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

[lcnewkirk]

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.

[Mark Elberson]

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!!

[Colin500]

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

[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.


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.

[peety3]

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?

[Tabazan]

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 ...

[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.

[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

[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 ?