« on: April 04, 2014, 04:42:10 PM »
My question is: now that they know the problem, do they also know if there is any long term effect or damage caused by the spring?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
This is the kind of adjustment to internal parts and service advice all companies that care about their customers give out to their service departments as a continual ongoing practice.
Releasing it like this, with no context, or the numbers or percentage of affected units, as Canon know very well, will just cause hysteria amongst a vocal few, many of whom won't actually own the lens, panic amongst many that do but don't have the "issue", inundation of service centers who will not replace anything just because "it made a noise once", and a host of other entirely negative outcomes.
Doing this like this is not a positive thing to do by any measure or rational. You are in a unique position to cause or limit any backlash, releasing confidential documents like this needs to be done with the greatest care, a huge amount of back story and lots of context is needed to justify disclosure of this kind of information.
But it is equally important to keep perspective and not let rumour and incorrect conclusions unduly damage the core business, after all I am sure every company has such a list of papers...
But Canon should not be charging for faulty or failing design or manufacturing issues.
I applaud Private's effort to keep this in perspective. Without knowing what the information is that CR has, it's hard to say "No." But honestly, only CR Guy knows what the information is and can decide if it is important enough to release.
Let's be realistic – if Canon has identified a tiny design flaw that impacts .0005% of one lens and then only when shooting a full moon on a cloudy night in April in odd numbered years and you post that online, then every internet forum will be lit up with people who are ABSOLUTELY SURE their lens has this problem and they'll be demanding that Canon immediately replace their five-year-old lens with a new model and provide free overnight shipping as well.
On the other hand, if there is a serious design flaw that impacts a sizable number of users and Canon is charging for repairs when they shouldn't, that's another case.
I'm just saying a certain amount of judgment should be exercised.
Yes, absolutely post the rest of the internal documents! I am particularly interested in the new Canon 24–70 II lens clicking problem.
Both GM and Toyota have got caught with their pants down because of internal documents and ignoring problems. Why should Canon get away too just because it's a camera maker?
The fundamental difference between GM and Toyota, and Canon, is that faulty cars kill people, a clicking 24-70 is annoying.
I think for piece of mind I will get the extended and then if it gives trouble they just replace it.
I agree with others that it is quite annoying that Canon doesn't seem to acknowledge this issue. One of the big problems with it, is that it doesn't do it every single time you use the lens. When you spend close to $100 to send it in to Canon, there is a good chance that the lens won't do it, while in there possession.
What the Canon technician told me was that they tried it 3 or 4 times and it didn't present with the issue, so they cleaned it and shipped it back to me. It was clicking within 4 images of me getting it back and using it...
They suggested it was the camera and told me to send that in too. I commented that it did it with my XSi, my 7D and my 5D III and my son's 5D II. Should I send all my cameras in, I asked? Yes, he said... No thanks...
The lens still does it periodically and yes, it still pisses me off! I'm going to sell it and get a new one...
There is the Tokina 16-28mm F2.8 lens which is kind of worse than the Canon 16-35mm in it's IQ, doesn't accept screw on filters. But's it's really cheap.