Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon Lenses Poor - Hasselblad lens adapter?  (Read 7997 times)
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #20 on: March 10, 2007, 09:56:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No, Canon's quality control is very uniform. For people coming from the spoiled land of LF or MF, all zooms are equally poor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105962\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This is incorrect. Canon's quality control is uniform within given ranges of acceptability (to them), but the results from one area of the range to the next are not uniform, and a proportion of their L zooms are excellent.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 430


WWW
« Reply #21 on: March 11, 2007, 07:38:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
DITTO
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105487\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Wait a minute!

If I have a product that I'm selling to customers and I put my "L" label on it, and I tell the world that "L" is the designation for the best I do, should the customer then have to pick and choose to find out which one of my "L" class products is worth a flip?  Even to the point of having to take 10 of the same lens out and find out which one is acceptable.

That's Canon's job, not mine.

That approach is to my mind a totally unacceptable business ethic.  

Loyality is admirable, but only when it is earned.  Canon has not earned mine.  I purchased the 1DSMKII, a 16-35L and a 70-200L.  A substantial investment for me and most others.  I went on the premise that the "L class lens was what they claim it to be - Professional.

Frankly, I feel that I was lied to.

Jack
« Last Edit: March 11, 2007, 08:28:55 AM by Lust4Life » Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 11, 2007, 09:56:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Jack, "loyalty" for me is a non-issue. Things either work the way I expect them to or they don't, and if they don't the company should fix it or I move on. You won't find me blindly supporting one brand name over another unless there is technical substance behind it.

As for business ethic, how do you define what is ethical from what is not? They set ranges of performance standards for their lenses and they have policies for dealing with what falls outside the range. My experience with Canon is that if you bring a lens to them you are not totally satisfied with - and I'm talking L lenses, not "walk-around" lenses - they will test it to see whether it falls within their range of acceptability. If it falls within the range, the dialogue with them is over-with. From their perspective nothing is unethical about this - they are simply following their own rules and telling you so. Take it or leave it.

Now, there are two problems with all this. (1) The customer doesn't matter. It is all driven by their own rules and policies. Some may call it corporate arrogance and disregard, others may call it rational corporate behaviour. Each to his/her own. (2) The "width" of their acceptable range for critical quality parameters may be broader than to the liking of you or me. I'm sure they know that. What they also know is that if they narrow the range the reject rate would be higher and the prices much higher. I have no doubt they can manufacture lenses consistently to meet the narrowest standards the industry has ever defined, but you can probably count on your fingers and toes the number of people prepared to pay the price. Think of it roughly this way - if the reject rate is one in ten, the other nine are priced to recover the costs of the one, so from a zero reject rate the price goes up about 11%. If the reject rate is one in three, the other two are priced to recover the one, so the price goes up 50%.

OK, beyond all that reasoning, I personally think Canon needs to pay more attention to their high end customers who are not CPS members and behave more flexibly, but they demonstrate over and over again that they don't. Fine, we know the situation and we play accordingly. For me it is straightforward: (1) Don't buy anything that has known issues which may trouble you, and (2) for everything else buy where the retailer will absorb the risk of returns and exchanges.

All that said, I'll still buy Canon cameras and lenses because on balance, what they offer still meets my needs best. Every one needs to come to their own determinations based on a balanced evaluation of what are their needs and expectations relative to what the various brands deliver - and I'd hazard a guess you won't find any within these price parameters that are systematically guaranteed to meet your every expectation - I don't have any studies to support that hypothesis, but it wouldn't stand to reason otherwise.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Akiss
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 119



« Reply #23 on: March 12, 2007, 05:20:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Many have found Canons wide-angle lenses lacking. There is a lot of valuable information available about using Zeiss/Leica/Oly/etc and MF lenses on Canon:

http://16-9.net/lens_tests/compatible.html

and on this forum:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/board/55
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=105022\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
thanx for the tip. I will check them out.
Logged

Lust4Life
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 430


WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 17, 2007, 04:11:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Folks, here is an update:
Purchased the Canon 1DS Mk II, a 16-35L and 70-200L lens middle of November, 2006 from Calumet.  Bought the 24TSE from B&H middle of Feb. 2007.  

Been dealing with health issues and only 3 weekends ago was I able to get out to run some test on the 16-35 and the 24 TSE Lenses.

B&H was excellent and allowed return of the 24TSE - I sent them a CD with the RAW files on it indicating the poor quality of the lens.  No problem with them, they were great, professional.

Called Canon this past Thursday, General Office, and defined the problem for them on the 16-35 L.  They said that I'd have to work with the dealer.  I expressed that it was not the dealer that produced the problem, but Canon, and I felt they should be the ones to resolve the issue with an exchange.  They again said NO.

Call Calumet and defined the problems.  They promptly offered to exchange the lens for the new 16-35L II when it is available!  Just asked that I return defective lens and all packaging and they would deal with Canon.  Said they've had a lot of issues with Canon and just because I bought an L class lens does not mean Canon lived up to what a buyer would expect.

In short, I found both dealers excellent to work with, but totally disgusted with Canon and their attitude.  They didn't even offer an apology for the inconvenience they have caused me!

Never again will I purchase from Canon.

Jack
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7126


WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 17, 2007, 04:34:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Folks, here is an update:
Purchased the Canon 1DS Mk II, a 16-35L and 70-200L lens middle of November, 2006 from Calumet.  Bought the 24TSE from B&H middle of Feb. 2007. 

Been dealing with health issues and only 3 weekends ago was I able to get out to run some test on the 16-35 and the 24 TSE Lenses.

B&H was excellent and allowed return of the 24TSE - I sent them a CD with the RAW files on it indicating the poor quality of the lens.  No problem with them, they were great, professional.

Called Canon this past Thursday, General Office, and defined the problem for them on the 16-35 L.  They said that I'd have to work with the dealer.  I expressed that it was not the dealer that produced the problem, but Canon, and I felt they should be the ones to resolve the issue with an exchange.  They again said NO.

Call Calumet and defined the problems.  They promptly offered to exchange the lens for the new 16-35L II when it is available!  Just asked that I return defective lens and all packaging and they would deal with Canon.  Said they've had a lot of issues with Canon and just because I bought an L class lens does not mean Canon lived up to what a buyer would expect.

In short, I found both dealers excellent to work with, but totally disgusted with Canon and their attitude.  They didn't even offer an apology for the inconvenience they have caused me!

Never again will I purchase from Canon.

Jack
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=107207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jack, this fits within the parameters of what I described and suggested in my previous post.

As well, normally retailers can't be expected to accept return merchandise for full refund or replacement once you've had it longer than 30 days, but given your exceptional circumstances and the fact all you did was test it since you bought it, sounds to me as if Calumet could have been more forthcoming. As difficult as Canon may be, Calumet would have more clout dealing with them than would you. Obviously they don't want the hassle.

It really is essential to buy lenses from retailers who give you easy return and exchange privileges because fighting with Canon and their standards is a waste of time. I've been there, done that, with a 17~40 L which is "OK" but not the best an L can be. The chap at Canon was very friendly and forthright with me about how their policy works, but they didn't yield an inch, and at the time it wasn't logically possible for me to deal with returns and exchanges through retail. So henceforth, forewarned if fore-armed.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad