Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Rhossydd on March 06, 2017, 06:31:13 am
-
Anyone else notice that Canon (at least in the UK) have stopped supporting the 70-200 f2.8 IS zoom ?
They will no longer repair it or stock spares for it.
OK, it's been discontinued for a few years now, but it can still be brought brand new from Amazon. ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-70-200-2-8-USM-Lens/dp/B00005LESG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1488799691&sr=8-1&keywords=canon+70mm-200mm+IS )
Pretty poor IMHO
-
Seems outa whack, but I gave up on Canon many years ago over other issues.
In contrast, Nikon has worked with me on repairs to several lenses that have been out of production for decades. They appear to have a stable of approved second party repair shops, to whom they'll refer your repair with your permission. Recently had the aperture ring freeze on a first model 300 f/4 AF (pre-VR). Hadn't made them for at least 20 years as I can recall, but Nikon shipped it on to another repair shop, who did the repairs quickly and quite reasonably. You'd think Canon would provide the same kind of support for their long-time users.
-
Anyone else notice that Canon (at least in the UK) have stopped supporting the 70-200 f2.8 IS zoom ?
They will no longer repair it or stock spares for it.
OK, it's been discontinued for a few years now, but it can still be brought brand new from Amazon. ( https://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-70-200-2-8-USM-Lens/dp/B00005LESG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1488799691&sr=8-1&keywords=canon+70mm-200mm+IS )
Pretty poor IMHO
Not only the 70-200 f2.8 IS zoom - a whole list of products! Also the 400 f2.8 IS (first generation). They took it off the CPS service qualifying list. Canon is simply letting down their customers. Time to leave.
-
- a whole list of products!
Indeed. I can accept they'll need to drop support for some older items eventually, but a product still being sold new ?
-
Where exactly is this written, please?
-
It's detailed in a CPS mailshot, but I'd heard it earlier from a friend who'd been refused a repair by Canon the week before.
-
Members of CPS (Siler, Gold or Platinum) got a mail shot with the complete list.
-
This is the same 'canon story' of scant respect for it's customers. I dumped Canon (or more accurately, Canon dumped me!) in 1983 when my three F1 bodies and 9 FD lenses became instant junk according to Canon, just because they thought black plastic and AF were the only way to go. Never bought another Canon product,...apart from a camcorder (Hi800) which failed as soon as it was out of warranty.......
-
Not surprising, the lens is over 10 years old, was introduced in 2001. They are only obliged to support a product for 10 years. Happens all the time.
-
Not surprising, the lens is over 10 years old, was introduced in 2001. They are only obliged to support a product for 10 years. Happens all the time.
So we're only talking 10 years of support for Canon products once they're out of production? Another on the list of reasons to stay off their playground. I'm still using (and yes I can still get them repaired) half a dozen Nikon lenses I bought in 1977.
-
The lens is not really commonly available new, its just ancient stock that been sitting in a shop / warehouse for the last 10 years, would you really want to get one? Personally I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole unless it was a real bargain basement price. If so you could always buy one and use if for parts if it is so important to keep a copy running.
I thought it was just removed from the premium CPS service run by Canon, it will still surely be repairable by independant places. You could try H Lehmann in the UK, I used them once before, good service and authorised by Canon but you may find they carry a good stock of parts for older lenses.
As far as discontinuation of a premier service for a 10 years out of production lens goes I don't have a problem with that, afterall the whole point of CPS is to keep working pro's going with a quick service, they have to cater to those invested to more recent products so have to draw the line somewhere. Every time I have used them the quality of work and service time is impressive and not even that expensive with many lenses carrying a fixed price repair regardless of problems found. However if Canon as a company can't repair an older lens or at least look at it and advise what needs attention and work within the parts stock that must still be partially available it is a bit crappy, especially for L series lens.
