RyanFlynn: Call me crazy, but I like using a zoom to get reach, and if I need to shoot really close, I use a macro lens.
Why then advertise the lens to have maximum magnification of 0.21?
I do not think everyone wants to swap between a macro lens and a long prime when doing some nature photography (walking around).
Peter Figen wrote:
"Did either of your guys try this test with manual focus to determine if it was the optics or the AF"
Yes, the first thing I did was to do another test manually focusing in the smallest increments possible to determine if there was a front or back focus problem. The single autofocus point that I had been using on the 1DsMKII was still the sharpest focus obtained. This thousand dollard lens is going to end up costing several thousand in my time by the time I find a good one - or I might decide to just give it back and live with what I have. ...Show more →
Returning lenses can be very difficult and time consuming; especially if you do not have adequate time to test it before the return period ends - yikes !!!
Feeling pressed and rushed to thoroughly test a relatively expensive item that should work the first time when you get it is somewhat disheartening. In this case places that allow free return shipping are best, and that give you an adequate amount of time to really test something. After all, in order to buy any of these goodies we all have to work! It is troubling that in many instances one has to haggle with management to even get it right; seems many businesses have stonewalling in place to defer most people from even trying to really get this accomplished.
If these businesses really underwrite their products they should offer a refund back to the consumer for any returned items they test with bonafide issues - especially since they are testing them anyway upon the items return. This only makes sense - but none I know of offer to do so unless you ask to speak to the manager, which again is usually extremely time consuming and often not worth the time cost. I had one company tell me they would rebate my return shipping costs upon asking the manager to do so, but only upon being told by the rep that this was impossible. I was told that only because I was a long time customer with no prior returns did they manager agree to do so - and this took several phone calls and and well over an hour of my time. During these companies normal business hours during the week who really has the time to do so?
In the end Canon should have better quality control, and should have in place some kind of cost rebate back to the stores for any bad merchandise they ship them that they get returned back. Maybe they already do - and we just don't know about it. Next time I need to return something I will try to remember to ask. Maybe if more of us asked them to right the wrong some of these prohibitive return polices and the burdensome return costs would change.
I will say that amazon.com was excellent about replacing my lens. There was no "prove it" or "we're sorry you'll have to send it to canon, we dont' deal with that." and they refunded my shipping costs.
One of the problems is pairing the fact that there are manufacturing tolerances with that some photographers have a greater need for the best samples available. Not everyone is pushing their equipment to the limit and a lot of those people would be more than happy with either of the lenses I just tested. Unfortunately for me, these samples are just not good enough, so it's back to Samy's for a third lens tomorrow. If the third sample is still not up to snuff, then I may try sending it to Canon for calibration. I thought we were paying a premium for the red circle and L designationl, and that was supposed to at least give us better odds of getting good samples. So far, in my own experience, it took two samples to get a really good 135L, never even a mediocre 20mm and now at least three if not more for this new lens. So out of a dozen Canon lenses I have purchased in the last few years, fully 25 percent of them have not been acceptable on the first try.
Peter Figen wrote:
One of the problems is pairing the fact that there are manufacturing tolerances with that some photographers have a greater need for the best samples available. Not everyone is pushing their equipment to the limit and a lot of those people would be more than happy with either of the lenses I just tested. Unfortunately for me, these samples are just not good enough, so it's back to Samy's for a third lens tomorrow. If the third sample is still not up to snuff, then I may try sending it to Canon for calibration. I thought we were paying a premium for the red circle and L designationl, and that was supposed to at least give us better odds of getting good samples. So far, in my own experience, it took two samples to get a really good 135L, never even a mediocre 20mm and now at least three if not more for this new lens. So out of a dozen Canon lenses I have purchased in the last few years, fully 25 percent of them have not been acceptable on the first try. ...Show more →
It is not fair or right that we should have to pay for shipping both ways. Even if shipping is "included" in the price of the item we are receiving, it is a given that it is being considered in the markup, and it is wrong that we should have to pay return costs for defective equipment, especially brand new defective equipment.
Until and unless as an intelligent group we begin to ask to be rebated return shipping costs, they will continue to ask us to pay. This is simply not fair, and if more people asked for it then more companies would be willing to do so. They can actually write this off their books - and would do so - if enough people prodded them.
I hope I don't have a lens to return anytime soon but I am going to make a point of asking customer service to send me a pre-paid return label or refund my credit card every time from now on - and encourage others to do likewise. If the manager got bombarded with this enough, it would certainly gain interest with them and motivate them to change their penalizing policies.
After all, who amongst us volunteers to get a bad copy? The answer is absolutely no one, of course! So why should we have to be harmed with paying shipping both ways because of something beyond our control - when in reality the responsibility to right the wrong is theirs? Unless we speak up it will continue to be "status quo," so more of us obviously need to do so.
Ultimately the real issue is still Canon's quality control - but this does not relieve the retailer of their need to make the transaction equitable and good. For every lens, not just L's, there apparently there needs to be another step to provide greater quality assurance. Canon has been reporting record profits each successive quarter, so there is no excuse for this slippage or need for them to pass this cost onto the consumer if it is in fact a necessary step that comes with increased production.
