New or Refurbished Lens?

[johnb]

It sounds as if arrangements in the States are very different from arrangements in the UK. Here a company called Digital River (based, I believe, in the Netherlands) sells on behalf of Canon via eBay. I've bought lots of things from them over the years, two cameras, three printers, and, more relevant to the OP, a 100mm 2.8L IS macro. They never offer a full range of Canon equipment. Items vary and the selection seems arbitrary, though items that are nearing their 'sell-buy' date, like the 5D Mark 2 and the 7D have appeared in quantities at very much reduced prices over the past few months (5D Mk 2 body only £999 at one point, 7D body only £699 when it's on).

Until recently everything was sold on an auction basis. They now seem to have gone over largely to 'buy it now' sales. Everything I bought came in original Canon packaging, not marked 'refurbished' and carried a one year UK Canon guarantee, which is the same cover as you get in the UK if you buy new. Everything that I have bought has been completely unmarked and has functioned perfectly. The 100mm came in all the original packaging, no 'refurbished' marking, appeared to be brand new, had lens & body caps, lens hood and pouch. I bought it about three months after that lens was released and paid more than £150 less than the cheapest available elsewhere, including on the net, at that time. I would be only too happy to buy another lens from them, though they don't seem at present to be offering as many as they once did.

Googling Canon eBay store will get you through to it. And, no, I don't work for Canon or their eBay store!

 

[Dylan777]

All refurbished items get checked over by the manufacturer by hand, inspected very thoroughly, diagnosed, and calibrated by experienced technicians, and could therefore turn out to be more dependable than a new item - which will only have been checked by a process of systematic quality control protocol i.e. by random sampling as it comes off the conveyor belt.

I'm with MFG team for 11yrs and now 3yrs in R&D. NO - refur items DO NOT get special treatment.

1. Most big companies would just replace defective part(s) or entile PCB inside the lens. They don't want a tech to spend too much time in trouble shooting(time = $$$, replace defective part(s) is cheaper)

2. Once the defective part(s) is replaced, the lens will be tested under "Functional Level Test", NOT same level as manufacture test(much less).

Most of these steps are done by one tech. NO Q.A involved. All data get recorded under company system for their record: failures, part(s) replaced & repaired, and test values. Logistic team will take over once the lens is repaired.

You said "which will only have been checked by a process of systematic quality control protocol i.e. by random sampling as it comes off the conveyor belt" 100% NOT TRUE in manufacture. I think you prefer to SQL Inspection. SQL is applied ONLY if Canon has 3rd party(sub-contract manufacture) build their gear from start(WP) to finish good(FG). I DO NOT believe Canon has CM(s) build their high-end DSLR products.

Bottom line is: DO NOT expect more when you pay less.

 

[JPAZ]

"I'm with MFG team for 11yrs and now 3yrs in R&D. NO - refur items DO NOT get special treatment.".......


So, Dylan777, does that mean, in your opinion, that refurbs are not a great idea? It makes inherent sense that you don't pay less and get more. But is the "less" simply a shorter warranty or is the "less" a lessor product? In other words( assuming that whatever quality control process is used when a lens is manufactured and sold as new) would you expect a refurb to be better, same, or worse than a new product in terms of performance and reliability?

 

[Dylan777]

"I'm with MFG team for 11yrs and now 3yrs in R&D. NO - refur items DO NOT get special treatment.".......


So, Dylan777, does that mean, in your opinion, that refurbs are not a great idea? It makes inherent sense that you don't pay less and get more. But is the "less" simply a shorter warranty or is the "less" a lessor product? In other words( assuming that whatever quality control process is used when a lens is manufactured and sold as new) would you expect a refurb to be better, same, or worse than a new product in terms of performance and reliability?

In my opinion, refurs are never better than new or same as new.

