Does lens age matter?

Hi everyone,

I've just purchased a canon 70-200 f4L off ebay and checked the serial number to determine the age.
It was manufactured in 2004, i was wondering does this make much of a difference in terms of image quality?. There's not a huge amount of difference between what I paid for this and what a brand new one would cost cost.
Would it be sensible to send this back and pay the extra for a more recent copy?

Cheers, Stuart

might make more sense to send it back and pay that little extra for a brand new one! .... if it was me i would want the newest possible' fungus and wear could be a deciding factor should you want to sell it in the future.
just my opinion

Stuart,
Age makes no difference whatsoever. In fact, when I buy used lenses (and I only buy used), I don't even ask about the manufacture date, because it simply doesn't matter. Same thing with small scratches on the glass or dust inside the lens - these things do not matter at all insomuch as affect on images are concerned. All that matters are the pictures that the lens produces and the durability of the lens, and neither of these are affected by age.

Thanks for the advice Tom. I've got a 14 day to send it back, so I'll take it out for a test run.
There are no visable signs of use and the glass does look very clean. I guess it's all about image quality.
Cheers

It depends upon the lens... some lenses have seen "silent upgrades" over the years. Others haven't.

AFAIK, the 70-200/4L selling new today is identical to what has been sold since it was introduced (1999), so I doubt there would be any advantage to buying a more recent copy.

The other possible factor is wear and tear. If the lens you got has seen light, amateur use and appears well kept, all the Canon 70-200s are real workhorses and may hold up for many years or even decades use.

My 70-200/2.8 IS "Mark I" from 2001 still works perfectly, but it's obviously been used pretty hard. This particular model did see a "silent upgrade" revision to the IS mechanism, but according to Canon it was only done for serviceability and didn't improve durability or effectiveness of the IS, so I never spent the $600 to have it done.

I also have a 70-200/4 IS that I bought used a year or two ago (though it looked like new then), and it's been very reliable as well. The IS version was introduced in 2006, so that's the oldest my f4 IS lens could be. I just haven't looked to see if I can find a build code on it.

But, again, all five models of the EF 70-200s have been really tough, pro-grade lenses.... L-series with reasonable sealing for dust and moisture resistance. Use a flashlight and check out the innards. There are probably a few specks of dust in there (nearly all lenses have a few), but so long as there's no fungus or element separation, it will likely be a great lens. Test shots with it will tell you the rest of the story.

stuart1980 wrote in post #17165301
Hi everyone,

I've just purchased a canon 70-200 f4L off ebay and checked the serial number to determine the age.
It was manufactured in 2004, i was wondering does this make much of a difference in terms of image quality?. There's not a huge amount of difference between what I paid for this and what a brand new one would cost cost.
Would it be sensible to send this back and pay the extra for a more recent copy?

Cheers, Stuart

No, it isn't sensible. You purchased a used copy and that's what you got. Sending it back because of this is a jerk thing to do to the seller, especially if the lens is clean and looks good and works fine.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17165327
Stuart,
Age makes no difference whatsoever. In fact, when I buy used lenses (and I only buy used), I don't even ask about the manufacture date, because it simply doesn't matter. Same thing with small scratches on the glass or dust inside the lens - these things do not matter at all insomuch as affect on images are concerned. All that matters are the pictures that the lens produces and the durability of the lens, and neither of these are affected by age.

This is true but if the cost was similar I would just get a new one so I vote return it and get a new one. In time you can add your own dust and scratches :-}

If the price is close its worth it for the warranty alone.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #17165327
Stuart,
Age makes no difference whatsoever. In fact, when I buy used lenses (and I only buy used), I don't even ask about the manufacture date, because it simply doesn't matter. Same thing with small scratches on the glass or dust inside the lens - these things do not matter at all insomuch as affect on images are concerned. All that matters are the pictures that the lens produces and the durability of the lens, and neither of these are affected by age.

I disagree

Age matters more now than it did during the manual focus days for a few reasons:

1. Lenses are more complicated now than in the past, electronics can go bad. Adding electronics to MF lenses has helped tremendously, but introduces more problems.

2. Silent updates. We really dont know what type firmware or chips the older gear uses. Lensrentals has data that shows there are silent updates that improve lenses.

if it works good, then it works good, but age does matter, you definitely want newer for those reasons stated.

I have 2 lenses that are ~20yrs old. As long as they are kept in good condition and stored well then there shouldn't be a problem with iq

A lens that's been around and used a lot for 30 or more years may well need an internal cleaning and relubrication. That doesn't change the optics, but old lubrication can get bad and not do its job correctly.

It's not the age that matters, it's how much use it's had and how it's been treated, a gamble with all used stuff.

so lets just re-cap ..... its 10 years old so its got 10 years of wear!!!!!!
of course it makes a difference

Rolex wrote in post #17165606
so lets just re-cap ..... its 10 years old so its got 10 years of wear!!!!!!
of course it makes a difference

Except with lenses wear cannot be defined in years. A professional can put as much "wear" on a lens in one weekend as a hobbyist might in 10 years. Which is why to me condition is more important than age. Not to say a good looking lens isn't heavily used, but it is a crap shoot.

A 10 year old lens can work fine. The real question is the price. Why pay almost full price for a 10 year old lens.

I think the age of a lens is immaterial. As someone previously noted, it's how much use it gets in a certain period of time. A pro could produce as much wear and tear in 6 months as an amateur could in 10 years! My 300mm f/4L IS is coming up to its 15th birthday and anyone would be hard pressed to tell its that old unless they looked at the date code. It's still going strong and is mechanically and cosmetically perfect. If I ever sold it, it would be described as Mint condition.

If you buy a second hand lens and it's cosmetically and mechanically perfect for less than the price if a new one, you have a bargain. It doesn't matter if it's 1 or 10 years old. It all depends on how they're looked after.