Equipment & Techniques > Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear

Quality Control of Canon Lenses

(1/9) > >>

glreynolds:
Hi Folks,

I am ready to move up to a DSLR and am trying to decide between Canon and Nikon.  It is the quality of the lens systems produced by these two companies which I feel would make the difference in my decision.  Most I guess, would say it is 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.  

On several sites offering reviews of Canon lenses, I have read comments by reviewers that they have had to return a lens several times before they get a "good one".  Many say that Canons quality control is not what it should be.

What has your experience been with the quality control of these lenses?  Have you ever had to return a lens because it was too soft, etc.  Is this a considerable problem, or just a minor one?  I am sure most manufacturers will produce a "dud" now and then. Is Canons quality control equal to Nikons?

This is an honest question from a beginner, and not meant to provoke.

Gary Reynolds

Peter Bangkok:
Good question.
If I can add on. I also read that many people bring their lenses/cameras to canon (or nikon) for calibration.
Should that be a routine thing to do with new products?
How do I know if it is not properly calibrated?

Brgds
Peter

thompsonkirk:
In my experience it's been a problem only with zooms, and neither I nor my acquaintances have had one that wasn't corrected quite well re-calibration, which is free under the warranty for a new lens.  You know you need it if you check the new lens & find that its images are sharper at some focal lengths than others.  Canon re-sets the "best focus point."  I don't know why they can't control this more tightly at the factory, but it's no big deal & they do the work quickly.

Lisa Nikodym:
I had the Canon 28-135 mm lens that is pretty well regarded for a non-L lens, but my copy of it was pretty bad - quite noticeably blurry in the corners.  It got progressively worse as time went on, until it was downright awful everywhere but the very center.  I then sent it back for calibration, hoping that it would be much better afterward.  It wasn't.  It was merely back to the "pretty bad" that it had originally been.  At that point, I decided it was a good time to switch to Nikon (since they had just come out with a digital body that I was interested in).  My first Nikon lens, for a mere $300, was *much* sharper than the Canon 28-135 mm had been.

It's hard to draw overall conclusions from just one person's experience, but, to summarize:  Yes, there's a lot of variation.  However, calibration doesn't always fix things.

Lisa

jimhuber:
I own 1 Canon "digicam", 2 Canon dSLR bodies, 5 zoom lenses, 7 prime lenses, and 1 extender. I've only ever had 1 lens that had a problem as delivered, a 100mm prime that didn't focus properly, and I've had to send 1 lens in for calibration - it was returned to "as new" performance. Even this is a very small sampling, read "statistically insignificant", but I've been very pleased with Canon quality control.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page