Hi all,
I purchased a 70-200F4 IS from Adorama new last week and it looked like it had been previously opened. Does Canon seal their lens boxes at the factory? It looks like someone took it out of the box and stuffed it back in (the top lid of the box was bulging up). I like the lens and it's really sharp so I don't want to send it back. I also like the service from Adorama - never had a complaint. Just wondering if these are supposed to be sealed.
Thanks
-Rich
Only the big supertelephoto boxes are sealed. Its entirely possible that Adorama took out the registration card to record the serial number, normally they don't need to open the box to do this, but the card could have shifted.
I would not worry, its under warranty, and if it is a good one, keep it. Returned lenses are sent to Canon and endup as refurbs in a white box after they are repaired.
Yeh regularly the lens will get shown to someone who wants to know what it's like etc although most larger shops to my knowledge have a policy that the lenses can't be used for a shot, just looked at, so don't worry and enjoy your new lens!
Make sure to inspect the lens thoroughly before deciding to keep it:
(1) AF calibration and IQ at 70mm and 200mm wide open.
(2) Operation of MF and zoom rings smooth and tight ? USM silent ?
(3) Condition of glass elements.(A few specs of dust is normal in a new lens)
(4) Any abrasion marks on the mount ?
(5) Any rub marks on the hood, scuffs on the inside flocking ?
(6) Cleanliness of rubber rings.
I think this can happen, when the dealer is running a shop, too. When I purchased my 70-200 4.0 L IS USM, I attached three different lenses to my body very carefully and did 10-15 shots with each of them, to compare if there is one better then the others (like it was with 50mm 1.2 and 1.4).
They where all the same. So I bought one of them (the second one- the first one was the shops demo lens from the display. And the dealer put the just opened 3rd copy back into the glas vitrine).
Ralph Conway wrote:
And the dealer put the just opened 3rd copy back into the glas vitrine).
You see, Ralph.....your English vocabulary is so good that you are uttering words such as "vitrine" which is very seldom used in the speech of N. Americans.
BTW, "glass" is redundant there........"vitrine" has to be made of glass (or something equivalent) in order to be called "vitrine" in the first place.
Nice to hear. I learned oxford english in school some decades ago, as far I remember ...
But it is my german, that should be better. The german "Vitrine" (the english people must have overtaken this from us - it is just german ;-) ) is always made of glass, too. If its not made of glas it is just called "Schrank".
Ralph Conway wrote:
Nice to hear. I learned oxford english in school some decades ago, as far I remember ...
But it is my german, that should be better. The german "Vitrine" ( the english people must have overtaken this from us - it is just german ;-) ) is always made of glass, too. If its not made of glas it is just called "Schrank".
Not likely, Ralph....both Germans and English have taken it from French......"vitre" meaning glass pane. Similarly, French "vitrail" means stained/leaded glass in English.
Did you receive an instant rebate on the lens? If so, the dealer must collect the dealer portion of the card. Also, perhaps some anal retentive person forced the company to show them multiple copies of the lens so they could cherry pick which one they thought was best. At that point, what is the company suppose to do? If that was the case, the only one to blame are the people on internet forums that insist on making the dealers jump through hoops.
You never send back something you ordered, that was a pain? anal retentive? Never heard that before.
In my case, half a year earlier I wanted to purchase a 50mm 1.2.
My dealer gave me one demo glas to attach to my body. It had horrible CA and in 20 testshots did not find any focus even using a tripod. So my dealer put out their Demo 1D MK III. Result was the same. So he opened a new lens box and (we) tested that one with at least 4 bodies. Same CR focus found 2 times. At least we tested all 1.2 he had in house (5). One was without CA but none of them found more than 8 times the focus (in 20 shots). Than he told me to wait after this stuff was sold and he would get a new charge. I asked him: "You really want to sell those?" He lifted his shoulders. He is just an employee. "We can order new ones when we run empty!"
I think, the only person to blame is the shop owner, who forces his sales person to sell horrible stuff, instead of sending it back to Canon for calibration. Instead I tested 7 (!) 1.4s and bought the best one.
The point of course is too, that I never ordered any camera or lens via internet. I purchased any gear since 2000 at the same dealers place, spending easyly 10-15% more then ordering something online. I prefere to visit my dealer and spend the otherwise "saved 100-150" Euro at his place.
Question:
What do you do if you get a horrible glas via Amazon? Would you send it to Canon for calibration (and missing it for some weeks, not knowing when and how functional it comes back?) I might be an anal retentive person, but I would send it back to Amazon the same day, getting a new copy the day after tomorrow. Doing different imo is just beeing stupid.
I guess Amazon would sell it to the next person, placing an order. Maybe THEY have the power to give it back to Canon. An ordinary dealer (and surely no salesman) does not have it.
You never send back something you ordered, that was a pain? anal retentive? Never heard that before.
In my case, half a year earlier I wanted to purchase a 50mm 1.2.
My dealer gave me one demo glas to attach to my body. It had horrible CA and in 20 testshots did not find any focus even using a tripod. So my dealer put out their Demo 1D MK III. Result was the same. So he opened a new lens box and (we) tested that one with at least 4 bodies. Same CR focus found 2 times. At least we tested all 1.2 he had in house (5). One was without CA but none of them found more than 8 times the focus (in 20 shots). Than he told me to wait after this stuff was sold and he would get a new charge. I asked him: "You really want to sell those?" He lifted his shoulders. He is just an employee. "We can order new ones when we run empty!"
I think, the only person to blame is the shop owner, who forces his sales person to sell horrible stuff, instead of sending it back to Canon for calibration. Instead I tested 7 (!) 1.4s and bought the best one.
The point of course is too, that I never ordered any camera or lens via internet. I purchased any gear since 2000 at the same dealers place, spending easyly 10-15% more then ordering something online. I prefere to visit my dealer and spend the otherwise "saved 100-150" Euro at his place.
Question:
What do you do if you get a horrible glas via Amazon? Would you send it to Canon for calibration (and missing it for some weeks, not knowing when and how functional it comes back? I might be an anal retentive person, but I would send it back to Amazon the same day, getting a new copy the day after tomorrow.
I guess Amazon would sell it to the next person, placing an order. Maybe THEY have the power to give it back to Canon. An ordinary dealer (and surely no salesman) does not have it.
There have been many stories on these forums about people who order 3 or 4 copies of a particular lens, cherry pick which one they want, then return the rest to the store. This is what I was referring to, but thank you for all that other great information you included in your post.
I can count the number of imperfect boxes I have recieved from B&H and Adorama, on two hands. Unless it's really mucked up, I don't care.
Yet, I care about what's inside, and that's why whatever comes in the door over the years, gets a workout to make sure it's not poop.
So, I wouldn't sweat the edge bulge. Focus on the lens inside (no pun intended) and don't overthink the whole lens virginity thing...just de-clench and scrutinize the lens
Aside from crummy minimum focus distance performance, the F/4 IS is about as perfect as a lens gets.
anal retentive? Never heard that before.