It will be interesting to see how other still qualifying products last for CPS eligibility, I notice the old 5Dmk 2 is still there but the EOS 50D introduced at exactly the same time has been taken off on the list sent out yesterday, they must have sold a lot more 50D's than 5D2's and you would think availability of parts is related to final production numbers for a given model so how long will this old workhorse be supported?
Ben
-
Maybe I don't remember this correctly but wasn't the 400 2.8 IS their "current" model until about 2010?
-
Maybe I don't remember this correctly but wasn't the 400 2.8 IS their "current" model until about 2010?
Yes it is only after less than 7 years it is being put to rest. That is totally unacceptable, especially for a professional lens costing big bucks. Shame on you Canon.
-
Does anyone know if there is really an issue with insufficient stock of parts?
-
Does anyone know if there is really an issue with insufficient stock of parts?
They said this:
As a product reaches the end of its serviceable lifetime, Canon Europe can no longer guarantee that repairs will be possible due to the supply of spare parts.
-
So we're only talking 10 years of support for Canon products once they're out of production? Another on the list of reasons to stay off their playground. I'm still using (and yes I can still get them repaired) half a dozen Nikon lenses I bought in 1977.
Can you get them officially repaired by Nikon? Of course manual lenses are easier to repair, many of them around, plenty of spare parts for some brands.
The question is, does Nikon follow the same procedure from Canon, of not ensuring the existence of spare parts and/or support for lenses older than 10 years?
As I said, this is nothing new, I have used Canon for 20 years, I was always aware of this potential problem. Also, they are transparent about it.
-
Can you get them officially repaired by Nikon? Of course manual lenses are easier to repair, many of them around, plenty of spare parts for some brands.
The question is, does Nikon follow the same procedure from Canon, of not ensuring the existence of spare parts and/or support for lenses older than 10 years?
As I said, this is nothing new, I have used Canon for 20 years, I was always aware of this potential problem. Also, they are transparent about it.
But some of the lenses are only 7 years old...that is an issue.
-
Those are the risks you take in having an electronic diaphragm without an option for direct mechanical control.
That being said, for some lenses it might be possible to find an "S.K.Grimes" type repair facility. (SK Grimes is the "if it is no longer made, we can mill it" service facility for obsolete large format shutters and lenses, among other things).
-
End of Life for most equipment is 7 years after it was last produced. That does NOT mean you can't get an item serviced (meaning cleaned and checked, or CMS in Canon parlance). I have a 300/2.8L in with Canon CPS Repair right now. It's 27 years old! (I actually shocked myself when I double checked my database of equipment.) They will no longer repair it because of lack of parts, but can still clean and check it so it is operable -- as long as no parts are needed.
The 70-200/2.8L you may find on Amazon is an old stock item (even if it say new, which it may be), especially since that lens has not been produced in 7 or 8 years. Less reputable camera dealers will often try to unload these old items at close to the original sales price.
-
All this being said, I haven't yet had an issue with a Canon lens, including used lenses, other than zoom creep on the EF-S 15-85, expected given the age (6 years). If the open-box Shorty Forty gives up the ghost, well, it's earned its $125.00 cost already.
-
But some of the lenses are only 7 years old...that is an issue.
No, that is wrong. They are not 7 years old; they have been replaced by new versions 7 years ago. Which is completely different.
-
The lens is not really commonly available new, its just ancient stock that been sitting in a shop / warehouse for the last 10 years, would you really want to get one?
Why ever not ? A lens won't deteriorate in storage in it's manufacturer's packing.
On Amazon £1050, the latest version from WEX £1999. Will you see much difference in results between the two ? probably not most of the time, you'd just get a great lens for half the price.
Except Canon have let owners down.
-
Why ever not ?
Because of the observed issues?
A lens won't deteriorate in storage in it's manufacturer's packing.
Other than for lubricants, probably not. But it seems hard for people to understand that part of the product's cost is the manufacture and stocking of spare parts during a given service life. Training of service personnel may also be a part of it, depending on the parts in question. It is quite common for mechanical devices to have a service life of 5-10 years after the manufacturing of a product is discontinued.
