Canon Lens Build Quality

[KiwiRob]

I'm new to the canon world and I'm amazed at the crap build quality on non L canon lens. I have the 17-40 f4L and the 70-200 f4L lens and I'm borrowing a 28 - 135 IS lens and a 50mm F1.4, the build on these two lens is amazingly sh***y, as is the build on the 75-300 IS. I can't see why anyone would want to buy these, let alone the cheaper plastic mount lens.

I used to use minolta, I never had G series lens, but the build quality of the lens I owned was far and away better than the 3 mentioned above, in fact I would think they were as well built as my two L series lens. The minolta lens I had were the 50mm f1.4, 100-300apo and 24-105.

All said I like the canon system but will never think highly of non L lens, the image quality is supurb as is the build. I'll just never be tempted by the cheaper optics, there ****ty build and somewhat dodgy optical quality.

Anyone else have any thoughts on the subject.

[garethhhhh]

not another one...

[Belmondo]

I'm new to the canon world and I'm amazed at the crap build quality on non L canon lens. I have the 17-40 f4L and the 70-200 f4L lens and I'm borrowing a 28 - 135 IS lens and a 50mm F1.4, the build on these two lens is amazingly sh***y, as is the build on the 75-300 IS. .

Rob: Don't knock the brown sticky stuff. That's what holding the lenses together.

L lenses? Just a better grade of s**t.


Thos.

[ssim]

Yep, I got a few thoughts on this subject.

You get exactly what you pay for, plain and simple.

I have the 24-85 and the 100-300 USM lenses and they produced images that were acceptable but not outstanding. Many people cannot afford to buy the best but they don't let that get in the way of their love of the craft. It is a matter of personal preference as to how much they want to the best images and how much they are willing to sacrifice other things in life to get to the "L" quality. You make it sound like Canon shouldn't produce anything but "L" series lenses. I think that we could all agree that Canon will produce products that the marketplace proves that they want.

If you find these lenses so "sh***y" then don't use them. I have the 50mm lens you mention and find that it's images are pretty decent.

You fail to mention what camera you are using.

And welcome to the board.

[Belmondo]

Has anyone though of combining this thread and its frequent references to feces with the thread about moist towelettes? Seems a good fit to me..

[ilya]

:shock: :shock: :shock:

... hey the 50 1.4 is supposed to be solid (oops)

[nosquare2003]

:shock: :shock: :shock:

... hey the 50 1.4 is supposed to be solid (oops)

Nope, the 50/1.4 is too cheap! A 50/1.0L will be a bit better :!:

[Ferdinand]

Faber-Castell will pwn j00 allz!

See Sig :D

[JZaun]

Canon would love for you to tell them how their lens are pure S@#$.. I guess all the non (L) users are just stupid Hu? Minotla,,What is that?

[Tom W]

I'm new to the canon world and I'm amazed at the crap build quality on non L canon lens. I have the 17-40 f4L and the 70-200 f4L lens and I'm borrowing a 28 - 135 IS lens and a 50mm F1.4, the build on these two lens is amazingly sh***y, as is the build on the 75-300 IS. I can't see why anyone would want to buy these, let alone the cheaper plastic mount lens.

I used to use minolta, I never had G series lens, but the build quality of the lens I owned was far and away better than the 3 mentioned above, in fact I would think they were as well built as my two L series lens. The minolta lens I had were the 50mm f1.4, 100-300apo and 24-105.

All said I like the canon system but will never think highly of non L lens, the image quality is supurb as is the build. I'll just never be tempted by the cheaper optics, there ****ty build and somewhat dodgy optical quality.

Anyone else have any thoughts on the subject.

If you're comparing any of today's lenses with those of yesteryear, you'll find extensive use of polycarbonate instead of machined metals. While this gives a lessor feel of quality, the lenses share the longevity and image quality of their finely-machined counterparts of yesteryear.

Take a look at the latest mid-range offerings from Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Sigma, or Tamron. Build quality is universally similar among brands at the various price points, just as it is universally different among generations.

I love the quality and feel of my old Canon FL breech-mount 50 mm 1.8 lens. It is a finely machined, high quality mechanism and it produces great images. But my new 50 mm f/1.4, while it lacks the fine machine-quality feel, produces equal or better images, is lighter, and is likely to be as durable as the fine machine of old. Plus, the machined lens of yesteryear would cost considerably more to manufacture today.

[chris.bailey]

I'm new to the canon world and I'm amazed at the crap build quality on non L canon lens. I have the 17-40 f4L and the 70-200 f4L lens and I'm borrowing a 28 - 135 IS lens and a 50mm F1.4, the build on these two lens is amazingly sh***y, as is the build on the 75-300 IS. I can't see why anyone would want to buy these, let alone the cheaper plastic mount lens.

I used to use minolta, I never had G series lens, but the build quality of the lens I owned was far and away better than the 3 mentioned above, in fact I would think they were as well built as my two L series lens. The minolta lens I had were the 50mm f1.4, 100-300apo and 24-105.

All said I like the canon system but will never think highly of non L lens, the image quality is supurb as is the build. I'll just never be tempted by the cheaper optics, there ****ty build and somewhat dodgy optical quality.

Anyone else have any thoughts on the subject.

Perhaps they send the seconds to the shouthern hemisphere as my 50mm 1.4 is top notch engineering and the 28-135 is not far behind at the price. I would say that Canon lenses are easily up with the quality of other manufacturers.

Rather than just use general terms (unpleasant ones at that) it would be useful to outline the specifics of what you consider to be inferior.

[G3]

It's the same old thing: "What I have is the best, everything else is crap." and "My opinion of this is the only one that matters, and you are stupid for buying this stuff." Big ego at play here.

The fact is, if you are a crappy photographer, you will still be a crappy photgrapher even with a 1Ds and a battery of "L" glass. If you are a good photographer, you will still be a good photographer even with a 40 year old Kodak Brownie.

If there was ever a thread started that was worthy of being completely ignored, this is it.

[iwatkins]

Yep, all my lens are so crap they don't take really good pictures.

No, wait... My camera is so crap it doesn't take good pictures.

Er, erm, hang on..... I'm so crap at photography I don't know why I have a camera.

:twisted:

I would disagree with the comment about the EF 50mm f1.4. I think the build is very good.

Cheers

Ian

[Avarond]

The fact is, if you are a crappy photographer, you will still be a crappy photgrapher even with a 1Ds and a battery of "L" glass. If you are a good photographer, you will still be a good photographer even with a 40 year old Kodak Brownie.


Im a fine example of that. Just got the 70-200 L and while I still take "crappy shots", they are super sharp and alot closer.

:lol:

[G3]

The fact is, if you are a crappy photographer, you will still be a crappy photgrapher even with a 1Ds and a battery of "L" glass. If you are a good photographer, you will still be a good photographer even with a 40 year old Kodak Brownie.


Im a fine example of that. Just got the 70-200 L and while I still take "crappy shots", they are super sharp and alot closer.

:lol:

Me too...that's how I figured that out. :)

[hogzilla]

Just got my first lense , the 50mm 1.8 and im a very happy boy. Let me tell you compared to the one that came with the drebel it's night and day
I could hardly wait to get my first L lense.