EF-S 18-135 mm f/3,5-5,6 IS ... is .... (I'm disgusted)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tabazan

As I said before, I send back the lens (to the seller. Canon just told me "go buy a L if you want quality " (even Mc Do wouldn't say that to an unsatified customer) ... so it is NOT an answer. They didn't propose to look at a crop or something. I wait for the return and decide (waht ?) at this moment. But I've seen the charts since and they just confirmed what I've already seen on my pics.

---

If they sent it back to you unchanged and they insist it is within spec, then three possibilities remain: (1) there is flaw with the body as it relates to focus adjustment; (2) your expectations of the performance of a $400 18-135mm zoom are unreasonable; and/or (3) there is a flaw in shooting technique. This is why Canon is suggesting you purchase L glass. A test image is a diagnostic tool in the event that one does NOT possess the lens in question. Once Canon has the lens, they don't want or need to see your test image(s) because their calibration tools are an objective standard and not subject to misinterpretation due to other sources of error (e.g., user error or miscalibrated body). They looked at your lens and saw that it was within spec, arrived at conclusion (2), then provided the appropriate recommendation.


But in my opinion, one should eliminate possibilities (1) and (3) as well. It is possible that the problem is with the body. Newer bodies like the 50D, 5D Mark II, and 7D allow for microfocus adjustment.

Quote:

---

Therefore, Canon's problem to release something that must meet their name expectations, concerns me as a customer that has already invested quite a lot in the brand (and in a way, is commercially captive) , and them as a trusworthy brand. Maybe they don't care, but I do.

---

I really don't understand why you feel like your experience with a single $400 consumer-level kit lens should be representative of the entire way Canon treats its customers or that their reputation should hang on this situation. You assume they do not care. But so far their actions seem reasonable to me. If you are truly that dissatisfied, perhaps you should switch systems. You are not locked in. Although to be honest, I haven't exactly heard of great service from Nikon, either. The moral is that there are bad experiences just about everywhere you look. I suppose you could try Leica? I don't know, their customers seem to have an extremely great affinity for their products. Or Sony, since Zeiss builds their glass.


Still, it's quite possible you spoke to someone who was not particularly friendly. I think that would be very unfortunate, but even so, does that mean that one representative speaks for *everyone* who works at Canon? Or even other representatives?

Quote:

---

The third point is not to take as a reproach or any critic vs Bryan. I'm a fan of this site, and base (almost) all my decisions on him. I've seen the charts too late and took a decision too soon. My comment was just that I imagined that it would be confusing to have to review such a lens.

---

I am not saying you are criticizing Bryan. I am saying you should not presume to speak of others as if you know their intimate thoughts. You basically attributed motivations to him that are not supported by evidence. You very clearly implied that he has delayed publishing his review of the EF-S 18-135/3.5-5.6 IS because of what you believe is poor performance. If I were a reviewer, I would not want someone saying that about my intentions or my ability to review. It is no more or less difficult or confusing to review a soft lens than a sharp one.


If I may, I would again like to redirect the discussion toward what you can do about your situation so that you can be happy, because that's really what matters, right? First, given that the lens was sent in and returned in spec, I would try to make sure that the camera body is not at fault by trying the lens on a separate body. If you do that and the performance is still bad, then consider that this lens design simply isn't for you. Try (politely) to get Canon to accept the lens for a full refund, or sell it at a small loss and apply the monies to a lens that does perform to your expectations. Consulting with a local dealer and trying before you buy is a good way to make sure you know what you will be getting--rentals are also a good way to do this. It has occurred to me that in this day and age of discount online shopping, the brick-and-mortar camera shops are still in business precisely for this reason. Personally, I'm happy to shop online (I've been ignored when I walk into a local shop, maybe because I don't look wealthy, despite being well off). Finally, if you are still feeling mistreated by Canon as a whole, then by all means switch brands, but sadly, I can't guarantee you'll be any better off for it.


Good luck! May the lens goddess smile upon you and your photos!

Yes, I'm sorry about that part on Bryan work (which was NOT against Bryan or its work).


Thanks for your toughts, I agree mostly.


Note : I tried the microfocus adjustment, but nothing does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

.


I imagine the lens will put many people off Canon. They'll take a few shots with their kit lens and return it, disgusted, like you were... Except they'll more often than not be returning their 7D and 50D along with the lens. I don't see these lenses as a wise long term strategy.

---

Firstly - Hi! New here - been shooting Canon for years (from S40 to G6 to 20D to 30D to G9 and now 7D) and am more of a forum "lurker" than contributor. This lens however has forced me to register here and post.


I am one of those people that David refers to in his post. Bought the 7D and 18-135 kit last week as an upgrade to my aging 30D. Shot maybe 300 frames over the weekend with it as well as maybe 200 with other lenses. Also some comparison shots with the old 30D. Results with the 18-135 were, without exception, poor regardless of which body it was on. Results with other lenses (and I don't have a cupboard full of L lenses) were great on the 7D.


Tried the micro-adjustment tests - not exactly lab conditions but I was thorough and what the results told me was that the lens was best at 0 - exactly what I'd been shooting so no need to adjust.


Went back to the shop today and handed the whole lot back and paid a few £££ to upgrade to the 15-85 IS USM kit - looking forward to trying that out this weekend.


