5D and 24-105mm Quality Control?

[leya216]

From searching the net it seems there is quite a problem with the quality

control. It seems quite a few people have had to exchange their lens once or

twice before they got a sharp copy. There seem to be far less similar complaints

about the 5D but there still are some.

To those who own both- what was your personal experiance?

I'm asking because I'm debating if to buy the kit online (which will save me $$$

on tax but then take much longer to get my replacement and since I'm coming from

abroad I don't really have the extra time) or in a store which will let me test

on the spot but will be about $300 more...

Also has anyone had any problems with defective flashes?

Thanks for the help,

Leah

[mark_chappell]

'Searching the net' is not necessarily a good way to find out how likely you are to get a

lemon sample. Chances are high that cameras and lenses bought from a reputable dealer

will work perfectly.

 

You asked if 'anyone had any problems with defective flashes' and I'm sure the answer is

'yes' -- given the millions of flashes out there, certainly a few were DOA. But again, the

chances of getting a bad flash out of the box are pretty low.

 

In the past 5 or 6 years I've made maybe 20 random samples of Net-ordered Canon

equipment (cameras, lenses, flash,....). All have worked fine (including a 24-105). If that

doesn't reassure you, maybe you should spend the extra $300 and buy your stuff in a

store -- provided you're confident you can reliably test the equipment on the spot.

[leya216]

Well nothing is certain but death and taxes but still want to hear these reassuring answers... Thanks!

[steve torelli]

Remember the old saying "You can't always believe what you read in the papers" ? Well you can update that by substituting "on the internet" for "in the papers". Most people who buy them wouldn't know a good lens from a bad one. They, like you, have also read the internet BS about "bad copies". IMO it's gotten out of hand. I belong to Photonet and FredMiranda and see posts like this at least a couple of times a week.

 

Now here comes the standard disclaimer. I'm not saying that there's no such thing as a bad lens.I'm saying that your chances of getting one are no where near what you're led to believe by reading all the uninformed nonsense in the forums. Think about it, this didn't seem to be a problem before the advent of the internet. I've owned dozens of lenses by four different manufacturers in the last twenty five years and never had a bad one. Too many people these days make it a habit of returning lenses until they think they have one that's better than the others. No harm no foul right ? The harm is the spreading of misinformation that result in posts like yours and the far too many others like it we see all the time.

 

There is not "quite a problem with quality control". The problem, IMHO is with inexperienced and easily misinformed, and often paranoid, consumers. Good luck and don't worry.

[pkallos]

I bought a new 24-105 lens and returned it for "softness". Upon further thought..err.. I might have been hasty in my judgement. It's hard to come up with lab quality consistent measures, and if you don't have a gold standard to compare it to you're just kind of guessing. Any new lenses I purchase I will not "test". I will instead just take pictures with it and make sure nothing glaring is wrong.

[jarek]

I tried 2 copies of 24-105 and both were soft from 70 - 105, especially at f4. Comparing to 70 - 200 f/4 : no contest. There might be some better or worse copies out there but in general I think that 24-105 is just far from stellar at the long end. I gave up on that lens since I tested the second copy.

[mars c]

I have a very sharp copy of the 24-105, I must be lucky :), But I think there are much more people who got sharp copy of this lens than not, And those who got soft copy, They could calibrate the lens at canon anyway. BTW Are there canon service center in your country?

 

So I think , you should'nt hesitate to buy the lens and 5d , especially that you can afford them.

 

And good luck :)

[dogbert]

"They could calibrate the lens at canon anyway. "

 

Personally I would be wary of doing this unless abosultely necessary. The factory has people assembling the lenses in a controlled environment and will be trained to do a particular job and to do it well. On the other hand the service centers doing calibration are probably techies and tinkerers trained to be jack of all trades and trained to get things working "good enough".

 

I am not sure I would want them dissassembling a factory built lens in an the uncontroled environment a canon service center.

 

I have a second hand lens that went through a Canon service center and came back with some minor smudges on an internal element and my 350D came back with a badly scratched LCD, which Canon denied doing.

[eric_lawson1]

My 24-105L has been to Canon 3 times for softness in the longer end of the lens. I was ready to give up and get a 24-70L when it came back the last time. Glad I didn't give up because it is the best lens I have now and I have a bunch of goodies in my bag. It shouldn't have to be that way but now I am happy and this thing is VERY sharp from F4 wide to tele. For what it's worth.

[dogbert]

I should add my copy of the 24-105L seems pretty good.

[david_amberson1]

Peter kallos is right. Use it to take real pictures. I had a copy of that lens and my complaint was that it wasn't fast enough to freeze action in indoor lighting. Although for weddings...probably doesnt get any better. I took it back and got the 24-70 2.8L. Sharpness is the same from wide open to f8.0. The only difference is DOF. I took a horribly sharp picture of my wife at f2.8 and it upset here to see the age of her 29 year old face. I'm like one of the others. I think my decision about the 24-105's sharpness was premature. I think my XTi has focusing hickups sometimes. Not the lens. If you get one sharp photo from a lens, then its good. The inconsistency is from the camera. It's what drives the lens. What better camera than a 5D to drive a lens. I had some very sharp photos taken with the 24-105.

Someone tell Canon to make the 24-105's aperture go to 2.8 and all of our problems will be solved.

If you need to stop action..go 2.8. If you need to hand hold at 105 and 1/4th then go 24-105.

[david_amberson1]

Sorry, forgot to add. I bought my copies from a local shop. Wolf/Ritz. You can return within 14 days if you are not satisfied. Thats worth 200 bucks if you are spending 1300 and not sure of your decision.

[PuppyDigs]

I bought a 5D and 24-105 4L kit from B&H in 4.2006. Still works perfectly and the zoom is the sharpest L optic I have owned, and I've owned my fair share.

 

Remember, the few with problems tend to scream bloody murder loud and repeatedly on the internet. The 99% without problems are usually silent (out shooting).

[mars c]

Geoff,

 

Correct me if I'm wrong,

 

I dont think that canon will need to diassemble the lens when calibrating, I think they'll just re-program and calibrate the lens via computer with a reference camera body, or a preset parameters from the computer.

 

BTW, to those who have their lens calibrated by canon, Did you noticed the screws in the mount, got scarred or have evidence that they were turned?

 

If the lens came back with the screws in the mount still looks like ( I mean really new), chances are the lens was'nt opened.

[yanglee]

How many people who are happy with their lens will go to the web and rant an entire 2 paragraphs about how happy they are? On the other hand, those who are unhappy with their lens (be it manufacturer's or user's error) tends to whine extra loudly for extra long period of time - so you've got a serious selection bias there by reading web comments. I will just say all my Canon cameras, lens, and flash which includes the 5D and the 20-105mm L IS and 420EX has not had any problems, are sharp. And there was a time when I thought I had exposure problem with my EOS 3 film cameras turned out to be more of my own user error. Best wishes in your purchase.

[jon_austin]

Paragraph 1: OK, I'll do it. I've had a 24-105 since 12/05, it's my first and only copy, and it's very sharp across the range. I am extremely, rantingly pleased with it. I used it about 50% of the time on my 20D, and now about 80% of the time on my 5D. Very, very sharp. Rant, rant rant.

 

Paragraph 2: I've had a 24-105 since 12/05, it's my first and only copy, and it's very sharp across the range. I am extremely, rantingly pleased with it. I used it about 50% of the time on my 20D, and now about 80% of the time on my 5D. Very, very sharp. Rant, rant rant.

[jon_austin]

P.S. I am also (similarly) rantingly happy with my 5D!

[William Michael]

As an aside to Steve Torelli, but it bears on the thread I think:

 

Bravo, well stated.

 

I think we will eventually grow out of this phenomenon, but it will take time.

 

I was relieved, (but only somewhat), to overhear two teenage girls (about 13 or 14 years) talking about their school project, specifically the research they were undertaking.

 

They were both quiet scathing about the general quality of `misinformation on the net`.

 

They were both keen to confirm primary and secondary sources and cross reference: I guess their teacher does not take very much for granted, and marks her student`s papers accordingly.

 

WW

[martin_hale1]

I've got both the 5D and the 24-105, and I'm very happy with them.

 

I did however go to the trouble of checking the sharpness of the actual 24-105 I was going to buy. I used it on a digital body to take some pics in the store, downloaded to my laptop there and then, and checked the pics at actual pixels in photoshop. Why bother? Firstly, where I live, returning items is difficult. Secondly, this was the 12th Canon lens I've bought, including 11 L series lenses ranging from the 16-35 to the 600IS, and I've had sharpness problems with 2 of them.

 

My first 100-400 was awful. Canon had it for 3 months (!) for adjustment, and when it came back it was worse than before. Luckily they had loaned me another 100-400 whilst the work on the first dragged on, and it was obvious from the first roll of film (remember those days)I shot with it, that it was far better than the first lens. I was eventually able to keep this second lens.

 

The other lens I've not been happy with, but which no doubt falls with in the range of what Canon would consider acceptable, is my 70-200 f2.8L. Most posts refer to this lens as one of the sharpest zooms around. Mine's about as good as the 100-400 I now have, but not as good as I expected it to be. This may prove to be nothing more than a camera/lens compatibility issue (I have tested it with several different bodies though), which I will explore if and when Canon sort out the focusing on the 1D3 and I feel confident enough to buy one.

 

To sum up then, sample variation between lenses is, I think, very real, and whilst some or even many reports of it might be suspect and due to operator error, it does exist. So, in terms of buying it online ,ask yourself, are you feeling lucky?

[William Michael]

>>> To sum up then, sample variation between lenses is, I think, very real, and whilst some or even many reports of it might be suspect and due to operator error, it does exist.<<< (and the other 4 paragraphs too).

 

Absolutely.

 

Succinct and irrefutable by any logical thought process: and co exists harmoniously with Mr Torelli`s (and my) view.

 

I personally would like more opinions from Mr Hale: I think he could assist the balance to somewhere near logic and rational thought, when it goes screwy here.

 

:)

 

 

Cheers.

 

WW

[eric merrill]

I guess I should start buying lottery tickets.

 

I'm happy with all the Canon lenses I have bought, including the 24-105.

 

 

Eric

[john_ng4]

Hi,

How did you guys determine that the lens was "soft"?