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

[DavidEccleston]

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.

[Tabazan]

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 ?

[peety3]

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.

[peety3]

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.

[Tabazan]

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.

[Tabazan]

@ 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)

[Tabazan]

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

[wickerprints]

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

[lculpin]

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.

[Tabazan]

@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.