It amazes me that Canon have shipped this new amazing body with such a low quality lens. Is this just to keep the cost down? Presumably so. Maybe they assume that purchasers at this level are going to have better glass to put on anyway - same way a £5000 road cycle comes with no pedals - they assume that someone at that level is going to have specific preferences/requirements. However a large number won't and just want to get out and take high quality photos without spending another fortune on lenses. If that was the call, they'd be better just shipping body only? Or bring out a decent EF S L lens kit and charge accordingly.


I just hope the 15-85 produces the goods, otherwise, for the first time ever, I may be heading to the Nikon display!

Hello to all,


I received the18-135 back from wholesaler (don't think it event went to Canon, which wasn't even interested in having more informations ). It's a a new one. It is still as bad as the 18-55 IS (and even worse at some F/).


I sell it.


I think that Canon got all wrong on this take. I know they need to drag "amateurs" to the highly profitable market of the semi-pro market and later on the pro market ... maybe.


Becoming a member of the CPS requires only to have the right gear, not being a professional. It's a financial criteria, not a qualitative one.


Just to say that, when I began photography (and I'm young at it) I didn't know (care ?) about F/, bokeh and so on. Now I progressed. And as I enter the $ 1000 gear category , I'm better at choosing what I want, and what is worth (for me) - but not in that case _.


Selling the 18-135 (with or w/o the 7D) is a rip-off. Or sell it at 50$, for people who need a 50$ quality lens. No to me, thanks.


The stupid thing about this commercial strategy, is that I was seriously thinking of buying soon a 5D mark II (to add to my 50D) to make my first steps in the FF world... which implies L lenses ... for sure.


I'll buy it anyway (I'm a dumb faithfull customer, for the moment)


But knowing that Canon finally don't really mind much to release something that don't do the job, which will be bought by people who begin to care and have better knowledge (thanks to DP [:D] ), is p****** me off.


At this price (the 5d mk II + L lenses) ... isn't it worth to jump directly to Nikon ?? I would be pleased to hear some shock arguments from Canon to know how they keep a future "pro" customer...


I read a lot of things about calibration problems, software updates (even on the brand-new-and-tested 7D ... at this price !), and I really fear about buying, say, a 70-200 F4 IS at 1200 $ if there's 50% chances that I need to send it back, for 4-5 weeks, for calibration. I need to work with that, not waiting while reading user manuals.


Ok, other companies have the same flaws I suppose. I't not a valid reason. Market is hard. Gaining one more customer is hard. It's the same for everyone of us, and that's why we try to work better and better. Why not Canon ?


Practice makes prefect, they say. Well, no good news for Canon.

After reading this post and hearing all of the Nikon talk, I thought I'd share my Canon v Nikon customer service experiences. In 2003, I dropped my Canon (film) elph point and shoot in a creek. The warranty had expired. Canon repaired it free of charge. Sometime around 2006, my Canon (digital) elph stopped working. It's warranty had also expired, and Canon again repaired it free of charge. They also replaced the lcd screen that had a few burnt out pixels. All I ever paid was shipping. Not long after the 2006 incident, a friend had a Nikon digital point and shoot stop working. Nikon's response to him? $300 please.


I really don't know much else about Nikon, but I did quickly scan my localcamera shop's website, and the prices of Nikon lenses and flashesseem to be pretty much the same as Canon's, and in some places, much more expensive. Nikon's 17-55/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 are prime examples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lcnewkirk

Nikon's 17-55/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 are prime examples.

---

Those are "zoom" examples! Sorry, I know that was horrible but I couldn't resist :-) From now on I'll leave the bad jokes to my father-in-law!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lcnewkirk

After reading this post and hearing all of the Nikon talk, I thought I'd share my Canon v Nikon customer service experiences. [...]

---

Well, then you were lucky. When I went too near a waterfall with my still-in-warranty G1, I had to pay nearly half it's price for the repair (it started to act erratically on occasion).


(And the G1 was really expensive, I would guesstimate about 2000,- EUR corrected for inflation, that's more than my 500D with three lenses...)


It's hard to jump to general conclusions based on anecdotal evidence, even if the evidence is true. Actually no, it's much too easy to jump to general conclusions, but what are these conclusions worth?


Probably fits with our (human) decision making process; once we have used products from a certain company we tend to stick with them, because if the products don't completely s*ck, given time, we create a completely irrational emotional attachment.


And then we are disillusioned when reality bites. (Mumble mumble a corporations first loyalty is not to customers mumble mumble must have some implications for the quality mumble mumble but then many customers can't, or don't want to, spend good money for good quality mumble mumble.)


The G1 reminds me of my old Canon CD300 photo printer. Didn't work in summer -- in Germany (!) -- because it overheated before finishing a single print. Perhaps I should have considered Nikonbefore getting the 500D ;-)


Enough babbling, back to taking and making pictures!


Colin

I am going through some old posts and WOW was taken back by the venom towards the 18-135. I'm not claiming the pics below are the world's greatest pics or anything, but they are nice memories from a fun vacation. If I'm using the 18-135 typically I'm stopping it down to maximize the pics and it isn't like the rocks in the corners are completely blurry. Are people expecting every lens, even those with 7.5X zoom, to provide a "L" pro grade result?





http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/j...08_30_2764.jpg


http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/j...9_2667_upd.jpg


http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/j...9_2656_upd.jpg


http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/j...08_29_2597.jpg


http://i269.photobucket.com/albums/j...08_29_2600.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin

....but they are nice memories from a fun vacation.

---

Duluth!! Nice shots!!

Nicely done! Are you local to Minnesota?