Lenses: "A Good Copy"

[Liz]

Reading reviews/discussions on lenses, often the information includes statements such as "if you get a good copy" of the lens or "I got a bad copy." These comments are so frequently made that it made me curious as to just how many "bad copies" are out there. I began to notice this phenomenon when checking out reviews on different web sites before purchasing the Canon 17-40. I then read reviews on other lenses and discovered this seems to occur more frequently with the more expensive lenses.

Just how many good vs bad copies of lenses are there to qualify these statements? When I checked dpreview for additional information/reviews on the 17-40, I found comments about "good copy" and bad copy" used constantly in their lens discussion forums. I really wonder if some people think they have a "bad copy" if they don't get the results they expected for whatever reason.

Any thoughts?

BTW, I got a "good" copy of the 17-40 - I LOVE THIS LENS!

Liz

[Peter_AUS]

Sometimes Liz, I think what appears to be a bad copy of a Lens and to some point a Camera, comes down to the users using the camera or lens as well. Not saying it doesn't happen, but these sorts of things often turn people away from what is otherwise a very good lens mostly.

I'd love to own a 17-40L lens, but need to get the CC down before looking at anything in the future. At present I'm not even sure my fortnightly compensation payment is going to go in the bank or they will stop paying me. Life on the edge hey.

[Liz]

thanks for your input, Peter. I'm sorry it's a difficult time for you. I hope you will be able to get a job in the near future.

Yes, the 17-40 is my favorite lens........

Liz

[another view]

Liz, I've wondered about this too. My only personal experience comes from a 24mm AIS manual focus Nikon lens I bought about 4-5 years ago. It was used but "like new". That lens just never had the punch that other lenses had, mostly lower contrast I guess. In many different situations, it never looked as good as my 50 f1.4 so I got rid of it. Even the Nikon 28-105 zoom and Tokina 80-400 are better lenses. Never used another copy of this lens so I don't know if it was just this one or what, but I thought it was strange. Anybody else?

[Michael Fanelli]

Reading reviews/discussions on lenses, often the information includes statements such as "if you get a good copy" of the lens or "I got a bad copy." These comments are so frequently made that it made me curious as to just how many "bad copies" are out there. I began to notice this phenomenon when checking out reviews on different web sites before purchasing the Canon 17-40. I then read reviews on other lenses and discovered this seems to occur more frequently with the more expensive lenses.

Just how many good vs bad copies of lenses are there to qualify these statements? When I checked dpreview for additional information/reviews on the 17-40, I found comments about "good copy" and bad copy" used constantly in their lens discussion forums. I really wonder if some people think they have a "bad copy" if they don't get the results they expected for whatever reason.

Any thoughts?

BTW, I got a "good" copy of the 17-40 - I LOVE THIS LENS!

Liz

The results are skewed. If someone truly gets a defective lens, they'll complain like crazy. The vast majority of people with no problems are unlikely to write "Have this lens, no problems."

The other problem is that some people spend much more time looking for "bugs" than taking photographs. On other web sites, you read about elaborate and often very silly meaningless "tests" that prove lens and cameras are defective. Of course, the manufacturer knows about the "defect" and is hiding the True Facts.

Take anecdotal evidence for what it is: unreliable.

[Liz]

I never realized until I decided to check resources on other websites before buying the 17-40, how many people refer to their lenses as "good" or "bad" copies. I did a lot of research before getting this lens since it was a lot of money for me to spend on a lens, and I wanted to be sure it was worth it. I never actually got a "bad" copy of a lens, but I have gotten a defect here and there, especially with used.

Liz

Liz, I've wondered about this too. My only personal experience comes from a 24mm AIS manual focus Nikon lens I bought about 4-5 years ago. It was used but "like new". That lens just never had the punch that other lenses had, mostly lower contrast I guess. In many different situations, it never looked as good as my 50 f1.4 so I got rid of it. Even the Nikon 28-105 zoom and Tokina 80-400 are better lenses. Never used another copy of this lens so I don't know if it was just this one or what, but I thought it was strange. Anybody else?

[Liz]

It's good to see you around more these days now that school is out.

Thanks for the input. Have a good summer.

Liz

The results are skewed. If someone truly gets a defective lens, they'll complain like crazy. The vast majority of people with no problems are unlikely to write "Have this lens, no problems."

The other problem is that some people spend much more time looking for "bugs" than taking photographs. On other web sites, you read about elaborate and often very silly meaningless "tests" that prove lens and cameras are defective. Of course, the manufacturer knows about the "defect" and is hiding the True Facts.

Take anecdotal evidence for what it is: unreliable.