EOS eos lenses and robustness

[Chris Eastwood]

HiYa folks

(perhaps rambling at times)
after reading some of the comments about the 28-135 IS lens and after having a few problems of my own with the 28-105 lens, I feel like asking people's thoughts on a question I've been pondering for some time.

Like all of my tools, I kind of reguard my camera, and its lenses an investemnt of sorts. I chose the camera I did, because (I thought it would be) it was a stout workhorse and provide me with years of service (it has), however some of the lenses I've bought over the years from Canon have lead me to feel that things are not well in the canon stable.

When I bought my 630 (in 1991) it came with a 35-70 zoom, and I still use this lens. I've dropped it numerous times (oops) and its even got a scar on it, where it was around my neck when I took a tumble across the bonnet of a car on my motorbike. This lens, and the EF50 f1.8 and EF24 f.28 , as well as the all of the canon lenses I've seen and handled (and hired) which have the "rough" plastic barrels (looks kind of like what used to be a a epoxy coating of metal) have been stout performers.

But, even they have seemed a little flimsy (although proven otherwise) compared with the lenses from other camera makers (Pentmumble and Olymumble) that I've bought in the past. Certainly the notion of a lens "failing" to operate is a new notion, and one which we all seem to have "grown comfortable with"

Is it just me, or are we all accepting less some how?

Eg ... when I bought my first 28-105 I decided to do some lens testing, I shot some test targets, with fuji velvia, and exposed using flash, in a darkend room using a 3 second exposure (reasons being to damp out any shutter vibration before I triggered the flash to expose the film) the only light comming from the flash.

I found that (to my surprise) there was no discernable difference between the 35-70 and the 28-105 within the shared focal lengths, worse, I found that the 28-105 exhibited some more vignetting at f5.6 but was ok at f8. Both lenses allowd me to see the test target at about the 70lp/mm region. Outside testing showed both to have almost identical contrast and colour rendition. As well the AF speed engendered by the USM was not so noticable at focal lengths like 35mm or even 70mm (the same can not be said for my 100-300 zoom which focuses like a blink) needless to say, I sold the 28-105 and kept my 35-70.

my point is, that it seems that we're not getting much optical benefits, and there doesn't seem to be any "cost" benefit either. Surely, if Canon was to still produce the 35-70 lens unchanged over the years, then the scale of production would bring its costs to the consumer down even more.

worse, it seems that lately, any lens that is not an L series, seems to be junkier than before. I honestly prefer the feel and cost/benefit of my EF50 f1.8 to the USM 1.4 (which feels less robust, though again I'm not sure). I was looking at the 20-35, and it too seemed to have a simmilar construction to the 28-105 rather than the construction of the 16-35.

why do we have to get junky lens barrels, and mechanisms??

is the answer to only buy L series lenses?? Which is a shame if it is.


I'd be interested to hear from the "devils advocate" on this topic

night night
---

Chris Eastwood
http://www2.gol.com/users/cjeastwd

************************************************************************

'But oh, beamish nephew, beware of the day,
If your Snark be a Boojum! For then
You will softly and suddenly vanish away,
And never be met with again!'

*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************