, and try to prove to mechanic that they've heard some rattle in the dashboard....start replacing all hoses, radiators, e.t.c...
Seriously: why look for issues if you're satisfied with the images???

I think you guys are misinterpreting what I'm saying. I wasn't looking for confirmation on whether my shots are or aren't good. I know what I'm happy with and what I'm not. My wonder was why there seems to be so many people complaining that they have a bad copy of certain lenses. So far I seem to be lucky. I only posted that shot to show what I considered to be an acceptable (to my standards) sharpness.

Congratulations on your new gear.. That is a beauty of a shot.
I too have the 50 1.4 and the 24-70L and have never had a single complaint about either lens.
Enjoy!

evo5ive wrote in post #10344537
My wonder was why there seems to be so many people complaining that they have a bad copy of certain lenses. So far I seem to be lucky...

But the point is that most complaints are unfounded, so you're not as lucky as you think.

Madweasel wrote in post #10344731
But the point is that most complaints are unfounded, so you're not as lucky as you think.

That's what I was figuring. I know that anything mass produced is bound to throw up a lemon now and then, but some of the threads on here would have you believe that certain lenses are more likely to be bad than good. I find it hard to believe that someone could get 4 different bad copies of a 24-70L in a row, and I'm just lucky enough to grab a good one? Doesn't add up.