Canon tech support says..

I was talking to Canon tech support and wound up in a conversation about how only canon lenses are compatible with the EOS line of digital SLR's, that eventually error 99 will happen and ultimately damaged electronics in the camera due to using third party lenses. He say, "we don't get paid commission to tell you this...etc".

Is there any truth to this when using, for example, Tamron.

I know about the reverse engineering thing, but I can't imagine Tamron or whoever is still in existance if this is true.

Fabrian wrote in post #3143436
I was talking to Canon tech support and wound up in a conversation about how only canon lenses are compatible with the EOS line of digital SLR's, that eventually error 99 will happen and ultimately damaged electronics in the camera due to using third party lenses. He say, "we don't get paid commission to tell you this...etc".

Is there any truth to this when using, for example, Tamron.

I know about the reverse engineering thing, but I can't imagine Tamron or whoever is still in existance if this is true.

If it works now, it'll work in 10 years. There is no "eventual error 99" with any brand over another. Error 99 happens/happened with some older Sigma lenses...some of which were rechipped or at least can be, others are unrepairable and deemed null and void.

A lens isn't going to damage a camera's internals. It just can't happen. The lens doesn't have it's own power source.

The rep was feeding you a load of crap to get you to stick with OEM glass. There are many reasons to stay with Canon branded lenses, but that isn't one of them.

can you please elaborate? the implication is that third party lenses damage canon cameras?

bowlesbe wrote in post #3143448
can you please elaborate? the implication is that third party lenses damage canon cameras?

That's what I was being fed. He was acting like he sees it every day. I can't imagine the reality behind it though, especially in a hub such as this forum. Sooner or later people would put 2 and 2 together I suspect. TBH, I just really didn't need to hear it. I drive myself nuts and sometimes sick over this nonsense.

If this be the case, its truely unfortunate that he is providing you with this information. Canon doesn't need this type of misinformation being told to its following. As a happy Canon owner I can't help but shake my head in disgust when this type of rhetoric is being given to Canon owners. Think about it...if this feces had a candle of truth, there would be many "promenient and knowledgable" photography guru's all over this and exploiting it or at least investigating its authenticity. He is only one person representing Canon and hopefully people can just take it with a grain of salt.

He may refer to gold plated contacts to copper contacts. Maybe there is an internal study that finds thrid party lenses have more oxidization on the contacts than Canon.

Or he's bull$hitting you. Make the call.

cosworth wrote in post #3143549
He may refer to gold plated contacts to copper contacts. Maybe there is an internal study that finds thrid party lenses have more oxidization on the contacts than Canon.

Or he's bull$hitting you. Make the call.

Gold? are you serious?

Maybe my post is a bit unlcear. I'm sayin maybe he'll say Canon's are gold and Sigma/Tamron etc are copper, hence bull$hitting.

Or he has an internal study that finds third party lenses oxidize more, hence bull$hitting.

My humour is too dry tonight.

Well this guy I talked to was referring to some sort of damage to the electronics in the camera.

I'm sure it was BS, but you never know. That's why I started this thread, I couldn't find a related topic after searching for a few.

So, does this mean I can go back to loving my 17-50? FFS, it's the only lens I was happy with.

the contacts on the lenses are gold aren't they? it's not like gold platting something costs that much more and it's quite superior.

They are, I'm certain the thrid party ones are too.

oh alright, I was gonna say, I thought they all were, atleast on the big names.

Sorry gang hate to break it to ya but the Canon TS is correct. Sigma, Tokina, and Tamron have all made lenses that caused issue with early EOS cameras. Sigma made a long lens that had bad circuit boards (flexible) and that shorted out the AF chips in the A2e and the 1N. The list of actual damaged cameras from early Sigmas is actually quite long

Tamron made a W/A zoom that had bits of metal that broke off inside the lens mount when you zoomed too hard locking the lens on so that you could not remove it.

Several of the lesser makers also had issues with lens mounts AF connections etc when the EOS line first started. Many of you are new(er) to photography and don't really know the history of aftermarket glass for Canon. But please understand that Canon does not repair any camera damaged by an aftermarket lens if they know about it. It also voids the warrantee.

Canon does not, nor are they ever likely to share its propriatary AF system, lens mount or camera system processes with outside lens makers.

I once sold 10, 50mm f1.0 lenses to a semiconductor equipment manufacturer so that it could be incorporated into a machine they were making. They offered Canon $2.5 million for the AF system. Canon turned them down flat. Those lenses, were $7.5K each.

So perhaps the BS WAS flowing thick from the TS weenie, but you can bet if you call any of the repair locations and talk to the techs they will tell you some real horrer stories, I have seen them first hand.

Les

added; Oh and aftermerket flashes fughgitabboudit... several makers had probs with frying the hotshoe or the pc sync due to too much voltage.

bowlesbe wrote in post #3143448
can you please elaborate? the implication is that third party lenses damage canon cameras?

Someone forgot to tell my 20D that. It's been working with Sigma lenses and Kenko extention tube ever since I got it.

i had error 99 with canon ef 80-200mm 1:4.5-5.6 II lens...