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
Originally Posted by Tabazan
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.
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.
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?
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote