How to return bad copies?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:

> First off, I dont have a bad copy of any lens (yet). I am looking at buying
> a few different lenses which are synonymous with "bad copies".
>
> I typically buy my gear from B&H (and I dont live in NY), so I am buying
> online. So, lets say I buy a Canon 24-70 f2.8L and it turns out to be a "bad
> copy". What do I do? Do I try to return it to B&H and pay for shipping or do
> I deal with Canon?
>
> How does the whole "bad coy" thing work?

More myth than fact. There is sample variation among shipped products,
but all products you get should be within manufacturers spec. If you
can show that there is a real defect (eg: won't focus at infinity), then
return the lens.

You would normally return it via the vendor (B&H) who, if the lens is
truly defective, should pick up S&H. Read the policies at their website
to be sure.

Cheers,
Alan.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:
> First off, I dont have a bad copy of any lens (yet). I am looking at buying
> a few different lenses which are synonymous with "bad copies".
>
> I typically buy my gear from B&H (and I dont live in NY), so I am buying
> online. So, lets say I buy a Canon 24-70 f2.8L and it turns out to be a "bad
> copy". What do I do? Do I try to return it to B&H and pay for shipping or do
> I deal with Canon?
>
> How does the whole "bad coy" thing work?
>
> Thanks
> Musty.
>
>

The chances of buying one of the batch which got this lens a bad name is
slight. To get one from B&H would mean they'd have to not have sold any
for 3 month and that is not just a remote chance but pretty much much
impossible.

Canon are the first port of call for all warranty problems, in my
opinion. I have one of these lenses and it is interesting to note the
chain of events which occurred so you too may gain peace of mind.

The camera came as a "Kit". I have bought 3, 20Ds in total but we'll
concentrate on the latest one. The Kit lens has minimum aperture or
f3.5. Canon guarantee their 20Ds will pull focus within the depth of
field of the lens supplied with it. OK so I got an event with 300 shots
done using nothing more than the kit lens and they were all sharp shots.

Then I bought a 50mm f1.8 and everything was out of focus. OK so I took
it back and got a refund. Plastic mount, Dud lens I thought. It wasn't
until I bought the 24~70 f2.8 that I started to consider the likelihood
the camera was the problem.

I run off a test print of lines 2 mm apart with a pronounced one in the
middle, covering an A4 (letter) size page. I set the camera up on a
tripod at 45 degrees to the chart and shot some tests at the middle
line. At f3.5 it was boarder line if the thing focused or not but at
f2.8 it was auto focusing an inch or two behind the point of focus. When
I used a 50 f1.4 from my 1D MkII, the focus error got really bad.

Canon re-calibrated the camera (a week) and the lens is exactly what
you'd expect from a "L" series now. So... The early lenses were the ones
with an issue. The new ones are OK except for some barrel distortion
wide open which is easily corrected with DxO or a miriyad of lens
correctors in Photoshop. Considering the quantity of lenses Canon sell
and the reported problems, I have a guess that about half of them are
really camera problems.

Douglas

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> The chances of buying one of the batch which got this lens a bad name is
> slight. To get one from B&H would mean they'd have to not have sold any
> for 3 month and that is not just a remote chance but pretty much much
> impossible.

Are you saying that there was a known bad batch?

>
> Canon are the first port of call for all warranty problems, in my
> opinion. I have one of these lenses and it is interesting to note the
> chain of events which occurred so you too may gain peace of mind.
>
<snip>
> really camera problems.
>
> Douglas

I can definitely see that. Luckily I think my camera is ok. My 17-85 gave
pretty sharp pics, and my 70-200 f2.8LIS has just _amazing_
sharpness/color/contrast.

Its just that at sites like Fred Miranda reviews, you hear so many people
say it took 5 copies to get a goo 24-70L. Its enough to scare you into not
buying _any_ lenses. I think you may be right that in many cases it is the
camera.

Still thinking about the 24-70 f2.8L. It would be nice if it had IS....

Musty.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Musty" <musty@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:5rxke.134633$AE6.37318@tornado.texas.rr.com...
SNIP
> Are you saying that there was a known bad batch?


That would surprise me, the variation is more likely to be from lens
to lens, and the limits are tighter than for some other brands.

SNIP
> My 17-85 gave pretty sharp pics,

I've seen the results from a friend's copy, and they looked quite good
although with some CA (which can be somewhat corrected in
postprocessing, should one feel the need).

> and my 70-200 f2.8LIS has just _amazing_
> sharpness/color/contrast.

It's regarded as a good lens by many.

> Its just that at sites like Fred Miranda reviews, you hear so many
> people say it took 5 copies to get a goo 24-70L. Its enough to
> scare you into not buying _any_ lenses. I think you may be right
> that in many cases it is the camera.

That, or the photographer... I've read those comments from people
chosing the better out of several, and I hardly ever saw objective
tests corroborating the choice they made. A good test is something
that is not easy to do right, and easy to do wrong, so their
conclusions might be wrong as well.

Maybe I've been lucky, but my lenses all perform within expectation
(and I do know what to look for). That includes my judgement for the
highly praised EF 17-40mm f/4.0 , it's reasonably good at such a
wide-angle range (same or better level than EF 24mm f/2.8 in the
center, slightly softer at the corners for full frame but less CA),
but the bokeh looks horrible (I've never seen anybody complain about
that, so maybe it is just my copy? ;-) ).

> Still thinking about the 24-70 f2.8L. It would be nice if it had
> IS....

It's a wonderful walk-around lens (although 24mm could be a bit long
for 1.6 crop factor cameras, depending on subject), although my EF
50mm f/1.4 is better (but less flexible in rapidly changing
circumstances).
IS would be nice, but it's heavy enough as it is ...

Bart

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>> How does the whole "bad coy" thing work?
>
> More myth than fact. There is sample variation among shipped products,
> but all products you get should be within manufacturers spec. If you can
> show that there is a real defect (eg: won't focus at infinity), then
> return the lens.

I agree. Lenses are, of course, more variable than today's typical
electronic devices. With a digital device, the darned thing works as
specified or doesn't work at all. The "bad copy" label is too often a lure
for a disappointed buyer looking for something to blame. However, a lens is
indeed a tricky mechanical/opical assembly and all are certainly not created
as equals. Bottom line: I'd guess that the number of "reported bad copies"
(compared to those actually out of specified tolerances) is significantly
inflated.