After the service life has expired, purchasers are no longer able to have the product officially serviced although private parties may still offer such services at a limited scale (depending on their own stock of spare parts, or availability of secondhand models that can be cannibalized for parts, and service manuals, and trained personnel).
Except Canon have let owners down.
Although I understand the sentiment, I'm wondering how other (camera/lens) manufacturers handle it? Do they pile up larger stocks of spare parts (at a cost), do they offer trained service for an extended period, do they charge more for service?
Cheers,
Bart
-
No, that is wrong. They are not 7 years old; they have been replaced by new versions 7 years ago. Which is completely different.
Except for the brand new one someone bought from B&H 7 years ago is seven years old. I really don't care when the lens has been released...it's when I bought it...which is 7 years ago.
-
Because of the observed issues?
Other than for lubricants, probably not. But it seems hard for people to understand that part of the product's cost is the manufacture and stocking of spare parts during a given service life. Training of service personnel may also be a part of it, depending on the parts in question. It is quite common for mechanical devices to have a service life of 5-10 years after the manufacturing of a product is discontinued.
After the service life has expired, purchasers are no longer able to have the product officially serviced although private parties may still offer such services at a limited scale (depending on their own stock of spare parts, or availability of secondhand models that can be cannibalized for parts, and service manuals, and trained personnel).
Although I understand the sentiment, I'm wondering how other (camera/lens) manufacturers handle it? Do they pile up larger stocks of spare parts (at a cost), do they offer trained service for an extended period, do they charge more for service?
Cheers,
Bart
The companies I worked for treated parts and service as a profit center. I have no problem paying to get my gear serviced as long as the company is in it for the long run and does not leave me high and dry. Great designs have a lot of common components between their products, thus making stocking parts a much simpler process.
-
Except for the brand new one someone bought from B&H 7 years ago is seven years old. I really don't care when the lens has been released...it's when I bought it...which is 7 years ago.
What counts towards end of life support is not when I buy the lens; it is when the lens is replaced. It's not that hard to understand. If I buy a lens that has been replaced, even if it is new condition, I should be aware of the policy. It's really simple.
If you find a different, or more suitable for you, brand with another type of policy, just move on. Canon are not letting anybody down. Now, the store selling a replaced model, even new condition, and not warning buyers of potential issues with lack of spare parts, well, I would not use them again.
-
Now, the store selling a replaced model, even new condition, and not warning buyers of potential issues with lack of spare parts, well, I would not use them again.
Dealers generally aren't told when support finishes for a product.
Maybe the question that needs an answer is how long do you expect to be able to get a product maintained after you purchased it ?
-
What counts towards end of life support is not when I buy the lens; it is when the lens is replaced. It's not that hard to understand. If I buy a lens that has been replaced, even if it is new condition, I should be aware of the policy. It's really simple.
If you find a different, or more suitable for you, brand with another type of policy, just move on. Canon are not letting anybody down. Now, the store selling a replaced model, even new condition, and not warning buyers of potential issues with lack of spare parts, well, I would not use them again.
Yes, I have choices...that's not the point and find it a typical childish response.
The 400 2.8 lens was replaced less than 7 years ago...nothing to do with stale inventory sitting on the shelves. I'd be totally pissed if my car could not be serviced after 7 years...why should we be happy this is the case with our photo gears?
-
I'd be totally pissed if my car could not be serviced after 7 years...why should we be happy this is the case with our photo gears?
It's a manufacturing fact of life -- as much as we may not like it. In a way, part of Planned Obsolescence. And it DOES hit cars as well. I have 2007 Land Rover LR3. About three years ago, the key for the trailer hitch attachment broke off in the lock. It necessitated them drilling it out and hobbling together a make-shift release because they no longer manufactured the part and no long had stock! My reaction was somewhat the same as yours. I was told that, generally speaking, when something goes out of production, for warranty purposes, the companies are only generally required to provide service and parts for 5-7 years. When parts run out, it creates an end of service. In the case of the 400/2.8, it is/was a low volume lens. On the other hand, lenses like the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8, which have been in production for 20-years, remain serviceable. But just because a lenses has reached end-of-life, doesn't mean Canon won't clean, adjust, etc. They just did that with my 27-year old 300/2.8. There was a disclaimer that no parts were available for repair if needed, but they cleaned and adjusted the lens.
Finally, I owned the 70-200/2.8L. I now have the 70-200/2.8 L II (and have for a number of years). Get the Mark II. Unless you plan to stick with lo-res camera bodies, the quality and resolving power of the Mark II version is astoundingly better. If you don't believe me from actual use, check out DxO.
-
It's a manufacturing fact of life -- as much as we may not like it. In a way, part of Planned Obsolescence. And it DOES hit cars as well. I have 2007 Land Rover LR3. About three years ago, the key for the trailer hitch attachment broke off in the lock. It necessitated them drilling it out and hobbling together a make-shift release because they no longer manufactured the part and no long had stock! My reaction was somewhat the same as yours. I was told that, generally speaking, when something goes out of production, for warranty purposes, the companies are only generally required to provide service and parts for 5-7 years. When parts run out, it creates an end of service. In the case of the 400/2.8, it is/was a low volume lens. On the other hand, lenses like the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8, which have been in production for 20-years, remain serviceable. But just because a lenses has reached end-of-life, doesn't mean Canon won't clean, adjust, etc. They just did that with my 27-year old 300/2.8. There was a disclaimer that no parts were available for repair if needed, but they cleaned and adjusted the lens.
Finally, I owned the 70-200/2.8L. I now have the 70-200/2.8 L II (and have for a number of years). Get the Mark II. Unless you plan to stick with lo-res camera bodies, the quality and resolving power of the Mark II version is astoundingly better. If you don't believe me from actual use, check out DxO.
Yeh, would love the latest greatest of everything including the 400 2.8 II, only thing in the way is disposable income.
-
Yeh, would love the latest greatest of everything including the 400 2.8 II, only thing in the way is disposable income.
As would I! Hence, still using a 27-year old 300/2.8!
-
I have 2007 Land Rover LR3. About three years ago, the key for the trailer hitch attachment broke off in the lock. It necessitated them drilling it out and hobbling together a make-shift release because they no longer manufactured the part and no long had stock! My reaction was somewhat the same as yours. I was told that, generally speaking, when something goes out of production, for warranty purposes, the companies are only generally required to provide service and parts for 5-7 years. When parts run out, it creates an end of service.
I guess I'm lucky. I have a 2002 Toyota Highlander and a 2005 Toyota 4Runner. No problem with parts at the dealership for either of them.
-
I guess I'm lucky. I have a 2002 Toyota Highlander and a 2005 Toyota 4Runner. No problem with parts at the dealership for either of them.
Same here for our beloved old 1995 Tacoma, our 1999 Camry and our 2001 Tundra.
-
The reason the car manufactures keep parts availability for 10's of years is they make a lot of money from parts and service...possibly more over the lifetime of a vehicle than the original purchase. It seems like the camera manufactures go the opposite direction to force consumers into new gear by limiting parts and service to a minimal number of years...thus obsoleting gear very quickly.
-
Finally, I owned the 70-200/2.8L. I now have the 70-200/2.8 L II (and have for a number of years). Get the Mark II. Unless you plan to stick with lo-res camera bodies, the quality and resolving power of the Mark II version is astoundingly better. If you don't believe me from actual use, check out DxO.
Yes, the older generation lenses were designed for film, the newer generations for a digital sensor with a filter-stack in front of it. That requires a different optical lens design for the best results. So, using older lenses is a compromise anyway.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I gave up my Saab 99 in its 20th year because parts were getting hard to find - basically everything had to be searched for and ordered (I don't live in snow country where there were a lot of these cars in circulation). Just not a practical proposition for the only car of a single person in a town with lousy public transportation.