Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: questionable build quality of some L lens

  1. #1

    Default questionable build quality of some L lens

    it puzzles me that some L lens have really questionable build quality:

    for example
    EF100-400/f4.5-5.6 IS USM L
    EF 28-70/2.8 USM L

    these lenses extend so precariously when zoomed. there is no feeling of " rock-solidness" unlike L lenses like eg EF70-200/f4 USM L which do not change shape and size when zoomed and you feel more comfortable using holding it.

    do u all agree? thanks hehe

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Eastern Singapore
    Posts
    694

    Default Re: questionable build quality of some L lens

    Wow... Your criteria for a lense to be considered "questionable" in build quality is interestingly absurd. In fact, I honestly do not know if I should even go on to say it's stupid.

    Just because a lens has an extending zoom barrel, you consider it so, I seriously think you need to put a bit more thought into why it is so.

    Why so? Practicality.

    Can you imagine if the 100-400L had an internal zoom system? Do you have any idea how long the damn thing would be? Same for the 24-70L. I don't think anyone would carry it around if it were a huge and bulky thing.

    And you say precarious when extended. I doubt it. I think the 100-400L fully extended does not justify the use of the word precarious. As for the 24-70L, precarious is an absurd term to be using. In fact, I wonder if you even know what the word means.

  3. #3

    Default Re: questionable build quality of some L lens

    i have seen a copy of EF 28-70/f2.8 USM L being diagnosed with the zoom alighment being off centre as a result of being zoomed in and out due to prolonged usage. because of the extending zoombarrel, the alignment became off centre due to prolonged usage. that is in my opinion (which is not humble by the way) called bad build quality since the use of the word "questionable" seems questionable

    do i have less sarcastic comments? instead of answering question with answers, you answer questions with questions? and how smart can that be. lol.

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Eastern Singapore
    Posts
    694

    Default Re: questionable build quality of some L lens

    Well... At least I'm smart enough to think for myself. You obviously appear not to even want to do some thinking on your own as to why these lense are constructed this way.

    And since you say you have seen the fate of a particular 28-70L resulting from such a design, then too bad. The make the lens that way, so all I can do is bring it back to Canon and tell them to do something about it when that happens.

  5. #5

    Default Re: questionable build quality of some L lens

    Not saying true or not... my question is... can you find any of such range with internal zoom design?

    BTW you left out 24-105 IS L.
    Gallery | Facebook Page Spreading the Good photography.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    KFC
    Posts
    1,776

    Default Re: questionable build quality of some L lens

    Quote Originally Posted by CYRN View Post
    Not saying true or not... my question is... can you find any of such range with internal zoom design?

    BTW you left out 24-105 IS L.
    Nikkor 200-400 f/4

    I believe the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L and the nikkor 80-400 are considered prosumer lower end L lenses, thus they forgo the internal zoom...and also another reason could be to make the lens lighter..

    Of course i hate zooms that extends out...they are dust suckers
    Last edited by kcuf2; 16th December 2006 at 01:25 AM.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Legion
    Posts
    7,751

    Default Re: questionable build quality of some L lens

    Quote Originally Posted by kcuf2 View Post
    Nikkor 200-400 f/4

    I believe the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L and the nikkor 80-400 are considered prosumer lower end L lenses, thus they forgo the internal zoom...and also another reason could be to make the lens lighter..

    Of course i hate zooms that extends out...they are dust suckers
    yes 2nd that... weight and size is definitely one of the main factor...

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    3,350

    Default Re: questionable build quality of some L lens

    Yes, it's nice to have an internal zoom design on some lenses. Arguably it'll be more solid and less prone to taking in dust. But as mentioned, the 100-400mm would be seriously big if it were internal zooming. In the past when I used the 70-200mm f/4 I enjoyed the fact that it doesn't extend when zoomed, but because of that the lens is quite long and takes up more storage space.

    The 100-400mm is actually a joy to use in the functional sense because of the push-pull design. There's a bunch of people who don't like it but some like myself got used to it quickly and it's very fast to use. For that, I can hardly imagine how Canon would make an internal-zooming push-pull design.

