Got 70-200IS today with a small defect

[jl_moped]

UPS dropped off a 70-200IS at my house today. Upon close inspection of the lens, I saw a small (1/16") imperfection on the front lens. It appears to be a defect on the coating. When using the lens, I am unable to see this through any test shot.

I am being too critical with the quality or should I return it for a new one?

-jl_moped

[ChopstickHero]

return it. :) you paid enough for it that it should come to you defect free.

[Mark_Cohran]

You can go to the trouble of returning it, but it won't impact image quality at all.

Mark

[Tommy]

I'm with ChopstickHero on this one. Return it and get your money's worth. It may be trouble, but think of it this way... you may not notice a difference in IQ now, but what about in a few years? If it's a defect in the coating, do you think it could get worse? If it does get worse, would it effect IQ then?

[Sam]

You can go to the trouble of returning it, but it won't impact image quality at all.

Mark

This is what I would do.

But it sounds like it is really bothering you, it will always be there... Better to replace it while you can for your own piece of mind.

[firef0x]

You may want to try breathing a warm breath on the surface and wiping it clean with a microfiber lens cloth. Repeat the process several times using the microfiber cloth lightly.

Don't use a tshirt or anything else not made for cleaning lenses, you don't want to scratch or compromise the lens surface or coating.

If it still does not remove then I would definitely return the lens.

[mbellot]

I agree with firef0x, if you can't (carefully) clean it off then return it.

Even if it doesn't affect IQ it will affect resale value should you ever choose to part with it.

Put another way, would you buy a new car and then be OK when it arrived with a big paint chip ding? Afterall, it doesn't affect driving/handling...

[Mark_Cohran]

Okay, at the risk of seeming to be a wise guy, did you buy the lens to use or to admire? Lenses are not investments, they're tools. They're made to be used and if you use them, well and frequently, they are not going to remain pristine, and that will affect the "resale value" as well, but not very much.

Today I sold three lenses and a camera. They were well used, but still in excellent condition. The lenses had a couple of minor mars, but I got 80-85% of the current retail price and the newest lens was at least 7 years old.

So, return it if you can't stand it, but yes, you are being overly critical, and a 1/16th mar on the front element of a lens which won't effect image quality one iota is not like a paint chip missing from a new car.

Mark

[jl_moped]

Thanks for everyone's reply. I have not dealt with this reputable company in NY before, I think you have an idea which one that is. If I return it for an exchange, would I need to pay for the return shipping and re-shipping again and would I lose the Canon rebate since the exchange will happen after the rebate endline of July 15?

I was trying to save a few dollars doing with mail order, but may end up paying the same price or more and have to deal with shipping the item back and forth. I have purchased my other equipment locally and had to return a defective lens (that one realy didn't work, got ERR99). The saleperson handled it quickly and gladly exchanged it. So maybe the extra cost for local service is worth it.

[peatoire]

Glad to hear you've got it sorted
FWIW I wouldn't have liked it either, people are also missing an important point here which is it's saleability to a second user. If you ever considered selling you wouldn't get much interest on ebay having to mention a lens defect and so wouldn't get the going rate.

[mbellot]

... a 1/16th mar on the front element of a lens which won't effect image quality one iota is not like a paint chip missing from a new car.

How so, if neither affects usability?

[Mark_Cohran]

How so, if neither affects usability?

Well, for one thing, paint is put on a car as much for corrosion control as it is for looks, but it appears that most people are buying their lenses to admire them and not use them, or they think they are some sort of investment opportunity. Working photographers know it's impossible to keep lenses in perfect, blemish free condition.

If the blemish affected image quality, then by all means, return the lens. If it's easy and convenient to do so (you bought it at a local shop), then sure, return the lens. But, if you use your lens in the real world it going to get little nicks, blemishes, some brassing, etc. and as long as they don't impact the image quality, the resale value of an L lens is not going to be adversely affected among photographers who know the value of the lens.

Mark

[mbellot]

Well, for one thing, paint is put on a car as much for corrosion control as it is for looks

Not when its on an expensive, high performance car with a composite body. But are you saying that the lens coatings are "just for looks"?

