Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 15 Jun 2011 (Wednesday) 16:46
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Canon won't honor warranty on 50mm 1.4

 
MOkoFOko
nut impotent and avoiding Geoff
Avatar
19,889 posts
Likes: 20
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Michigan, home of the Zombie plague
     
Jun 16, 2011 04:54 |  #31

Csae wrote in post #12602539 (external link)
Canon has a long-standing policy (albeit a ****ty one) of set prices for repairs.

The technician gets paid roughly the same wage no matter what he fixes.

Yes, if you sent in a cheap lens its gonna be alot more expensive % then a 2k Lens, but the repair cost would be similar, because the guy gets paid the same really.

Strange, I'd have said that their repair prices were all over the board :D People have quoted wildly different prices for similar or matching repair jobs for the same model... I'm sure they have a list where they quote set prices for very specific and common repair jobs... but some of the more difficult (and unusual) repairs seem to be unpredictable in price (like 100-400 repair when bearings go off-track in the barrel/lock-ring).


My Gearlist

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
joeseph
"smells like turd"
Avatar
10,185 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Likes: 2374
Joined Jan 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
     
Jun 16, 2011 04:54 |  #32

I can understand how Canon can tell it's been dropped - there will be things bent out of shape (see: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?p=7188269 )

cacawcacaw wrote in post #12602046 (external link)
I just don't see any rationale for making the repair facility a profit center.

Canon isn't in business to make a loss, in any of it's departments - why would they because to do that they would have to artificially raise prices elsewhere.
it's no different to almost any other company with a repair facility I can think of - have you ever had your car repaired at a factory-authorised repairshop for instance?


some fairly old canon camera stuff, canon lenses, Manfrotto "thingy", 1D MK II converted for IR, and now an M5
TF posting: here :-)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SMP_Homer
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,646 posts
Gallery: 26 photos
Likes: 460
Joined Mar 2008
Location: London, Ontario
     
Jun 16, 2011 06:42 |  #33

Canon warranty doesn't cover gravity


EOS R / 7D2 / 1D IV (and the wife has a T4i)
Sig35A, Sig50A, Sig85A, Sig14-24A, Sig24-105A, Sig70-200S, Sig150-600C
100-400L, 100L, 300 2.8L, 1.4x II / 2x II
600EX-II X3, 430EX-III X3

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,198 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5946
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Jun 16, 2011 07:11 |  #34

joeseph wrote in post #12602554 (external link)
I can understand how Canon can tell it's been dropped - there will be things bent out of shape (see: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?p=7188269 )

Canon isn't in business to make a loss, in any of it's departments - why would they because to do that they would have to artificially raise prices elsewhere.
it's no different to almost any other company with a repair facility I can think of - have you ever had your car repaired at a factory-authorised repairshop for instance?

It is much cheaper to just buy a jewelers set of screwdrivers and an hour of time to pull the lens apart and fix that, The lens is cheap, it is held together with glued or snapped cosmetic covers and small screws. :)


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
EggWhiteS
Member
129 posts
Joined Apr 2010
     
Jun 16, 2011 08:35 |  #35

Not sure where in Ontario you are located, but you may want to try a Canon authorized service center. I have used Sun Camera in the past and they were very good. They are need Steele's and 400. They may have better prices for the repair.

http://www.suncamerase​rvice.ca (external link)


Canon 7D, EF-S 17-55 IS, EF 70-200 IS F2.8MrkII, EF-S 18-55 IS, EF-S 55-250 IS, EF 50mm 1.2L, 580EX MrkII, YN460MrkII (x2), RF602

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
harcosparky
Goldmember
2,425 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 55
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Harford County - ( Bel Air ) Maryland
     
Jun 16, 2011 08:41 |  #36

gonzogolf wrote in post #12599745 (external link)
Lets see, you dropped it, it no longer works, but heck, its not impact damage.... Sorry cant back you here.


^^^^
This!


Kinda like taking a new car to the dealer after backing into someone at the grocery store and wanting that dent fixed under the " bumper to bumper " warranty.

Not going to happen!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drumsfield
Goldmember
Avatar
1,600 posts
Likes: 27
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Bethesda Md
     
Jun 16, 2011 08:45 |  #37

Lesson learn: Don't drop your lens next time.

Happened to me and my 100-400. Dropped it, had to pay ~$300 to get it fixed. Next time I probably won't drop my lens.


Canon 5D MkIII | Olympus OM-D | Olympus E-P2 | 16-35L MKII | 24-70L MKII | 70-200L MKII | 85L MKII | EF 50mm 1.4 | EF 100mm 2.8 | 100-400mm L MKII | 20mm 1.7
Feedback and Full gear list
Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
argyle
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,187 posts
Likes: 17
Joined Apr 2007
Location: DFW, Texas
     
Jun 16, 2011 09:38 |  #38

cacawcacaw wrote in post #12602046 (external link)
I just don't see any rationale for making the repair facility a profit center. At least not if they want to keep loyal customers. What a slap in the face to be charged $14 more for repair than the $320 that any Joe Blow would pay for a refurbished 50 1.4. (If my logic is bent because of the Canadian currency, please don't set me straight. I'm still upset that they would do this to a long-time customer.)

Really? What about the service department at your nearby automobile dealer...should it also not be allowed to make a profit? Or should every business be relegated to break-even status? The purpose of business is to make a profit...no one starts a business with the goal of breaking even or losing money (unless its governmental, but that's another story). I just don't understand the logic that is displayed here...unless its just an extension of the entitlement mentality.

cacawcacaw wrote in post #12602046 (external link)
I'm still upset that they would do this to a long-time customer.)

Long time customer? And you know this how? Nothing of the sort was mentioned. People are responsible for their actions, be they accidental or intentional.


"Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son". - Dean Wormer

GEAR LIST

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
krb
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,818 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
Location: Where southern efficiency and northern charm come together
     
Jun 16, 2011 10:06 |  #39

MOkoFOko wrote in post #12602547 (external link)
That's a good point, but in this case it had nothing to do with outer cosmetic or even optical damage. The hood wouldn't have protected the AF ring from going off track.

I'm not talking about cosmetic or optical damage.

The front element extends and rotates during focusing, which means that it is directly connected to the AF mechanism which is notoriously easy to damage on this lens. The OEM hood attaches to the outer body and prevents the front element from being hit, which means it offers protection the AF mechanism that front element is attached to.

The fact that the lens has "a tiny scuff on the front" indicates that the front is probably what hit first which means a lens hood could have prevented this damage from occurring.


-- Ken
Comment and critique is always appreciated!
Flickr (external link)
Gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SaxonIV
Senior Member
Avatar
768 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Alabama
     
Jun 16, 2011 10:07 |  #40

Invertalon wrote in post #12600039 (external link)
My g/f dropped her S95 twice in one day when it totally threw the AF out.. I sent it in playing stupid a bit, saying AF is not sharp and such... Since it was dropped on carpet, no signs of abuse/damage.. They fixed for free... I don't feel exactly proud, but I would of understood if they denied me :)

Scum. Things like this are what make repair costs higher and cause products to be more expensive. If it was your fault at least own up to it. Fixing your mistakes or someone else's mistakes for free was very trusting on their end. It's just taking advantage of the warranty.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ExPlanet
Member
Avatar
105 posts
Likes: 2
Joined May 2011
     
Jun 16, 2011 10:17 |  #41

cameronbrownr wrote in post #12599738 (external link)
I bought a brand new 50mm 1.4 about 2 months ago from Futureshop in Canada. About a week ago it took a bit of a bump (fell about 2 feet on to carpet) but it still seemed to work fine for a bit. Then I noticed later that day that the AF was stuck.

I sent it in to Canon under warranty but they wont fix it because they are claiming it has "extensive impact damage". There is no way that a little tumble like that should cause a $500 lens "extensive impact damage" and through some research the internet seems to back me up on the fragility of this lens's AF.

The guy on the service line in Ontario was very inconsiderate and rude to me, and Canon want $334.04 to fix the lens.

I really don't feel like I'm being treated fairly here. I understand that they can't do repairs on mistreated equipment, but this was barely a bump.

www.cameronbrown.ca (external link)

If the internet backed you up..then Canon should definitely do the warranty work.. JK. The 50 1.4 does seem fragile to me, it definitely doesn't have a solid feel to the lens like my other lenses, build quality just isn't there. When it was $350, I thought the price was just right.. now the lens hovering around $500, it's hardly worth the price vs build vs image quality.

Sadly, I don't think your circumstances would be covered under warranty.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,198 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5946
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Jun 16, 2011 10:25 |  #42

SaxonIV wrote in post #12603653 (external link)
Scum. Things like this are what make repair costs higher and cause products to be more expensive. If it was your fault at least own up to it. Fixing your mistakes or someone else's mistakes for free was very trusting on their end. It's just taking advantage of the warranty.

I would normally agree, but I will play devil's advocate here just for a second. When you design a camera or lens, you have to put into that design some sort of allocation for droppage. You cannot build a product in such a way that any small amount of shock or trauma breaks it, and you expect to still be in business and stick by some blanket policy that "ohhh, you dropped it or it shows impact, your loss".

