On 26 Apr 2007 at 11:45, Pattie Anderson wrote:
> On 4/17/07, Peter Hancock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Malcolm wrote:
> > > I put my 300 f2.8L in for service recently and I was told that it was
> > too
> > > old to be serviced.
> >
> > Whoa! You own what is pretty much THE signature lens from the company
> > that has pretensions to being number 1 in the world and they can't
> > service it?!! How old is it? If I owned a lens like that I'd expect it
> > to last pretty much my photographic lifetime. Are they assuming they're
> > selling to professionals who write them down after a few years?
>
> Perhaps drifting a bit off-topic here, but the photographers for the
> local newspaper here used Canon equipment when they shot film. They
> switched over to Nikon when they switched to digital. They have since
> switched back to Canon, in large part because Nikon was no longer
> servicing some of the longer lenses the paper owned (in particlular,
> the 600 mm).
>
> I can't imagine how much completely switching over cameras and lenses
> twice has cost, and who knows if another switch is down the road in a
> few years. Then again, that kind of investment is probably a
> (relative) drop in the bucket for a news organization of that size.
All this makes me wonder if Canon would by now refuse to service a
1200/5.6 as well....
Not that changing system would help much there, but still....8-))
--
Bye,
Willem-Jan Markerink
The desire to understand
is sometimes far less intelligent than
the inability to understand
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
