Canon product support

[Paulo Bizarro]

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 They are not 7 years old; they have been replaced by new versions 7 years ago.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.

[Rhossydd]

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.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[hogloff]

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 They are not 7 years old; they have been replaced by new versions 7 years ago.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.

[hogloff]

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.

[Paulo Bizarro]

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.

[Rhossydd]

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 ?

[hogloff]

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?

[nemophoto]

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.

[hogloff]

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.

[nemophoto]

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!

[rdonson]

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.

[BrownBear]

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. 

[hogloff]

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.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

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

[NancyP]

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.