I am wondering if it's better to send a lens in for calibration or return it to the dealer? My first thought was to send it back for an exchange but but maybe it would be best to send to Irvine? I have never sent one in for calibration and my main concern is the length of time it will be gone and if it comes back OK. I have heard of people sending the same piece of gear in many times.
RobertLynn wrote:
I am absolutely against sending it to Canon, after I buy it. I would rather take my chances sending it back to the retailer, and getting a new one.
That's what I think also but I do have a problem I did buy it from Beach and they expect one to return it for a refund and want you to order the lens. I would want to exchange it I plan to call them tomorrow. I will tell them the lens is defective and I just want to exchange. I have bought from them many times over the years so I guess I will see how well it goes.
They shouldn't have a problem exchanging, but I imagine their exchange process goes something like this.
You mail the item (depending who is paying, amybe they will)
Then the item takes X days to get there.
They take X days to review the return. If okay, they send the new one out, and you wait X days again.
What I did when I had one return with BH was, I told them I wanted to return something. Then I had them charge me again for the item (to ship the new one) and then just sent the old back (they credited me when they got the old one).
RobertLynn wrote:
They shouldn't have a problem exchanging, but I imagine their exchange process goes something like this.
You mail the item (depending who is paying, amybe they will)
Then the item takes X days to get there.
They take X days to review the return. If okay, they send the new one out, and you wait X days again.
What I did when I had one return with BH was, I told them I wanted to return something. Then I had them charge me again for the item (to ship the new one) and then just sent the old back (they credited me when they got the old one).
I think this is how they want to do this and maybe it would be best as it eliminates the waiting game. The lens is a 70-200 2.8 and out of all the 70-200 2.8 I have owned over the years this one is the softest at 2.8 than any I have ever owned. Heck it's not even that great at 3.2 settles down at 4 but even then I am not happy with it. I was thinking of getting a 200 2.8 and a 85 1.8 when I bought this lens and I am still giving it some thought. But for shooting LL baseball zooms are nice.
I love primes, and I hate primes. For the type of work I do, the zooms are super convenient. I sometimes see if I could do it with just primes, by "parking" a lens at a certain focal length, and then seeing if I can cope. I always end up zooming.
I've got a 70-200 2.8IS, and from the results I post here, everyone tells me it's sharp, but if I get one OOF shot, or one front focused/back/missed focused shot out of 25, I start to question my equipment. Like I know everything is fine, but then i question it.
My 70-200 for example, I had a day where I got to shoot with it at f/5.6+ and still had great shutter speeds...then I shot with it at 2.8, and was lthinking that my shots were terribly soft...here I was used to seeing the f/5.6 shots.
I just sold the 70-200 2.8 new one at that to buy the primes but after much thought I decided the zoom works best for me. The only problem the lens I sold was so good at 2.8 I should have never sold . I was also torn between the 4 IS but I think the 2.8 would be better for the sports I shoot
RobertLynn wrote:
I love primes, and I hate primes. For the type of work I do, the zooms are super convenient. I sometimes see if I could do it with just primes, by "parking" a lens at a certain focal length, and then seeing if I can cope. I always end up zooming.
I've got a 70-200 2.8IS, and from the results I post here, everyone tells me it's sharp, but if I get one OOF shot, or one front focused/back/missed focused shot out of 25, I start to question my equipment. Like I know everything is fine, but then i question it.
My 70-200 for example, I had a day where I got to shoot with it at f/5.6+ and still had great shutter speeds...then I shot with it at 2.8, and was lthinking that my shots were terribly soft...here I was used to seeing the f/5.6 shots. ...Show more →
You need to be like us old guys. Back in the dark ages we knew it was our fault because the camera really didn't do much for us. I'm pretty sure the first camera I had that even had a light meter in it was a Yashica Mat 124G back in 1974. Before that it was drag out the meter or guess.
Gary Petersen wrote:
You need to be like us old guys. Back in the dark ages we knew it was our fault because the camera really didn't do much for us. I'm pretty sure the first camera I had that even had a light meter in it was a Yashica Mat 124G back in 1974. Before that it was drag out the meter or guess.
Oh boy do I remember those days I can't even remember what my first camera was except it was in early 1960's. Then in the late 60's my brother was in Nam and I had him bring me home a Canon pellex oh boy I was heaven.
I'm 26 My first "digitals" were garbage p/s, and my first cameras were just stuff I didn't understand. I guess I should have hung onto the fm2n that I had, but never shot...I was too busy playing guitar and chasing girls...I was going to be a rockstar...hah, what a tool.
Back on track, Gary I wish I could blame any faults I have on me, but you've seen my posts and you know how the small detail gets under my skin and won't come out.
Gary Petersen wrote:
1957 or so was when my Dad would trust me working in the darkroom by myself. What's a 26?
The age of someone wet behind the ears.
Though not book smart, I'm "street smart" hahahaha, not worth getting into here, but for being 26 I've got some crazy stories, that man a camera should have been there, and then there's some memories that I would never want to think of again.
I'll leave it as, music and girls were an escape from home.
Back on track though, some people disagree with me. They think it's without tact, to send a lens back, rather than send it to Canon. They figure that you bought it, so you should send it back, so the retailer doesn't give it to someone else.
I say, I paid for a product, I want a working product, let the retailer deal with sending it back.
Return it. It will cost you the same in shipping. While I have had no problem with Irvine calibrating my lens (500/4, 400/5.6 because of a new body, so couldn't return the lens) and body (1D Mark IIN), others have had issues. Returning to retailer as defective is the safest bet - and hopefully the retailer sends it back to Canon as they should.
when i had my 40D defective (front focus issue) i told the shop that i want exchange for new one, and i told the guy that i want the new one to be perfect (i specially asked them to test the new one against defective & they did it, it came perfectly on my hand now).
I dunt mind received camera which has been fired few shots to make sure its perfect (save my costs of keep returning and waiting time)
This is perhaps more of an issue if you live in the UK and bought the lens from Hong Kong as I did with my 24-105L, it's a total pain to have to ship it back safely. It arrived with a large (ant-sized) piece of crud under the front element. Canon just exchanged it for me. I was quite surprised how decent they were about it actually.
I have been through this a bunch - and while I am confident in Canon's ability to calibrate I have to advise sending it back. The reason? If you are ultimately not satisfied with the calibration, and Canon ultimately tells you that it is "within spec" then it is too late and you are past any return period.
I used to return to dealer and get a new copy ... let the dealer deal with Canon. This way, there is more pressure on manufacturers to implement better quality control. They will care more if a big-time dealer like Amazon tells them to stop shipping defective items. And before someone says that focus being off is not a defect, would you say the same about a brand new car with bad wheel alignment right off the dealer's lot?
But, recently, I ended up sending 2 lenses to the manufacturers for calibration - one lens twice and the other once. In the end, the lenses all came out fine and much better. But, I spent a lot of time communicating with Canon/Sigma, shipping, waiting, etc. I don't want to go through that anymore, if I can help it. I just got a new copy of 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS this morning. I really hope it is good out-of-the-box. If not, I'll return it to Amazon. I don't want to deal with Canon anymore.
. I was also torn between the 4 IS but I think the 2.8 would be better for the sports I shoot
My first "digitals" were garbage p/s, and my first cameras were just stuff I didn't understand. I guess I should have hung onto the fm2n that I had, but never shot...I was too busy playing guitar and chasing girls...I was going to be a rockstar...hah, what a tool.