And you are right, for L lenses their is absolutely no excuse for sloppy workmanship given their professional designation and premium cost. I consider myself very lucky indeed that I have only had to return a couple lenses, and have only had to send one back to Canon for califbration thus far. I wish you the very best of luck!
I am happy for you that you never had a single problem with any Canon lens. I have not been so lucky (and I do not mean my recent experiences). Buying a zoom for me became so stressful (the need to test at "all" the focal lengths , different apertures and focusing distances) that I vowed not to do it again.
JohnJ80 wrote:
it's all part of the fun of photography.
Stressful? Stress is waiting to hear if your biopsy is malignant, or when you hear you get laid off. This? This is the fun. All a matter of perspective.
J
I must be missing something here; and what is with the "No Whining" sign?
Seems rather childish.
I am not a pro but know several in the business that make a living doing this, and returning items is a cost issue for them. You should feel very fortunate if these are not your circumstances but you have no basis for criticising or chastising someone with a different experience than your own.
I went through cancer treatment all last year, including chemo, so your discussions concering health as relating to this are way off base. I feel both your posts here are very inapporopriate, and actually the latter is offensive to me. I would have no problem with you removing them. Perhaps you are odd lot who enjoys going to the dentist, but I try and take very good care of my teeth in part to avoid this type of experience.
I believe the topic concerning Canon's quality control and the inequity of having to pay for return shipping are both valid points here. It is an open forum and on-topic, so what is the problem? Your posting is nothing more than critical.
JohnJ80 wrote:
Well, for what it's worth, I went through cancer treatment and surgery 2 years ago and I think it applies - that was very stressful. This is not. I also get paid for my photography (not as much as I would like but that is another whole issue).
Whining about having to pay shipping ways is a bit ridiculous especially when you consider the fact that it isn't going to change because of any whining we do. We photographers can be a little bit obsessive at times - and that includes me too.
I'm sorry to hear about your health issues, I have alot of empathy for that, and I hope all came out well for you and continues to do so.
J
...Show more →
I find your apples to apples comparison as equally inappropriate and rather a bore. You could have done something about your offensive and inapproriate posting, but it did not seem to come to light for you. Your empathy, and similar experience as such, are therefore shallow at best. As both my parents used to often say, the showing is in the doing.
If you believe that groups of people exercising their will are ineffective you must have never gone to an anti-war rally or a freedom march. I grew up in an era where this was done, with a rather pronounced and obvious effect. The same could be done with the rather outrageous consumer cost of defective product returns if there was a common will. It is all what you focus on - a matter of perspective.
Well, i removed if it is that big of a deal for you and I certainly didn't intend to offend. Considering that I have walked that talk on all scores apparently means nothing.
What I find offensive is thought policing and when people portend to know what I think and what I don't. I guess if you find my posting so offensive, you are now going to have to remove mine since they are embedded in yours.
I am a professional, and it is my time that it take to make sure I have a good and usable tool for my craft and my job. I'm lucky enough to be able to walk into Samy's and try out as many lenses as I want - within reason, I suppose. We all kind of laughed about it this morning when I was there, thinking back to the days when you just bought and lens and never worried about whether you got a good one or not. It sure seemed like there was not the degree of variation that exists at least in Canon today. I never got a bad Schneider or any sort, or a bad Mamiya RZ or even a Nikon, but it seems like a real crapshoot with Canon, and they totally dominate the DSLR pro market. Call it whining if you must, but for me, it's a real pain in the ass.
JohnJ80 wrote:
Well, i removed if it is that big of a deal for you and I certainly didn't intend to offend. Considering that I have walked that talk on all scores apparently means nothing.
What I find offensive is thought policing and when people portend to know what I think and what I don't. I guess if you find my posting so offensive, you are now going to have to remove mine since they are embedded in yours.
Please relax a bit, this is tiresome.
J
Apparently you feel a childish "No Whining" sign is an appropriate and intelligent response in an adult forum. I believe few would feel the same. And, if you find posting so tedious how in the world could you go about returning a defective lens?
For the record I buy photography equipment for the experience of taking pictures, not for the experience of returning defective camera equipment. Life has enough drudgery to it without having to pay for any additional, thank you.
Peter Figen wrote:
I am a professional, and it is my time that it take to make sure I have a good and usable tool for my craft and my job. I'm lucky enough to be able to walk into Samy's and try out as many lenses as I want - within reason, I suppose. We all kind of laughed about it this morning when I was there, thinking back to the days when you just bought and lens and never worried about whether you got a good one or not. It sure seemed like there was not the degree of variation that exists at least in Canon today. I never got a bad Schneider or any sort, or a bad Mamiya RZ or even a Nikon, but it seems like a real crapshoot with Canon, and they totally dominate the DSLR pro market. Call it whining if you must, but for me, it's a real pain in the ass....Show more →
I had a Hassalblad system for years from the mid to late sixties through the middle seventies, and then next went the Leica route. I too have had Schneider lenses, Leica M and R, and Hasselblad lenses (not many - lol), and finally landed in Nikon land before switching to Canon Digital. I never experienced the variation of quality in any of the former products that I have of late with Canon.
As an aside: A friend of mine got the new 50 L and it is quite soft still and has focus issues though it has been sent in twice for calibration since he got it. This is in my estimate quite sad for a lens of this supposed high caliber. Now it looks like in their efforts to get something to market too quickly they have created something that does not even match the non-L 50/1.4. In side by side comparisons with both our non-L 50's they both beat his 50L hands down at all comparable aperatures. It appears now there is Canon rumor that there is some internal defect that will require a retrofit for the 50 L. The adage "haste makes waste" is apparently still quite true.
I don't doubt that there is copy variation with Canon's lenses. I wonder though if digital hasn't brought that fact to our attention much more than when we shot film. I mean, do you know for sure that the Schneider, Leica, Nikon, and Hasselblad lenses didn't have copy variation as well. Did any of you shoot newsprint at all aperatures with multiple lenses to see if there was any difference. Now with digital, it is so much easier to tape some newspaper or whatever to a wall, put the camera on a tripod, and shoot away. Then we can load the images into PS, enlarge them to 100%, 200% or whatever and easily see differences. I just don't think consumers used to scrutinize their lenses in the same way in the past. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you guys did test multiple copies of lenes back in the day and closely examine the results. Without doing that though, I don't know that we can say Canon is any worse today than anyone was 20 years ago. I'd be suprised if they are worse with modern manufacturing and QA/QC methods. Maybe they are, but I just doubt it.
DynaSport wrote:
I don't doubt that there is copy variation with Canon's lenses. I wonder though if digital hasn't brought that fact to our attention much more than when we shot film. I mean, do you know for sure that the Schneider, Leica, Nikon, and Hasselblad lenses didn't have copy variation as well. Did any of you shoot newsprint at all aperatures with multiple lenses to see if there was any difference. Now with digital, it is so much easier to tape some newspaper or whatever to a wall, put the camera on a tripod, and shoot away. Then we can load the images into PS, enlarge them to 100%, 200% or whatever and easily see differences. I just don't think consumers used to scrutinize their lenses in the same way in the past. But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe you guys did test multiple copies of lenes back in the day and closely examine the results. Without doing that though, I don't know that we can say Canon is any worse today than anyone was 20 years ago. I'd be suprised if they are worse with modern manufacturing and QA/QC methods. Maybe they are, but I just doubt it.
Just to let you know that I have never pasted newsprint on a wall initially and shot, or for that matter done any extensive testing without first shooting in real life. And, from the variation I observed from the photos at the beginning of this thread it would not have taken any newsprint to figure out that I had gotten a bad copy. He likely did so as a result of an intial inclination from real life testing, no doubt. I don't further test unless there are obvious real life issues, and then I do something as simple as shooting the box. This will tell me all I need to know.
I never got a bad Hasselblad, Leica, Schneider, or Nikon lens, never. And I bought a lot. On a few occasions I have taken photos of the box just to confirm a good copy, but these were few and far between. I think that the digital boom has really created a production boom (look at the production profits of these major players) that necessitates further quality control. Until that kicks in at a minimum free return shipping costs should be provided by the retailer, and then we can see what happens down the line. This should actually become status quo regardless, as I did not pay for and then ask to receive defective equipment. It really seems a no-brainer if enough people asked and demanded; I already to try to shop where they already do this and intend to ask if the need arises.
tinke wrote:
Apparently you feel a childish "No Whining" sign is an appropriate and intelligent response in an adult forum. I believe few would feel the same. And, if you find posting so tedious how in the world could you go about returning a defective lens?
For the record I buy photography equipment for the experience of taking pictures, not for the experience of returning defective camera equipment. Life has enough drudgery to it without having to pay for any additional, thank you.
Give the trolling a rest. Low post count, can't let the issue go, creating controversy where none exists etc...
JohnJ80 wrote:
Give the trolling a rest. Low post count, can't let the issue go, creating controversy where none exists etc...
J
I just saw your reply. I do not know what exactly you mean or are implying, but I do not appreciate your negativity to my participation in what is acknowledged to be an open forum.
I don't know who you believe you are, but you have come onto this thread with nothing but criticism and judgment as if you are some sort of dark-side designated moderator.
Please get a life and quit harassing people for no reason, especially people you don't know and know little about. And kindly do not respond to anything further that I post on any thread, I will certainly do likewise. Thank you.
My last word on this which has gone completely off topic. While I agree that QC could and should be better at most companies, I don't think having Canon or any other company reimburse shipping charges is the correct answer. Canon is not the one charging the shipping charges, the retailer is. Canon has no control over how much they charge. In fact, if you walked into a brick and mortar store and bought the lens there wouldn't be any shipping and handling charges. You would likely pay more for the lens and you would certainly pay tax on it, which you may be avoiding by buying online/mailorder. Instead of asking Canon to pay for charges they don't control, a more realistic tactic would to buy a competitors product. If enough people did that Canon would certainly get the message. I hear the response now, "but others don't have any better QC." Probably right. In fact, Canon's may be better than their competitors. Well, at least you can complain on the internet and I hope you have a lens you are happy with now.