    Best thing is just to use the lenses carefully but regularly. If you don't bang it or drop it, almost any lens should last for some time. And when the time comes when the thing is obviously out of alignment (which should be many years down the track), take it in to Canon to get it serviced. For that many years of service, I don't believe the fee will be too high either.

  9. #9

    Default Re: questionable build quality of some L lens

    Quote Originally Posted by kcuf2 View Post
    Nikkor 200-400 f/4

    I believe the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L and the nikkor 80-400 are considered prosumer lower end L lenses, thus they forgo the internal zoom...and also another reason could be to make the lens lighter..

    Of course i hate zooms that extends out...they are dust suckers
    100-400 range lah like that might as well compared to Sigma's 300-800

    As you correctly put it the nearest comparison is 80-400.
    Gallery | Facebook Page Spreading the Good photography.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Singapore, East Coast, Katong.
    Posts
    387

    Default Re: questionable build quality of some L lens

    Quote Originally Posted by user111 View Post
    i have seen a copy of EF 28-70/f2.8 USM L being diagnosed with the zoom alighment being off centre as a result of being zoomed in and out due to prolonged usage. because of the extending zoombarrel, the alignment became off centre due to prolonged usage. that is in my opinion (which is not humble by the way) called bad build quality since the use of the word "questionable" seems questionable

    do i have less sarcastic comments? instead of answering question with answers, you answer questions with questions? and how smart can that be. lol.
    lol! correction! Nikon: 28-70mm f2.8 X Canon: EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM

    nit-picking, but ya.

    lol. and anyway, I don't see why this should be blown up anyway. The QC in terms of IQ for 24-70mm is worser than other Ls, like the 70-200 for example. it's soft at f2.8.

    Build quality. Hmm. It's good enough, for the 24-70mm, especially if you knock it on others' heads.


    heh. just kidding. I've abused my 24-70mm for over a year, and its still in pretty good shape. although the extended lens barrel isn't the greatest thing of the lens, I feel that i can live with it.

  11. #11
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

    Default Re: questionable build quality of some L lens

    Quote Originally Posted by XiaoMiaoWang View Post
    The QC in terms of IQ for 24-70mm is worser than other Ls, like the 70-200 for example. it's soft at f2.8.
    Are you confusing softness with shallow DOF?

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Singapore, CanonGraphers.org
    Posts
    3,157

    Default Re: questionable build quality of some L lens

    You guys also forgot the 100-300L, 28-300L, 28-80L.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Singapore, CanonGraphers.org
    Posts
    3,157

    Default Re: questionable build quality of some L lens

    Quote Originally Posted by XiaoMiaoWang View Post
    lol! correction! Nikon: 28-70mm f2.8 X Canon: EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM
    Canon does have a 28-70f2.8L

  14. #14
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

    Default Re: questionable build quality of some L lens

    Quote Originally Posted by JediForce4ever View Post
    You guys also forgot the 100-300L, 28-300L, 28-80L.
    I guess those 2 were already forgotten...... or not known to people nowadays at all...

  15. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Hougang
    Posts
    435

    Default Re: questionable build quality of some L lens

    Hello =D ...
    Regardless of build and quality of "some" L lens, if someone can give me.. I sure wan! kekeke.
    Learn Learn Learn | Flickr

  16. #16
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Singapore, East Coast, Katong.
    Posts
    387

    Default Re: questionable build quality of some L lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    Are you confusing softness with shallow DOF?
    no no.... aiya, there was a thread somewhere on CS where someone comprain that the 24-70 was soft at f2.8 leh....

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Singapore, East Coast, Katong.
    Posts
    387

    Default Re: questionable build quality of some L lens

    Quote Originally Posted by JediForce4ever View Post
    Canon does have a 28-70f2.8L
    wah. seriously ah? I dunno abt it leh?

    either too new (i totally doubt) or too old. :P

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •