 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / September 2006Canon 70-300 IS USM lens availability
I'm wanting the Canon 70-300mm IS USM EF lens for my new 30D. I have to mail order, since no one in our town sells lenses. The big New Work mail order houses like B&H and Adorama list them as back ordered, at stupefyingly low prices. Since I needed some other junk stuff for my new camera, and only Adorama had the complete list of what I wanted, I ordered one from them three weeks ago. Everything else came in. I notice that Ritz is showing them in stock. I am leery of calling any of these places and asking "is it really in" or "when is it coming" since I have gotten lies in the past. Should I expect Adorama to eventually send me the lens, or should I pay $90 more to Ritz in the hope (expectation???) that they actually have on in stock. Another month would not be a problem to switch my order ... unless of course Ritz is lying or runs out by then. What to do? Doug Mcdonald > I'm wanting the Canon 70-300mm IS USM EF lens for my new 30D. > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > What to do? Even if they really have it, it would be the old one. I'd wait for Canon to make the new one and then everywhere would have it. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr >> I'm wanting the Canon 70-300mm IS USM EF lens for my new 30D. > > Even if they really have it, it would be the old one. I'd wait for > Canon to make the new one and then everywhere would have it. > > http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr What do you mean? The lens I am talking about is a quite new one, with one ED glass element. It is f/4-5.6 . It seems to be highly regarded for a non-L lens. It is not the lens with the same description but with "DO" added, a lens not so well regarded. Doug McDonald >>> I'm wanting the Canon 70-300mm IS USM EF lens for my new 30D. >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Doug McDonald There is a problem with this lens, if the third digit of the serial number is 0 or 1. Poor resolution at the edge of the frame at the 300mm setting if the camera is held vertically. They have been recalled. I suspect that Canon stopped production / shipment of this lens when the problem was discovered, as there wasn't an immediate fix. There is a fix now, and I suspect the lens should be back on the shelves soon. (soon being a relative term) I have one of the lenses that was recalled, and sent it to Canon for the repair last week. They sent an email saying it should be a 5 to 7 day turn around. I have a 30D and love this lens, particularly the IS function. The only things I don't like about it are the rotating front lens element (makes UV filter use a challenge), and there is not enough friction (IMHO) in the zoom mechanism. (if the camera is pointed down, and the zoom lock is off, you get to take about 5 steps before the lens is at full zoom.) Neither item is a deal breaker, just something you have to get accustomed to. If I were doing it now, I'd wait for one of the new production lenses. Holley >>>> I'm wanting the Canon 70-300mm IS USM EF lens for my new 30D. > There is a problem with this lens, if the third digit of the serial number > is 0 or 1. Poor resolution at the edge of the frame at the 300mm setting if > the camera is held vertically. I see. Interesting! And that would be a big deal for me, as a substantial fraction of my telephoto shots are vertical (more than half). Doug McDonald >> There is a problem with this lens, if the third digit of the serial >> number is 0 or 1. Poor resolution at the edge of the frame at the 300mm [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > a substantial fraction of my telephoto shots are vertical > (more than half). Mine was one of the affected models. It is presently in at Canon for repair. It was a nice sharp lens when horizontal, but vertical was quite noticeably softer at 300mm and not just at the edges. The problem appeared with the IS on and off, manual and auto focus. Strange problem to occur but it was very repeatable. I used a strong tripod, mirror lockup, and remote release and still the pictures speak for themselves that something is wrong with the lens when you turn the image to portrait mode. I hope that when I get the lens back that it will be good in both orientations. Other people have been pleased with the repair and apparently the zoom creep issue was addressed as well. >>> There is a problem with this lens, > I hope that when I get the lens back that it will be good in both > orientations. Other people have been pleased with the repair and apparently > the zoom creep issue was addressed as well. Well. It looks like this lens is a winner, if fixed. I shall simply wait for a shipment to arrive at the company I ordered it from. I hope this is before Christmas. I'm glad I asked. Doug McDonald >>> There is a problem with this lens, if the third digit of the serial >>> number is 0 or 1. Poor resolution at the edge of the frame at the 300mm [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >orientations. Other people have been pleased with the repair and apparently >the zoom creep issue was addressed as well. I had mine done about a month ago. You essentially get a new lens back. All the internals are replaced. The lens is tightened up so it does not extend on its own, too! Excellent lens. I use mine on a 5D  SignatureScott in Florida >There is a problem with this lens, if the third digit of the serial number >is 0 or 1. Poor resolution at the edge of the frame at the 300mm setting if >the camera is held vertically. They have been recalled. Thanks for the info. it certainly explains the intermittent problems I have been have with my lens, 1st with on my 300D & then later on my 30D. It's a great overall lens especially because of it's reasonable cost relative to it's performance. I remember when the problem was 1st discovered but got busy & forgot all about it until your post. >I suspect that Canon stopped production / shipment of this lens when >the problem was discovered, as there wasn't an immediate fix. There [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >repair last week. They sent an email saying it should be a 5 to 7 day turn >around. Not too concerned with the turn around time but I just hope they do a good job properly correcting the problem & don't introduce a new 1 in the process. >I have a 30D and love this lens, particularly the IS function. The only >things I don't like about it are the rotating front lens element (makes UV >filter use a challenge), I think you meant to type "PL filter" & I completely agree but I think this was a necessary tradeoff they had to make in order to keep the price & size down. >and there is not enough friction (IMHO) in the zoom mechanism. Here too was are in agreement but as I recall this lens also does not employ a ring type USM drive which is why it does not have "full-time Manual Focus (FT-M)". So too much friction would might slow it's focusing speed down &/or require a larger USM motor & more power to drive it. >(if the camera is pointed down, and the zoom lock is off, you get >to take about 5 steps before the lens is at full zoom.) Neither item is a >deal breaker, just something you have to get accustomed to. Thankfully they added the retracted position lock, now if I could just *always* remember to switch it off before I attempt to adjust the zoom! >If I were doing it now, I'd wait for one of the new production lenses. > >Holley Thanks again for the information. At the moment I am hoping Santa (me) will buy me a EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. This would be my 1st piece of "L" glass. Up till now I could not justify the "L" glass but am now giving it serious consideration for use @ selected special events where top optical quality may prove worth the investment. Do you have any thoughts on this lens? Yes I know it's not available yet but I am talking figuratively & most of my use of it would likely be for candid photography of people, weddings, sporting events & the like. The only thing I don't like is that it duplicates the 1st 1/2+ of the zoom range of my 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. However if I understand it correctly, it's a "constant f4" across the entire zoom range & has a "non-rotating" front element, thus no more PL filter difficulties. Thanks in advance for any/all constructive opinions. Respectfully, DHB "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 <snip> >Not too concerned with the turn around time but I just hope > they do a good job properly correcting the problem & don't introduce a > new 1 in the process. Well, if Fedex comes through on time, I should be able to provide information on that tomorrow, as I just got an email with a tracking number. The *We got it* message came in Monday, so that's a two day in house turnaround. I was surprised to see they will need a signature to deliver. <snip> > I think you meant to type "PL filter" & I completely agree but > I think this was a necessary tradeoff they had to make in order to > keep the price & size down. Yup. <snip> > Thankfully they added the retracted position lock, now if I > could just *always* remember to switch it off before I attempt to > adjust the zoom! Glad to see I'm not the only one in that situation. <snip> > Thanks again for the information. At the moment I am hoping > Santa (me) will buy me a EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. This would be my > 1st piece of "L" glass. Up till now I could not justify the "L" glass > but am now giving it serious consideration for use @ selected special > events where top optical quality may prove worth the investment. My hobiest budget doesn't let me play in the L glass league. I would have liked to have seen an aperture in the f2.8 neighborhood, but it would have been quite a bit heaver, both physically and monitarily. I mostly shoot wildlife, which is why I would want a faster lens. > Do you have any thoughts on this lens? Yes I know it's not > available yet but I am talking figuratively & most of my use of it [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable > to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 Holley ><snip> >>Not too concerned with the turn around time but I just hope [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >The *We got it* message came in Monday, so that's a two day in house >turnaround. I was surprised to see they will need a signature to deliver. <snip> >Holley Holley, Thanks I will be looking forward to what I hope is good news that Canon did in fact correct the original problem & that your lens is working fine @ 100%. Incidentally I just got off the phone with Canon Customer Service in VA, USA & they will be calling me back in 1-2 days to give me return information because they need to keep their repair facility from turning into a warehouse of backlogged lens that need work. I can understand that & can continue to use the lens for certain things until then. Like I said, I just want if fixed properly, the *1st* & hopefully the only time! Respectfully, DHB "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > <snip> >>Not too concerned with the turn around time but I just hope [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > Holley The lens came back this morning, and it seems to have been completely rebuilt. From an appearance standpoint it looks like it did when I bought it. The service details section of the work order says they replaced inner lens unit. The IS motor seems quieter than I remember. The zoom adjustment also seems to have been tightened up. It still creeps a bit if I walk around with the zoom lock off, but it's better than it was. It probably wouldn't creep if the UV filter and the ET-65B lens hood were removed. I'll be shooting this weekend and will advise if anything operational has changed. Overall I'm very satisfied with the repair. <Cut> >> Well, if Fedex comes through on time, I should be able to provide >> information on that tomorrow, as I just got an email with a tracking >> number. The *We got it* message came in Monday, so that's a two day in >> house turnaround. I was surprised to see they will need a signature to >> deliver. <SNIP> >The lens came back this morning, and it seems to have been completely >rebuilt. From an appearance standpoint it looks like it did when I bought [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Overall I'm very satisfied with the repair. Holley, Thank you for posting your information regarding the repair to your lens & I hope & trust that it's performance will be as impressive as the speedy service turnaround you received. Canon E-mailed me a pre-paid UPS return shipping label yesterday so I can send mine in for repair. Unfortunately I was unable to send it out yesterday but should have the time to do so today & I too will post my post repair information. It certainly seems to me that Canon is standing behind their lenses & doing everything they can to quickly & effectively rectify an initial production or design problem. Thanks again for keeping us in the loop. Respectfully, DHB "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 <snip> > I'll be shooting this weekend and will advise if anything operational has > changed. The repair procedure appears to have changed the operation of the lens for the better. It seems to focus faster, and it doesn't seem like it hunts as much when focusing. The noise level of the IS mechanism is definitely lower. I would recommend getting the lens repaired, whether or not you are currently having problems. Holley Of course this could also be a figment of my imagination. :-) ><snip> >> I'll be shooting this weekend and will advise if anything operational has [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Of course this could also be a figment of my imagination. :-) Not to mention that the lens does not extend on its own when pointed down. Well worth the 'update' IMHO... SignatureScott in Florida > My hobiest budget doesn't let me play in the L glass league. I would have > liked to have seen an aperture in the f2.8 neighborhood, but it would have > been quite a bit heaver, both physically and monitarily. I mostly shoot > wildlife, which is why I would want a faster lens. 200/2.8 is about the same price as 70-300/4-5.6 IS, although it is an L. Of course it does not have IS, so you'd better use a monopod. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > Thanks again for the information. At the moment I am hoping > Santa (me) will buy me a EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. This would be my [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > events & the like. The only thing I don't like is that it duplicates > the 1st 1/2+ of the zoom range of my 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. I'd consider 70-200/2.8 IS instead. The constant f/4 is not brighter at the short end, and only about 1/2 stop brighter at the long end, than the variable 70-300/4-5.6 IS. The brighter f/2.8 would be much more useful. BTW, the short end at 70mm is not short enough, especially on 1.6x. I'd prefer a short tele zoom, e.g., 45-135, and add another longer tele lens. