Sharp or Not

Cason

I've seen several posts where somebody goes to a store and test drives a particular lens. They go through a few and pick the sharpest. The ones that didn't make the cut get put back on the shelf. Somebody comes by and buys the not so sharp lens.

Could you take the soft copy and send it off the Canon in hopes that it will become sharper? Or is it going to be soft forever?

What is that they will do to make it sharper? What tests will be ran?

ziggy53

Starting with about the 6 megapixel imagers, people began to notice that it was possible to have lens and body incompatibilities. Many times the lens and body can be "matched" by an adjustment, but then other lenses may be "mis-matched".

Both the camera and lenses are supposed to be matched to factory standards, but it's possible that the extremes of those standards can be exceeded when combined.

I believe it is possible for many lenses to be adjusted with shim packs, I know my Sigma 50-500mm has them, and the camera can be adjusted via the autofocus block.

I suggest that if you have a consistent focus problem you send your important lenses in with your body for re-calibration at the same time. It's not an instant correction so be prepared to do without for a period of time.

Consistent softness throughout is probably not easily corrected.

claudermilk

My opinion is not a particularly popular one, but here it goes.

I think there's more "soft owners" than "soft lenses." The whole thing is way overblown & IMHO this cherry-picking is a bunch of nonsense. I have purchased exactly one copy of each of my lenses, and every one of them performs as well or better than I expected. My gear has never once been to Canon for calibration or service. It simply doesn't need it.

I feel there's some collectors with unreasonably high expectations. They spend time shooting brick walls and test patterns without really understanding what's going on and decide they've found some flaw that the full-time optical engineers missed. So the whinging posts start and send others off worrying about the sky falling, making a mountain out of nothing. None of us worried this much about niggling little details in the past (think before spending all our free time on net forums).

Honestly I don't see any reason not to just grab the first darn lens across the counter, go and shoot it for a while in the real world of typical subjects. If in the rare occasion there is something amiss, that's what the warrenty is there for. I am sure some percentage of these soft lens reports are actual problems; however at this point, I take them all with a large bag of salt.


[donning flame-retardant suit] :hide

NeilL

Haha, let it all hang out, Chris!

I don't think it hurts to have high expectations, nor to insist that good equipment is got for good money. The consumer can't be left out of the equation.

The upside is that manufacturers are sensitised to consumer standards and through R&D attempt to meet them.

The performance of optical equipment by it's nature is vulnerable to quite small physical variations. It seems to me that final calibration is a very natural step in the process of manufacture. While consumer optical equipment is factory produced in large numbers, this is not matched by the final calibration of the real world working setup. To do that in a wholesale way might not be practicable, but any individual consumer can obviously arrange for that. No problem, I think.

We all want to believe in our equipment, as you clearly do. But I take your point that to help us get good photographs is why we need good equipment. Good equipment is not an end in itself.

Neil

Ozone

claudermilk

My opinion is not a particularly popular one, but here it goes.

I think there's more "soft owners" than "soft lenses." The whole thing is way overblown & IMHO this cherry-picking is a bunch of nonsense. I have purchased exactly one copy of each of my lenses, and every one of them performs as well or better than I expected. My gear has never once been to Canon for calibration or service. It simply doesn't need it.

I feel there's some collectors with unreasonably high expectations. They spend time shooting brick walls and test patterns without really understanding what's going on and decide they've found some flaw that the full-time optical engineers missed. So the whinging posts start and send others off worrying about the sky falling, making a mountain out of nothing. None of us worried this much about niggling little details in the past (think before spending all our free time on net forums).

Honestly I don't see any reason not to just grab the first darn lens across the counter, go and shoot it for a while in the real world of typical subjects. If in the rare occasion there is something amiss, that's what the warrenty is there for. I am sure some percentage of these soft lens reports are actual problems; however at this point, I take them all with a large bag of salt.

I don't think your post is unpopular.. I think that it is right on. I have bought 3 lenses now, and have not been disappointed by a single one. Rather, it's been, "WOW!" I have not ceased to be amazed by these lenses, but this is the first time in my life I have ever owned quality glass, FWIW.

Manfr3d

RTP wrote:

I've seen several posts where somebody goes to a store and test drives a particular lens. They go through a few and pick the sharpest. The ones that didn't make the cut get put back on the shelf. Somebody comes by and buys the not so sharp lens.

Could you take the soft copy and send it off the Canon in hopes that it will become sharper? Or is it going to be soft forever?

What is that they will do to make it sharper? What tests will be ran?

The warranty of a lens also includes it's sharpness so you should
be able to send it in for a warranty repair. I had to do it with a Tamron
lens (28-75/2.8) last year because it was very soft until f5.6. They
"calibrated the lens on their optical bench" as they say at no costs
within warranty. The lens is razor sharp since then. So yes it is possible
to repair sharpness. I doubt that Canon can't do that too.

Cason

HAHA...that is funny "soft users".

Funny you should mention the brick wall test because I did just that. I put my 30D, 24-70L, and remote release on a tripod, set the mirror lock up and went through each F-stop. I took 3 sets (24mm, 50mm, 70mm). I was about 15 feet away from the wall.

I don't know anybody with a 30D and 24-70L. I'm not sure where the sweet spot is on this lens. I know this lens isn't perfect. However, I would like to know where the strong points are. If the sweet spot is f5.6 50mm, I want to see what mine looks like. If it's soft f2.8 at 70mm, then I want to see what mine is like.

My expectations are high because I shelled out $1100 for this lens. I want to make sure it is up to par.

claudermilk

High expectations are fine. Considering I have two L lenses that cost $1100 each, I have high expectations also. It's going the extra step to unreasonably high expectations that drives me nuts. I think I was particularly crochety yesterday, too. :rutt

The thing is, knowing the limitations of the lenses, I have been very please with mine. Yes, the 24-70 is softer at f2.8 than it is at f5.6--where it really starts to shine (regardless of focal length, at least with mine). But I can get the shots at f2.8 when I need to, that's why I dropped a grand on the lens. Same thing with my 70-200--in fact I've been blown away by it as it's exceeded my expectations built upon using several 70-200/2.8 IS lenses. Losing the IS mechanism apparently got me a sharper lens.


Then I go online and read (mainly in other fora) about somepeople claiming to find it necessary to swap L glass 6 or more times for each lens before finding an acceptably sharp copy. WTF? I ask myself what they are smoking, and why aren't they sharing? :jfriend:dood

Again, I can accept a percentage of product gets on the shelves that needs some extra attention. What I find hard to believe is that it's as many as some seem to think. The part that bothers me is that it generates posts like the one starting this thread--getting new users worried about something that they really shouldn't be because it really isn't as much of an issue as some make it out to be. Perhaps some of those people just need the attention.

I guess this is now one of my soapbox topics.

Manfr3d

claudermilk wrote:

Again, I can accept a percentage of product gets on the shelves that needs some extra attention. What I find hard to believe is that it's as many as some seem to think. The part that bothers me is that it generates posts like the one starting this thread--getting new users worried about something that they really shouldn't be because it really isn't as much of an issue as some make it out to be. Perhaps some of those people just need the attention.

I guess this is now one of my soapbox topics.

Ouch what a bold and dull statement!

It only appears that many people are complaining about lenses
because those who have a fine copy have less have less intention
to discuss the good lens performance (they exprected it). And
people with a bad copy tend to interview and group with bad
copy owners. Those who have a good copy simply dont do that.

claudermilk

Dull? How so? Please explain.

I agree that the squeaky wheels (owners who have--or think they have--a bad copy) definitely make more noise than the happy ones. Part of why I always stick my nose in to get chopped off. That was basically my point-- the amplified noise of unhappy owners makes it seem like a bigger problem than it is, causing undue worry to those who are considering buying a particular model, even some of the most popular ones (e.g., 24-70/2.8L, 70-200/whatever).

Manfr3d

claudermilk wrote:

Dull? How so? Please explain.

I agree that the squeaky wheels (owners who have--or think they have--a bad copy) definitely make more noise than the happy ones. Part of why I always stick my nose in to get chopped off. That was basically my point-- the amplified noise of unhappy owners makes it seem like a bigger problem than it is, causing undue worry to those who are considering buying a particular model, even some of the most popular ones (e.g., 24-70/2.8L, 70-200/whatever).

I think there are better ways to explain newcommers to take
bad reviews of popular lenses with a grain of salt than calling
those who've report a problem attention seekers. Now that
you've explained your point I think we share the same opinion.

Cason

claudermilk wrote:

Perhaps some of those people just need the attention.

I'm not out to seek attention. I'm out to see what Canon can do if my lens is soft where it should be, in your words, "shine".

Thank you Ziggy and Manfr3d for telling me that re-calibration is available.

That is the point of the thread.