questionable build quality of some L lens

[user111]

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

 

[jeremyftk]

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.

 

[user111]

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.

 

[jeremyftk]

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.

 

[CYRN]

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.

 

[kcuf2]

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 :devil:

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

 

[ExplorerZ]

Nikkor 200-400 f/4 :devil:

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...

 

[fWord]

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.

 

[CYRN]

Nikkor 200-400 f/4 :devil:

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 :kok: :kok:

As you correctly put it the nearest comparison is 80-400.

 

[XiaoMiaoWang]

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.

 

[Kit]

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?

 

[JediForce4ever]

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

 

[JediForce4ever]

lol! correction! Nikon: 28-70mm f2.8 X Canon: EF 24-70mm f2.8 L USM

Canon does have a 28-70f2.8L

 

[Kit]

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...

 

[Netbaby]

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

 

[XiaoMiaoWang]

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....

 

[XiaoMiaoWang]

Canon does have a 28-70f2.8L

wah. seriously ah? I dunno abt it leh?

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