So these drops from a few feet onto padded flooring (or even a hard surface) is not in any way excessive damage that the customer should expect to cover. I would say that with the mag housings and body designs of the DSLRs, indeed Canon is building these for impacts, so very minor impacts from just a few feet onto a surface should not kill a product, or at least should be covered by warranty. The 50 1.8 and 50 1.4 are very fragile lenses, though, as we can see numerous times and don't hold up to hardly anything it seems.

This creates a gray area between the consumer and the manufacturer when somebody like Canon stands by a pat statement for not covering damage under warranty even though the product may have been designed to handle such a situation, and the person in no way abused their equipment, and feels that they shouldn't have to cover the repair.


Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Chelsey ­ Somohano
Senior Member
Avatar
317 posts
Joined Feb 2010
Location: Nashville, TN
     
Jun 16, 2011 10:30 |  #43

TeamSpeed wrote in post #12603755 (external link)
I would normally agree, but I will play devil's advocate here just for a second. When you design a camera or lens, you have to put into that design some sort of allocation for droppage. You cannot build a product in such a way that any small amount of shock or trauma breaks it, and you expect to still be in business and stick by some blanket policy that "ohhh, you dropped it or it shows impact, your loss".

If it came between allocating for droppage and IQ, I wouldn't have to think twice. A lot of things break. If you drop your cell phone and the screen cracks, you have to pay to get another one.


50D | 35L | 24-70L | 50 1.8 |
website: http://www.hurst-photography.com (external link)
"Buying a camera doesn't make you a photographer - It makes you a camera owner."

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SaxonIV
Senior Member
Avatar
768 posts
Joined Sep 2010
Location: Alabama
     
Jun 16, 2011 10:33 |  #44

TeamSpeed wrote in post #12603755 (external link)
I would normally agree, but I will play devil's advocate here just for a second. When you design a camera or lens, you have to put into that design some sort of allocation for droppage. You cannot build a product in such a way that any small amount of shock or trauma breaks it, and you expect to still be in business and stick by some blanket policy that "ohhh, you dropped it or it shows impact, your loss".

So these drops from a few feet onto padded flooring (or even a hard surface) is not in any way excessive damage that the customer should expect to cover. I would say that with the mag housings and body designs of the DSLRs, indeed Canon is building these for impacts, so very minor impacts from just a few feet onto a surface should not kill a product, or at least should be covered by warranty. The 50 1.8 and 50 1.4 are very fragile lenses, though, as we can see numerous times and don't hold up to hardly anything it seems.

This creates a gray area between the consumer and the manufacturer when somebody like Canon stands by a pat statement for not covering damage under warranty even though the product may have been designed to handle such a situation, and the person in no way abused their equipment, and feels that they shouldn't have to cover the repair.

Speaking of the guys point and shoot, how is dropping something two times not abusing a product?

When I bought an iPhone 4 I new there was a chance that I would break it. As it turns out I did break it. I sacrificed the safety of an Otter Box for the ascetics of a much slimmer case and I paid the price. While I really hate the design of Canon's 50s, It's not a problem I hold the manufacturer for. I promptly sold my nifty fifty as soon as I had the money for another lens and I upgraded to the Sigma because of the shoty build on the Canon 1.4. We all know the risks and it is important for us to take more responsibility. Not to attack anyone personally, but where does it stop? one moment abusing warranty, the next abusing healthcare/medicare/di​sability and insurance fraud. I'm just annoyed by the lack of responsibility by todays youth. I say that jokingly because I'm only 20, and am extremely upset by what I see in my engineering classrooms with cheating and all.

/rant




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
j-dogg
Goldmember
1,292 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Apr 2011
     
Jun 16, 2011 10:41 as a reply to  @ post 12602547 |  #45

I don't bull**** when it comes to getting stuff fixed. I dropped my 70-200 f4L IS and the IS quit working. It's out of warranty anyway so I'm just going to pay the cost to fix it and chalk it up to "be more careful with your $1200 lenses"

I've thought about doing it myself but if anything else happens to it I know Canon won't touch it.


5D / 400d / 70-200-4LIS / 50 Mk.I / 28-70
RB67 Pro-S / 50-90-180 Holy Trinity, 120/polaroid back
Graphic View I 4x5 / Schneider 180 / Meyer 135 / Ektar 127

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

11,670 views & 0 likes for this thread
Canon won't honor warranty on 50mm 1.4
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Adams603
827 guests, 305 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.