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

Hello to all,


Just received today the 18-135 for my 50D. And it's a very sad day.


Blurry at any f. (even less sharp than the 18-55 IS !, what's more ... on a tripod), AF often skates ...


Asked Canon who told me "Yeah ? If you want good lenses, take a "L"" ... or buy a Nikon I tought to myself ...


I don't accuse (has my item specific problems ?), but it's really worrying (for me and my budget) and for future owners of 7D + kit.


I returned the lens the same day for exchange... and saw today DP pre-test.


Has Canon the same quality control as Sigma now ?


Or are they really cheating us with that kind of stuff ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tabazan

Hello to all,


Just received today the 18-135 for my 50D. And it's a very sad day.


Blurry at any f. (even less sharp than the 18-55 IS !, what's more ... on a tripod), AF often skates ...


Asked Canon who told me "Yeah ? If you want good lenses, take a "L"" ... or buy a Nikon I tought to myself ...


I don't accuse (has my item specific problems ?), but it's really worrying (for me and my budget) and for future owners of 7D + kit.


I returned the lens the same day for exchange... and saw today DP pre-test.


Has Canon the same quality control as Sigma now ?


Or are they really cheating us with that kind of stuff ?






<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Are you saying that your lens was a bad copy or a bad lens? All lens manufacturershave bad copies of there lenses, even Canon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tabazan

Blurry at any f. (even less sharp than the 18-55 IS !

---

I am not surprised that it is less sharp than the 18-55 IS, because that kit lens is just about fantastic. The 18-200 and 17-85 don't do much better than the 18-55 either.

When the lenses were announced, I figured Canon was attempting to improve their kit lens EF-S lineup. When I saw Bryan's ISO charts go up last week I realized that, no, they're not improving anything.


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.

i don't think this lens, or even the 15-85mm (which i've heard nothing about) were made with professionals in mind. these were made for Joe Consumer who doesn't know much about SLRs and are satisfied with lower quality glass. There's a reason you have to pay ~$1000 for a 17-55mm f/2.8 I can't imagine that Nikkor 18-55s or similar length lenses have much better IQ

Hello,


I fully agree with you, but as SLR are clearly upgraded in price, and is still NOT a professional range (according to Canon) , even though SLR have more and more pro features, I believe Canon don't have in mind the financial aspect of photography business and the actual financial situation for everyone. Photography is not a cash cow anymore. Exceptions apart, when I see professionals photographers around me, they don't have unlimited budgets and getting work is more and more difficult, and "average clients" tend to reduce photography costs, and sometimes do the work themselves.


I think today, a renown company can't release someting "average", except if it's a really low budget item. But don't forget that the 18-135 will be in kit with the "technology
stuffed, blah, blah" and quite pricey 7D (the pride of Canon). Absurd. Will they put "warning : poor lens for poor dudes included on our magnificient 7D" ?


Canon clearly wants the SLR market, which is much more interesting than the pro market (how much pro lenses are released ?), but if they cheat, it won't last long.


Think of the work Sigma will have to do to get rid of it's "bad control quality" sticker which made it lose a big part of the market...


That said, This lens is still at around 400$ which is already expensive ... (yeah, it's 400$, not 25$ and in "the Daddy and Mommy who know if a pic is sharp or not and read internet forums to compare", reputation is quickly lost ) for something that really don't do the job (and even less than a 100$ cheapo lens) an for the "average Joe". The 18-55 is cheapo, and nobody expects miracles.


Releasing non reliable product is a very dangereous game for Canon because of the competition, and also because photography is not the main budget for "average Joe". I didn't bought Sigma lenses mainly because of that "quality control" problem, but if Canon enters that league, for the price, I know which one I'll chose.


Anyway, maybe it's a bug in the start of production. Maybe not. And according to me, it's a serious commercial error.


Back to the lens ... it's not average, but really poor. And I don't like to say that.

David,


Completely right.


If I buy a 400$ lens, I want something for my 400$. Not the bottom of a water bottle with stabilizer.


I own a 8mm fisheye "exotic" (russian) Peleng. It's a tank (all metal). It's price is more than cheap (one buy it only for fun, usually, not for serious photography) but it does extremly sharp images on a "stupid customer" 1000D. And my Canon (oooohh) new (aaah) 18-135 is sharper as my aunt glasses.


"I imagine the lens will put many people off Canon" : Bingo !


What's more is Canon reply to my mail, that (almost) said "back to the doghouse, amateur, you wanted s***, you got it. Buy L at 1200$ if your want your picts to be sharp". Incredible. Any sales rep would collapse when hearing this.


I think I know why Brian hasn't made the review yet. And he's right.

Its all really just too bad. Not everyone that gets into photography can justify the 1200 dollars or moreit takes to get top of the line L zoom lenses. At the same time, if this new 18-135 can't even come to par with the 18-55 IS, it just kind of downplays canons ability to make quality products for PROSUMERS as well.


As I have seen it, you don't have to go far to find people touting 3rd party lens manufacturers' abilty to make items that do the job with 50-70% of the efficiency of a top of the line canon product for nearly a third of the price.


It's clear to me that it is possible to make quality items at a lower price, all I am saying is that I don't believe it is a smart move to put lower quality items at a higher price point than other manufacturers that can get it right for cheaper.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Johnston

Its all really just too bad. Not everyone that gets into photography can justify the 1200 dollars or moreit takes to get top of the line L zoom lenses. At the same time, if this new 18-135 can't even come to par with the 18-55 IS, it just kind of downplays canons ability to make quality products for PROSUMERS as well.

---

Not everyone that gets into photography needs to have such a wide-range kit lens either. There's an 18-55 with IS, a 28-135 with IS, both of which appear to be great values, and then there's a new lens. Hint: the new lens isn't made for prosumers. K?

Yeah, you're right.


I would add ... not every pro photographer needs the total pack of L. What I mean is, all depends on client needs. As client pay for something and his expectations are often a bit under what pro photographer delivers. Good pics are good pics, whatever the lense ... until the lense is able to have a minimum necessary sharpness, which is not the case here.


One often see pro pixel peepers fighting about a quarter mili pixel of softness. Right, no problem, and they're right. But in this case, we talk about an incompetent lens to take a simple (normally, or a bit better) sharp image of a simple flower in the garden. And an company incompetent to sell something above the quality level of south-Khazakstan lens maker company (if they have one).


In the case of the 18-135, it was just to replace the 18-55 as an everyday lens. Not to have high grade Top lense. But not to have pure s*** too. Instead, Canon advise to take the 17-55 or a "L". Uh. Thank you very much, Mr Canon.


I'm an independant pro (i.e. I make a living of this) product photographer, and I don't work at Canon and therefore I have no big salary to change lenses all 3 day. And even if it's not a work lens, the less is, for this price, that it does its job.


As someone said, here, Canon didn't even managed to do better than it's previous poor plastic lens.


What, in 2009 ? Wake up boys, it's the end.


I know I'm making a mess with a simple buy of a simple lens. But it's my money (from my work), and it's my trust in a company (which takes itself quite seriously in its domain) "renown" quality.


And I'm fed up with companies which don't event take their faithful customers seriously. Canon don't know the market anymore (crisis, what crisis ?) . Canon dreams of cash cows. Canon dreams of pro photographer that will buy anything at any price just to look pro.
But the majority of pro photographer can't afford even to change their camera every two years.


And the average consumers (which will pay 1500$ for a 7D and 400$ for that lens ?) ? Well, they'll do what they can. They have their problems too. And it might not be photography . But job, rent, etc.


Canon acts like an Afghan trade company, thinking that if one can cheat once can cheat twice, dummies will come back anyway.


But market rules and is no <span class="clickable" onclick="dr4sdgryt(event,"Ox")"]inexhaustible. Sigma and Tamron already understood that. Maybe.


Anyway ...

The problem with this new lens, is that it was crafted with the 7D in mind. The 7D has built in flash that covers upto 15mm. The same day as the camera, they announce two new EF-S zooms starting at 15mm. They're made for each other. They're being bundled together. You get the impression that Canon is taking EF-S seriously. The fact that they've made a really poor lens, crafted specifically for their top of the line prosumer single digit crop camera, is poor form. I'd think anyone who's looking at spending $2K on a new camera/lens combo is going to be expecting a certain quality level, and they won't be getting it. They didn't necessarily read all the reviews online, and know to beware. They didn't necessarily have a sales rep warn them, as they shopped online. If your Ferrari came with cheap tires, cheap brakes, and crap oil (ie: commonly replaceable parts... trying to come up with ananalogueto lenses ), you'd be pissed.

David, I agree.


How d'you understand that, in a so competitive market (let's say it, when you buy a brand, you keep on them, for budget sake), they didn't event take care of that ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tabazan

I would add ... not every pro photographer needs the total pack of L. What I means is, all depends on client needs. As client pay for something and his expectations are often a bit under waht pro photographer look after. Goog pics are good pics, whatever the lense ... until it's able to have a minimum necessary sharpness, which is not the case here.


In the case of the 18-135, it was just to replace the 18-55 as everyday lens.


I know I'm making a mess with a simple buy of a simple lens. But it's my money (from my work), it's my trust in a company (which takes itself quite seriously in its domain), and I'm fed up with companies which don't event take their faithful customers seriously.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

You're right that not every pro photographer needs L lenses. I have a friend who has the 5D Mark II (so $2800 or so in the body) and a 50/1.4 (so $400 in the lens). She has no flashes. She has no other lenses. She's decided that she cannot take any more jobs this month.


Please don't try to interpret Canon's intentions in releasing the 18-135 lens. It's a 7.5x zoom. Although it's not a 10x super-zoom, it's certainly higher than the consumer 5x and pro 3-4x zooms.


And perhaps you have too much trust in Canon. You apparently bought the camera and lens combo before any real reviews were out there, so perhaps you "took one for the team". Maybe you should lower your trust in Canon, or even consider the other brands out there. I'm sure they'd like your money, and you might find more trustworthy products "on the other side".


Sorry your lens stinks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DavidEccleston

If your Ferrari came with cheap tires, cheap brakes, and crap oil (ie: commonly replaceable parts... trying to come up with ananalogueto lenses ), you'd be pissed.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Don't ever buy a good or great road bicycle then. Bicycle manufacturers expect riders to replace the pedals, seat, and tires. Good and great bikes don't include pedals at all, yet the tires and seat still stink, even on a $9k bike.

At this time I don't know.


I sent it back and wait for the result


In 2009, the bad copy syndrom for Canon (yeah, THE brand - "we can" and so on) becomes a luxury I don't think they can afford on a short term.


But ... I dare believe in a so comptetitive market, that someone, somewhere at Canon, keep an eye on the production quality, and don't just drop things on the shelves. I hope (?!) that it will be a bad copy.


No need to be Einstein to understand that the average (rich) guy who buy a 7D + 18-135 and get with so low level of quality (even if the 7D is ... maybe ... good) will be a ... future good Nikon client.

@ peety3


Yeah ...


But usually we can ride or drive it the first time. Even though it breaks one month later.


Here, it failed directly at first drive.


LoL (no LoL at all in fact)

Yes, it's clear I bought it too fast. I waited for the DP review but ... nothing.


And maybe I'm mainly angry against me for that move and my trust in Canon.


The funny thing is that, (if and) when this lens a a bad reputation, no way to resell it at a decent price.


Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tabazan

I don't accuse (has my item specific problems ?)
Or are they really cheating us with that kind of stuff ?


If I buy a 400$ lens, I want something for my 400$. Not the bottom of a water bottle with stabilizer.


What's more is Canon reply to my mail, that (almost) said "back to the doghouse, amateur, you wanted s***, you got it. Buy L at 1200$ if your want your picts to be sharp". Incredible. Any sales rep would collapse when hearing this.


I think I know why Brian hasn't made the review yet. And he's right.


Canon didn't even managed to do better than it's previous poor plastic lens.


Yes, it's clear I bought it too fast. I waited for the DP review but ... nothing.


And maybe I'm mainly angry against me for that move and my trust in Canon.


The funny thing is that, (if and) when this lens a a bad reputation, no way to resell it at a decent price.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

With all due respect, I understand that you are dissatisfied with the copy of the lens you received and you are expressing that in your posts. However, I also think you are reading far too much into the situation, implying things about specifically named people that are not necessarily true, and you have not taken the appropriate measures to resolve the matter rationally.


First, it is entirely likely that you received a bad copy, if in fact you cannot obtain a sharp image at any f-number. Production errors do occur and it is impossible and unreasonable to expect perfection. If you watch the video of Canon's lens production process*, you would quickly develop an appreciation for the precision, effort, and cost of camera lens manufacturing. Your first step upon receiving a possibly flawed copy is to send it to Canon to have it checked. If you call up a customer representative to complain, they can't see what you see. They have absolutely no idea what you consider to be "sharp" or "acceptable performance." If they respond by suggesting you purchase L glass, that is not because they think poorly of you, or that you are one of the unwashed masses. It is because they don't know what you saw when you tested the lens and are going off of what you are telling them, and moreover, they don't know what your expectations are. Of course then, the recommendation to buy L glass will come up, as then it is the best possible optics Canon can offer you.


Second, if you did receive a bad copy, it is premature to think that it reflects poorly upon the entire quality control process. If the process has a defect rate of 1 in 10,000 (i.e., 99.99% success rate), there would still be those few unlucky consumers. I'm not saying the defect rate on the EF-S 18-135/3.5-5.6 IS is actually that low, but the principle is the same. For every consumer who gets a bad copy there are many, many times more that do not.


Third, I am uncomfortable with your suggestion that Bryan has not published a review of this lens because it is of poor quality. For what it's worth, the test chart results are available, and furthermore, the EF 100/2.8L macro IS, which was also announced and released on the same dates, is also yet to be reviewed.


Finally, I sincerely hope you get this matter resolved amicably and to your satisfaction by working with Canon so that they will supply you with a good copy. If what they certify as good is not up to your standards, then perhaps you will need to use a different lens or system. In the meantime, it does very little good to express your frustration to those of us who cannot see the results of your tests and have no way to directly help you with your situation. Best of luck.


*Here is the video, in 3 parts:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkWsk9rXpcU


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T7BDeMU_Ks


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpkAWZTwqI4

I totally agree w/ Wickerpants. If you received a bad copy of the lens, give Canon the chance to remedy it. No company can make every single copy of every single product right every time - it just ain't feasible.

@wickerprints


Thanks for your time to answer,


On point one and two, I agree (and I'm sorry) that all that has been written with a real frustration over the product I received. Excessive maybe, but I maintain my arguments regarding a competitive market, the need to respect customer expectations, general financial situation where any wrong buy is a problem and quality control in general. What's more, when one tries to make efforts to conquer the semi-pro slice of the market, each product must meet expectations.


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.


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.


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.

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 &pound;&pound;&pound; 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 &pound;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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave Throgmartin

Are you local to Minnesota?

---

Yep.