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr > I'd consider 70-200/2.8 IS instead. The constant f/4 is not brighter at > the short end, and only about 1/2 stop brighter at the long end, than [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > prefer a short tele zoom, e.g., 45-135, and add another longer tele > lens. I'm the OP about the 70-300 IS. I do notice that having the 18-55 and 70-300 leaves a gap of about 25%. This is unfortunate. However, since the 18-55 lens is a cheapie non-IS, I would consider later getting a better IS type lens that goes across the gap. In the meantime, one can always crop the 55 a bit, though it is not exactly the world's sharpest lens, and the number of pixels on the 30D leaves only marginal crop room too. Doug McDonald > > I'd consider 70-200/2.8 IS instead. The constant f/4 is not brighter at > > the short end, and only about 1/2 stop brighter at the long end, than [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I would consider later getting a better IS type lens > that goes across the gap. It's not only the gap. E.g., there is no gap between 24-70 and 70-200, but I would switch frequently between these two lenses. A lens overlapping the middle range, 45-135, would be very useful. Right now, between your 18-55 and 70-300, a good middle lens is 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS, but a 45-135 without retrofocus would be better and/or cheaper. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr >> > I'd consider 70-200/2.8 IS instead. The constant f/4 is not brighter at >> > the short end, and only about 1/2 stop brighter at the long end, than [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> I would consider later getting a better IS type lens >> that goes across the gap. >It's not only the gap. E.g., there is no gap between 24-70 and 70-200, >but I would switch frequently between these two lenses. A lens >overlapping the middle range, 45-135, would be very useful. >Right now, between your 18-55 and 70-300, a good middle lens is >28-135/3.5-5.6 IS, but a 45-135 without retrofocus would be better >and/or cheaper. I want a 24-85mm f/4 from Canon. 70 is too short for me as an everyday lens. And 45 is too long. Unless of course I had a full-frame body which I don't... ---- Paul J. Gans > >> > I'd consider 70-200/2.8 IS instead. The constant f/4 is not brighter at > >> > the short end, and only about 1/2 stop brighter at the long end, than [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > I want a 24-85mm f/4 from Canon. Do you mean f/2.8? > 70 is too short for me as > an everyday lens. And 45 is too long. Unless of course I > had a full-frame body which I don't... For EF-S, I want a 28-85 without retrofocus. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr >> >> > I'd consider 70-200/2.8 IS instead. The constant f/4 is not brighter at >> >> > the short end, and only about 1/2 stop brighter at the long end, than [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >> >> I want a 24-85mm f/4 from Canon. >Do you mean f/2.8? Depends on the weight. I'm not as young as I was yesterday and carrying a few pounds of camera and lens gets a bit wearing after an hour or two. >> 70 is too short for me as >> an everyday lens. And 45 is too long. Unless of course I >> had a full-frame body which I don't... >For EF-S, I want a 28-85 without retrofocus. Yes. I'm thinking about one day getting a 5D full frame and so I'm a bit leery about S lenses, though I own two -- one is the kit lens, the other is my Tokina 12-24mm f/4, a lens I love. ---- Paul J. Gans > >> >> > I'd consider 70-200/2.8 IS instead. The constant f/4 is not brighter at > >> >> > the short end, and only about 1/2 stop brighter at the long end, than [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > yesterday and carrying a few pounds of camera and > lens gets a bit wearing after an hour or two. There is a 24-105/4 IS. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr I am the OP of this thread. As you may remember (threads drift, you know) I ordered the Canon 70-300 IS USM lens, and it was backordered. Well, today I get notice that it has shipped. But an interesting question: why would the first shipment of this order go by U mail and this one by UPS? From the same company, of course. Doug McDonald >I am the OP of this thread. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Doug McDonald Glad the lens is finally on it's way. You're going to love it! I'm supposing that you mean the first part was to be sent by US mail (the post office). I can't think of reason a for the change, unless the first part of your shipment did't need a signature. Maybe it's Adorama's way of apologizing for the delay. As a point of interest, let us know what the third of the lens serial number are, if you don't mind Holley > Glad the lens is finally on it's way. You're going to love it! > > As a point of interest, let us know what the third of the lens serial number > are, if you don't mind I has arrived. It's a three. I have just started playing with the lens. Doug McDonald >I'm the OP about the 70-300 IS. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Doug McDonald Doug McDonald, I initially purchased my 300D with the same 18-55mm (28.8-88) kit lens followed shortly thereafter with the purchase of a Canon EF 55-200mm (88-320) f/4.5-5.6 II USM & an EF 50mm (80) f/1.8 Mk11 for low light use. The EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM was within my budget @ the time & I suspect that I got a very good copy of it because I was quite pleased with it's overall performance including sharpness. Then later on I purchased a Canon EF 100mm (160) f/2 USM lens & soon learned just how sharp a lens could be when I used it to take a picture of a squirrel in my yard & could clearly make out the convex reflection of my white house in the reflection of it's eye. I was & remain impressed with this lens & still favor it when what I am photographing does not need a zoom lens & @ f2, it's quite fast! Some time later I purchased my 1st "IS" lens, the Canon EF 28-135mm (44.8-216) f/3.5-5.6 IS USM which soon became my favorite walk-about lens. However it was a bit too long for indoor group shots unless it was a big enough room, so I purchased the Canon EF-S 17-85MM (27.2-136) f4-5.6 IS USM soon after it was introduced. Although this lens dose have a considerable amount of barrel distortion @ 17mm (27.2), it was rarely ever a problem for me because I usually photograph people & not buildings with strait lines where such distortion can become noticeable. There are several programs available that can easily correct this distortion in Post Production. In short, eventually the Canon EF-S 17-85MM (27.2-136) f4-5.6 IS USM & the EF 70-300mm (112-480) f/4-5.6 IS USM became my 2 favorite lenses for most of my photography & together they give me a total effective equivalent of (27.2-480mm) with very little overlap. I'm certain that there are sharper, faster & better lenses than either of these 2 but I have to remain within my budget for now. These meet my needs 95% of the time for what I want to do with them. Best of luck in your future selection of a replacement for the 18-55mm kit lens. I am quite pleased with my EF-S 17-85MM (27.2-136) f4-5.6 IS USM lens for my needs but depending upon what your needs are, you my want/need something better. Note to Holley: I dropped off my EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens to UPS late this afternoon, so now the wait for it's return begins. Respectfully, DHB "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >> Thanks again for the information. At the moment I am hoping >> Santa (me) will buy me a EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. This would be my [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> events & the like. The only thing I don't like is that it duplicates >> the 1st 1/2+ of the zoom range of my 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM. >I'd consider 70-200/2.8 IS instead. The constant f/4 is not brighter at >the short end, and only about 1/2 stop brighter at the long end, than >the variable 70-300/4-5.6 IS. The brighter f/2.8 would be much more >useful. >BTW, the short end at 70mm is not short enough, especially on 1.6x. I'd >prefer a short tele zoom, e.g., 45-135, and add another longer tele >lens. I have the 70-200/2.8 IS. The main problem is that it is *HEAVY*. Carry it around for a couple of hours and you will know it in your bones. It is, however, a superb lens. The f/4 IS (which is, I think, not out yet) should be significantly lighter. If a person does mostly daytime outdoor photography I see no reason why the f/4 should not be amply wide. And it should also be a superb lens. ----- Paul J. Gans > >> Thanks again for the information. At the moment I am hoping > >> Santa (me) will buy me a EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. This would be my [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > The f/4 IS (which is, I think, not out yet) should > be significantly lighter. I understand. I think the f/4 lens is for people who want to save weight, but not necessarily those who want to save money. > If a person does mostly > daytime outdoor photography I see no reason why the > f/4 should not be amply wide. DoF, and the limit to outdoor daylight may be too restrictive. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr >> >> Thanks again for the information. At the moment I am hoping >> >> Santa (me) will buy me a EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM. This would be my [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> The f/4 IS (which is, I think, not out yet) should >> be significantly lighter. >I understand. I think the f/4 lens is for people who want to save >weight, but not necessarily those who want to save money. Yes, though the f/4 ought to be a good bit cheaper than the f/2.8. >> If a person does mostly >> daytime outdoor photography I see no reason why the >> f/4 should not be amply wide. >DoF, and the limit to outdoor daylight may be too restrictive. Yes. In the end it all depends on the intended use and the photographer. Only *you* can make the final decision. ---- Paul J. Gans >> I'm wanting the Canon 70-300mm IS USM EF lens for my new 30D. ----Cut----------- >Even if they really have it, it would be the old one. I'd wait for >Canon to make the new one and then everywhere would have it. How do you get that idea, Canon recalled all the lenses with the fault. SignatureIan G8ILZ >>> I'm wanting the Canon 70-300mm IS USM EF lens for my new 30D. > ----Cut----------- >>Even if they really have it, it would be the old one. I'd wait for >>Canon to make the new one and then everywhere would have it. > > How do you get that idea, Canon recalled all the lenses with the fault. Go here. http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=SupportDetailAct&fcategoryid=21 6&modelid=11922 Look under service notices. Holley >>>> I'm wanting the Canon 70-300mm IS USM EF lens for my new 30D. >> ----Cut----------- [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Holley Yes, I have seen that notice to customers, can you show a notice to retailers telling them not to return the suspect lenses? You will find that Canon recalled them and that there are none of the suspect lenses on sale with their agents. SignatureIan G8ILZ >>> In article <1158102835.707424.26960@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, >>> AaronW [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > that Canon recalled them and that there are none of the suspect lenses on > sale with their agents. No, I can't document that Canon issued a stop selling and return for repair order to retailers. A recall of unsold product would be something between Canon and it's distributors / retailers, that the public wouldn't need to know. I suspect they halted production after the problem was encountered, and this caused the supply to dry up. Now that a fix has been found, I would expect the lens to be back on the shelves soon. Holley <CUT> >No, I can't document that Canon issued a stop selling and return for repair >order to retailers. A recall of unsold product would be something between [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Holley Holley, Canon just acknowledged receiving my lens @ their Factory Service Center in Jamesburg , NJ & have informed me that about a week will be required for the repair. This is fine by me because I only care that's it's done correctly the 1st time around, the time it takes is much less important. With that said, was this the same facility that repaired your EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens or did yours go to another Factory Service Center? Thanks again & I will post again on this thread when I get my lens back & have a chance to take some quick evaluative shots with it to seem if the problems I was having with it have been 100% corrected. Thus far I am very pleased with Canon's quick & professional service response. Hopefully I will be even more pleased after I get my lens back from them. Respectfully, DHB "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 > <CUT> >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable > to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 Yes, Jamesburg NJ is where I sent mine. I think that's the only facality that does this repair. >> <CUT> > >Yes, Jamesburg NJ is where I sent mine. I think that's the only facality >that does this repair. Holley, Scott & others, UPS tracking indicated that my lens was delivered to Canon's Factory Service Center on 9-18-2006. Canon E-mailed me the following day (9-19-2006) indicating that they received it & just now E-mailed me again (9-21-2006) stating that it's been repaired & was shipped back to me on (9-20-2006). So depending on how you view all of this it's a 1 or 2 day turnaround time. Either way that's an impressively fast turnaround time. It would seem as others have suggested that this repair may be equivalent to the service center replacing the interior of the lens as some type of a complete assembly (95+ % of the lens). This would make it faster for them to complete an extensive repair so quickly. No matter how they have done it, it certainly illustrates to me that Canon is handling this issue about as good as anybody could reasonably hope or expect. Now all that remains to be seen is if I am as pleased with the actual repair as I am with their turnaround time. From what others have stated who had the repair done, I fully expect I too will be very pleased with the repair. Also as requested, I will share my results just as soon al I receive it back & have a chance to test out the lens & confirm that the original difficulties I had with it have in fact been corrected. Hope this information is of value to others. It comforting to see that some companies still seem to understand the value of *Customer Service*, both for the customer & for themselves. Respectfully, DHB "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 ><CUT> >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens or did yours go to another Factory >Service Center? My 70-300 was repaired at the Jameburg NJ facility. They did an excellent job. I marked the main barrel of the lens, just for my own interest. They replaced all the inside pieces. It is an excellent lens, now. As an aside, the mechanism has been tightened up so it does not extend on its own when pointed down. Let us know how your repair goes. > Thanks again & I will post again on this thread when I get my >lens back & have a chance to take some quick evaluative shots with it [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable >to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 SignatureScott in Florida >><CUT> >>> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] >>is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable >>to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 My 70-300 will be picked up by UPS on Monday on its way to Jamesburg, N.J. Rick at Canon said it'd be repaired in 2 days. He told me he wanted to remind me that the Manual Focus will be a bit stiffer than previously. He said some had complained about it. Jack Mac >>><CUT> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >about it. >Jack Mac ROFL..... You just can't please everyone all the time. That stiffness makes the lens not extend on its own. I can turn my 'stiff' lens just fine... SignatureScott in Florida <CUT> >My 70-300 was repaired at the Jameburg NJ facility. They did an >excellent job. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Let us know how your repair goes. Scott, Holley & Others, Fedex delivered my EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens back from Canon's NJ Factory Service Center @ about 6:45PM today. Bit too dark to test it outside but I expect to do so this weekend. According to the paperwork, the Canon Service Center "Replaced inner lens unit". This likely is a big reason for the very quick turnaround time. Initial inspection & a few quick *indoor* test shots with a 420EX flash seem to be consistent with the other results posted here. 1> Zoom is defiantly tighter, an added bonus IMHO. 2> No evidence of any image quality problems in either portrait or landscape modes. Thus far it appears 100% fixed. 3> Unlike others, my IS motors sound the same to me. The IS seems to be working very well but as before they are not nearly as smooth sounding as either my EF-S 17-85MM f/4-5.6 IS USM or EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM. Not what I would consider noisy, but it does sound like there is a bit more of a grumble to it compared to my other 2 IS lenses. This may just be because the motors/gyros may be a bit larger or run @ a higher RPM. This is not a complaint, just a comparative observation. I'll post here 1 last time after I get a chance to test it out further, outside next time. 300mm on 1.6x cropped DSLRs (effective 480mm) is way too long for indoor shots in my modest sized home. So far so good however. Respectfully, DHB "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >My 70-300 was repaired at the Jameburg NJ facility. They did an >excellent job. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Let us know how your repair goes. To Holley, Scott & Others, Took 1 of my niece's to her J.V. Soccer game today & took along my 300D DSLR & newly repaired Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens. It preformed very well even in portrait mode where it was most problematic prior to the repair. Now it does just fine & in both landscape & portrait mode, though from where I was seated very few of my shot actually "needed" 300mm. Since 300mm, @ f5.6 seemed to be the best setting to evaluate lens performance, took several there. Bottom line: Canon repaired my lens @ no cost to me including shipping & thus far it appears to have been quickly & correctly repaired. Additionally the zoom control is now tighter, a definite plus IMHO. Respectfully, DHB "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918 >I'm wanting the Canon 70-300mm IS USM EF lens for my new 30D. >I have to mail order, since no one in our town sells lenses. >The big New Work mail order houses like B&H and Adorama >list them as back ordered, at stupefyingly low prices. >Since I needed some other junk stuff for my new camera, and >only Adorama had the complete list of what I wanted, I >ordered one from them three weeks ago. Everything else came in. >I notice that Ritz is showing them in stock. I am leery of >calling any of these places and asking "is it really in" or >"when is it coming" since I have gotten lies in the past. >Should I expect Adorama to eventually send me the lens, or >should I pay $90 more to Ritz in the hope (expectation???) >that they actually have on in stock. Another month would not >be a problem to switch my order ... unless of course Ritz is >lying or runs out by then. >What to do? Wait for Adorama. You run far less risk of serious upset and disappointment. ---- Paul J. Gans |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.