And the resale value will be impacted, even amongst "photographers who know the value of the lens".

Take this lens BNIB over to FM and disclose the defect, it will absolutely sell for less than one without such a problem.


I have no argument over the fact that the lens will gain cosmetic defects with use (my 70-200 IS is far from "like new"), but there is no reason to buy a brand new one that way unless your intent is to use it as a throw away.

Canon gets a good buck for these lenses, they can push these minor defects off to the refurbished pile where they are sold at a minor discount.

[jl_moped]

I have an update on this coating blemish issue. This morning I cleaned it with some lens cleaning solution and lens tissue paper and after some elbow grease (figure of speech) the spot disappered. So with much discussions, we can put this issue to rest.

Now, this is my first L lens and I are not sure how to test it as far as optical and IQ quality. Can you give me some pointers? My most used len is 17-85 IS on a Rebel XT. I thought the L lens has lightning fast AF, but I found it to be not any faster than my 17-85. Is the Rebel XT the limiting factor?

Thank you for any comment.

[StealthLude]

for a lens that cost that much... id get a new copy that is mint.

Im looking at it from a resale point of view.. Not that ur gona want to sell that lens, but if you ever do,... i sure as hell wont be buying that lens....

[Mark_Cohran]

Not when its on an expensive, high performance car with a composite body. But are you saying that the lens coatings are "just for looks"?

And the resale value will be impacted, even amongst "photographers who know the value of the lens".


I hope you mean the question rhetorically as lens coatings are obviously in place to help reduce flare. Yet, had this individual followed your advice, he would have returned a perfectly acceptable lens (blemish rubbed offed with a little elbow grease) and incurred all the trouble and expense of doing so.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think a minor blemish, such as discussed in this thread will impact a len's resale value amongst knowledgable professional photographers with working gear. But, I'll admit, given the messages I've seen around here lately, that there is a different group of photographers that are more interested in how a lens looks than how it performs.

Mark

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I thought the L lens has lightning fast AF, but I found it to be not any faster than my 17-85. Is the Rebel XT the limiting factor?

Thank you for any comment.

Eh..a little, probably. Remember...it depends on the exact subject, lighting conditions, etc. Even focal length. Mine's wicked fast. Never used a 17-85, but it puts my other L's to shame (save the 400L).

[jedwards]

I was going to suggest it might be a condensation spot on the lens due to the extreme temperatures of late - seems like that's what it was. Glad to see your lens is okay.
Regarding the AF speed, keep in mind the 70-200L is moving more glass than the 17-85. I noticed an improvement on AF speed on all my lenses when switching from the 300D to the 20D, not sure if the XT has the same AF as the 300D.

[Tommy]

Glad that your lens is ok! Happy shooting! ;)

[mbellot]

I hope you mean the question rhetorically as lens coatings are obviously in place to help reduce flare. Yet, had this individual followed your advice, he would have returned a perfectly acceptable lens (blemish rubbed offed with a little elbow grease) and incurred all the trouble and expense of doing so.
Yes, the coating question was rhetorical.


And apparently you failed to read the very first sentence in my original post, eh?


I agree with firef0x, if you can't (carefully) clean it off then return it.


I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I don't think a minor blemish, such as discussed in this thread will impact a len's resale value amongst knowledgable professional photographers with working gear. But, I'll admit, given the messages I've seen around here lately, that there is a different group of photographers that are more interested in how a lens looks than how it performs.
The basic problem with your argument is the assumption that only "pro" photogs are involved.

Back to the car analogy, do you really think someone who makes a living with a car/truck cares about its cosmetic appearance as long as it gets the job done? (Of course not).

Its not a matter of being more interested in looks over function, its that (for non-pros) cosmetics do matter to some degree. When people spend their hard earned money on an expensive hobby they tend to be more cautious. Ever been to an amateur classic car show and leaned a little to close to somebody's pride and joy? Those guys know how to protect their hobby.

[Tommy]

...Ever been to an amateur classic car show and leaned a little to close to somebody's pride and joy?

Yep... and it wasn't pretty! :lol: