Are There Canon Fake Canon 'L' Lenses?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Burt, May 11, 2006.

  1. Burt

    Burt Guest

    Is there such a thing as 'fake' Canon 'L' lenses? If so, is there a way to
    confirm whether you have bought a genuine 'L' lens?

    I have just bought an 'L' lens (70-200 2.8IS), but have not been blown away
    with it in my first 100 shots. Maybe I need to spend some more time with it
    and experiment? And no, it is not basic error such as using a slow shutter
    speed, poor focusing, etc. It just doesn't seem as sharp as I expected.
     
    Burt, May 11, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Burt" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > Is there such a thing as 'fake' Canon 'L' lenses? If so, is there a way
    > to
    > confirm whether you have bought a genuine 'L' lens?
    >
    > I have just bought an 'L' lens (70-200 2.8IS), but have not been blown
    > away
    > with it in my first 100 shots. Maybe I need to spend some more time with
    > it
    > and experiment? And no, it is not basic error such as using a slow
    > shutter
    > speed, poor focusing, etc. It just doesn't seem as sharp as I expected.
    >

    It could be a "Back Focus" issue, try another one. I do once in a blue moon
    get one that has this problem.
     
    Darrell Larose, May 12, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Burt

    Mark² Guest

    Burt wrote:
    > Is there such a thing as 'fake' Canon 'L' lenses? If so, is there a
    > way to confirm whether you have bought a genuine 'L' lens?
    >
    > I have just bought an 'L' lens (70-200 2.8IS), but have not been
    > blown away with it in my first 100 shots. Maybe I need to spend some
    > more time with it and experiment? And no, it is not basic error such
    > as using a slow shutter speed, poor focusing, etc. It just doesn't
    > seem as sharp as I expected.


    Are you accustomed to 2.8 apertures?
    If not, it may be a depth of field factor.

    Many folks buy a 2.8 L lens, and are surprised to note that their shots look
    a bit blurry...when it often simply has to do with inexperience with shallow
    DOF.

    -Mark²
     
    Mark², May 12, 2006
    #3
  4. Burt

    Stacey Guest

    Burt wrote:

    > Is there such a thing as 'fake' Canon 'L' lenses? If so, is there a way
    > to confirm whether you have bought a genuine 'L' lens?
    >
    > I have just bought an 'L' lens (70-200 2.8IS), but have not been blown
    > away
    > with it in my first 100 shots.


    Try manually focusing it or do some "focus test" shots and make sure that
    isn't the issue. Might have to be adjusted to your camera body?

    --

    Stacey
     
    Stacey, May 12, 2006
    #4
  5. Burt

    Lionel Guest

    On Fri, 12 May 2006 00:21:20 -0400, Stacey <>
    opined:

    >Burt wrote:
    >
    >> Is there such a thing as 'fake' Canon 'L' lenses? If so, is there a way
    >> to confirm whether you have bought a genuine 'L' lens?
    >>
    >> I have just bought an 'L' lens (70-200 2.8IS), but have not been blown
    >> away
    >> with it in my first 100 shots.

    >
    >Try manually focusing it or do some "focus test" shots and make sure that
    >isn't the issue. Might have to be adjusted to your camera body?


    I'd also try it on Aperture priority (Av) at F8 & 200mm before getting
    too worried about having it serviced or whatever.

    And as people have already said, if you've never shot at F2.8 or less
    before, it takes a fair amount of practice to get good results. For
    example; F2.8 is shallow enough that you can get a nearby subject's
    nose in focus, & their ears will be likely be out of focus, & this is
    perfectly normal.
    --
    W
    . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
    \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
    ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
     
    Lionel, May 12, 2006
    #5
  6. Today Burt attempted to dazzle everyone with this profound
    linguistic utterance

    > Is there such a thing as 'fake' Canon 'L' lenses? If so,
    > is there a way to confirm whether you have bought a genuine
    > 'L' lens?
    >
    > I have just bought an 'L' lens (70-200 2.8IS), but have not
    > been blown away with it in my first 100 shots. Maybe I
    > need to spend some more time with it and experiment? And
    > no, it is not basic error such as using a slow shutter
    > speed, poor focusing, etc. It just doesn't seem as sharp
    > as I expected.
    >

    What means "blown away" and how do you know it is the lens'
    fault and not yours, or that it isn't broken?

    The debate about sharpness and detail never ends, witness the
    "thread that never dies" on this very subject.

    As to L-glass, I have two of them and I am not impressed, except
    that I /know/ it is my technique and not the glass. So, yes, I
    would suggest you perform some /controlled/ testing.

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry

    "Never try to reason with a fool" - Roadsign
     
    All Things Mopar, May 12, 2006
    #6
  7. Today Stacey attempted to dazzle everyone with this profound
    linguistic utterance

    > Burt wrote:
    >
    >> Is there such a thing as 'fake' Canon 'L' lenses? If so,
    >> is there a way to confirm whether you have bought a
    >> genuine 'L' lens?
    >>
    >> I have just bought an 'L' lens (70-200 2.8IS), but have
    >> not been blown away with it in my first 100 shots.

    >
    > Try manually focusing it or do some "focus test" shots and
    > make sure that isn't the issue. Might have to be adjusted
    > to your camera body?
    >

    I have been singularly unsuccessful in manually focusing my
    Rebel XT. Yes, I can see in the "ground glass" finder but my
    camera won't give me the "high sign" indicating I have an AE
    lock if it doesn't believe I also have an "AF" lock, meaning
    that I can watch the little green button go on and off as I
    vary the focus. And, the distance scale on my two L-glass
    lenses are off by a factor of two.

    (yes, I am only using one AF point)

    Focusing has always been problematical for me with this camera
    and all my lenses. Once I figured out to turn off the extra AF
    sampling points, it got much better, but I still average 2-3%
    incorrect focii per "shoot".

    But to you last point, I would be /really/ pissed off if I
    find out I have a $900 body that is a "silly millimeter" off
    so that focusing is just a tad off as well!

    --
    ATM, aka Jerry

    "Never try to reason with a fool" - Roadsign
     
    All Things Mopar, May 12, 2006
    #7
  8. In article <>, Burt <>
    wrote:

    > Is there such a thing as 'fake' Canon 'L' lenses? If so, is there a way to
    > confirm whether you have bought a genuine 'L' lens?


    That's funny, the first thing that occurred to me would NOT be the lens
    was a counterfeit. A convincing fake would be almost as expensive to
    produce as a real one, I should think. But if you're uncomfortable,
    compare it to a "real" one in a store - any differences should be
    obvious.

    First possibility would be that you have a bad sample; it happens
    occasionally even with the best brands.

    Second would be poor technique. Try the tripod/good light/sharp film
    route.

    The chances of a "lens/body mismatch" are pretty poor. If so, it would
    affect other lenses to at least some extent - and would be covered by
    the defective/bad sample scenario.
     
    Scott Schuckert, May 12, 2006
    #8
  9. Burt <> wrote:
    > Is there such a thing as 'fake' Canon 'L' lenses? If so, is there a way to
    > confirm whether you have bought a genuine 'L' lens?
    >
    > I have just bought an 'L' lens (70-200 2.8IS), but have not been blown away
    > with it in my first 100 shots. Maybe I need to spend some more time with it
    > and experiment? And no, it is not basic error such as using a slow shutter
    > speed, poor focusing, etc. It just doesn't seem as sharp as I expected.
    >


    Turn IS off and take some pictures using a tripod. Take some images using
    manual focus and some more images using autofocus.

    If they are sharp, the issue is your technique and not the lens (unless IS is
    malfunctioning).

    --
    Thomas T. Veldhouse
    Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1
     
    Thomas T. Veldhouse, May 12, 2006
    #9
  10. Burt

    tomm42 Guest

    Burt wrote:
    > Is there such a thing as 'fake' Canon 'L' lenses? If so, is there a way to
    > confirm whether you have bought a genuine 'L' lens?
    >
    > I have just bought an 'L' lens (70-200 2.8IS), but have not been blown away
    > with it in my first 100 shots. Maybe I need to spend some more time with it
    > and experiment? And no, it is not basic error such as using a slow shutter
    > speed, poor focusing, etc. It just doesn't seem as sharp as I expected.


    I doubt there are "fake" L lenses. Have you used a tripod? I know it is
    an IS lens but the only way to check is off a tripod or some other
    support. Also have you used f2.8 and say f8 or 11 and compared the
    difference? Lenses vary and you may have gotten a bad one. But luckily
    Canon would probably adjust it for you. If you have used it on a tripod
    and it still seems off send it back to Canon or take it back to your
    dealer and exchange the lens.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, May 12, 2006
    #10
  11. Burt

    W (winhag) Guest

    What are you comparing it to?



    Burt wrote:
    > Is there such a thing as 'fake' Canon 'L' lenses? If so, is there a way to
    > confirm whether you have bought a genuine 'L' lens?
    >
    > I have just bought an 'L' lens (70-200 2.8IS), but have not been blown away
    > with it in my first 100 shots. Maybe I need to spend some more time with it
    > and experiment? And no, it is not basic error such as using a slow shutter
    > speed, poor focusing, etc. It just doesn't seem as sharp as I expected.
     
    W (winhag), May 12, 2006
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. jonathan

    stabilizing lenses (what lenses to get w/10D)

    jonathan, Oct 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    472
    Ken Alverson
    Oct 6, 2003
  2. Robert

    Lenses for 20D. I have older ef lenses

    Robert, Nov 18, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    508
    JohnR
    Nov 19, 2004
  3. Russell

    Canon 'L' Lenses V non 'L' Lenses

    Russell, Apr 29, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    715
    Matt Ion
    Apr 30, 2005
  4. measekite

    Full Frame Lenses vs Small Sensor Lenses

    measekite, Sep 11, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    706
    Mueen Nawaz
    Sep 13, 2006
  5. Mickey Mouse
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    321
    peterwn
    Sep 18, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page