Chris Eastwood wrote: > [...] > 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?
Somehow, I have to agree with you. I'd definitely prefer the "feel" of metal. Maybe I'd not prefer the weight of metal, but I could likely live with it, especially with the "smaller" lenses. OTOH, the only Canon EF lens I had *ever* a problem with, was the one which "feels" the most stable. It was my good old 80-200 f/2.8 L! Well, while they (Canon) seem to have used quite a bit of metal to build it, the AF switch is plastic and broke. I never would have thought it would cost me around $75 to get that little plastic thingy repaired :-( So, my message is, while those lenses sure feel flimsy, they are quite robust in daily use, although everything might fail sometimes (even the good, old, solid feeling metal built lenses). > > 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. While the 28-105 is a solid performer, it's not exactly stellar for sure. You have to pay *something* (besides money) for the extended zoom range. A 35-70 is certainly much easier to design than a 28-105. > > 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. They (Canon) look at the market! What do most people want today? A camera which can do everything automagically and lenses with a BIIIG zoom range. And everything CHEAP of course. Image quality is secondary to them ... So they get what they want - at the lowest production price possible. > > 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. It seems Canon abandoned a real mid level range, the difference between low and mid range being mostly USM and not image and build quality. It has also been a long time since they announced a newer version of a mid range prime lens. They haven't been changed in decades ;-) Probably not enough of a market for them out there. The 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2, no newer versions in a decade or more. Now look at the consumer zooms ... Changes and even completely new zooms every year. Well, that's where the market has gone. > > why do we have to get junky lens barrels, and mechanisms?? Cost? Weak AF motors needing play in the barrel? I don't know! > > is the answer to only buy L series lenses?? Which is a shame if it is. Either that, or buy older lens models used. It IS a shame IMHO in any case. Thomas Bantel * **** ******* *********************************************************** * For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see: * http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm ***********************************************************
