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

[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 ?

[Fast Glass]

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.

[Daniel Browning]

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.

[DavidEccleston]

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.

[mattsartin]

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

[Tabazan]

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.

[Tabazan]

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.

[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 ...