Why?
1. Let say you buy a brand new 24-70 f2.8 II lens.
2. 3days later, the lens goes bad, exp. AF is stop working due to bad components on PCB(digital SMT parts)
3. You bring your lens back to authourized seller(exp. B&H) and demand for new lens.
4. B&H gives you new lens and returns defected lens to nearest Canon service center(not Canon manufacture in Japan)
5. Canon Tech. reads failure notes or defect codes, in this case AF is stop working
6. The Tech. now knows he needs new PCB to fix AF issue. New PCB is now requested based on RMA #.

This is where we can draw the line btw refur and new.
7. In order for the tech to get to PCB, he needs to remove many hardware, sub-components, cables, O-rings, gaskets, glasses etc....

8. The tech. will use Canon assembly or repair instruction to do the tasks above

NOTE: Let me ask you this question. To have the PCB replaced, would you prefer to have a assembler, who works for Canon in Japan Lens factory, been building this lens everydays? OR do you prefer this Canon USA Tech who got trained onine or through 100 pages of repair instruction provided by Canon R&D group in Japan(never touch the lens before)? For me, I'll take assembler in Japan factory to replace the PCB over the USA tech in service center.

9. Once PCB is replaced, the tech will put the lens to AF "Functional Test Level" to confirm the original issue is no longer there. If the lens passed Canon AF spec test, then it goes to refur stock ready for sale. Keep in mind, Canon just added more labor hrs, parts, box, and transportation fees to this lens and it will be sold for less than original.

Do you think this lens now is good as new? My quick answer is NO. Why? how do I know that lens is completely sealed when the original gasket already been compressed, removed and reused by the USA Tech? There are much more to it......

 

[pgsdeepak]

Thanks Dylan777 for the insight. I got a 70-300MM L last week, refurbished. It was cheaper by USD 250. Do you think it is worth the money getting the refurb?
Cosmetically, the lens look clean and just like a new one. I took some pictures with, initially I was not really happy, but as I got used to it over the past 2-3 days, the results started getting better. Right now I only have a EOS 40D to play with. I assume, it will be even better on a 5D MIII.
Below is my flickr link for some of the sample photos.
Can someone check and let me know your opinion on whether the lens is a keeper? I did not have a lot of experiences with Canon L lenses until very recently, so not very sure if the lens I got is good enough (to my eyes the pictures are great now. As I get used to it, not sure if my impression will change). If there is any problem, I still have a week to return the lens. So trying everything to make sure the lens it good

http://www.flickr.com/photos/98679084@N00/sets/72157633193265030/

 

[kennephoto]

Refurb doesn't even mean that the item was previously damaged or not functioning properly. Refurb is still just a loose term theres no concrete definition unless the seller states a reason for refurb. I buy refurb electronics all the time and have no issues. I haven't bought a refurb lens yet because canon always runs out on the ones I'd want. Why not save money if you can, heck used is good too if you check it out. I always check lensrentals.com for used stuff because every time I rent from them it's clean and always a sharp lens.

 

[Dylan777]

Thanks Dylan777 for the insight. I got a 70-300MM L last week, refurbished. It was cheaper by USD 250. Do you think it is worth the money getting the refurb?
Cosmetically, the lens look clean and just like a new one. I took some pictures with, initially I was not really happy, but as I got used to it over the past 2-3 days, the results started getting better. Right now I only have a EOS 40D to play with. I assume, it will be even better on a 5D MIII.
Below is my flickr link for some of the sample photos.
Can someone check and let me know your opinion on whether the lens is a keeper? I did not have a lot of experiences with Canon L lenses until very recently, so not very sure if the lens I got is good enough (to my eyes the pictures are great now. As I get used to it, not sure if my impression will change). If there is any problem, I still have a week to return the lens. So trying everything to make sure the lens it good

http://www.flickr.com/photos/98679084@N00/sets/72157633193265030/

I simply don't buy refurs at all. I usually wait x-mas time when Canon & auth. sellers both offer rebates on new lenses.($300 - $400 in saving)

AGAIN...that just me. I can't speak for everone else. Others willing to pay $3-$4 thousand in gear from unauthourized dealers(Ebay Sellers) as long they save $300-$500. Some purchases came with missing accessories etc.... :-\

Are you happy with the saving and how the lens performs?

 

[kennephoto]

If you wanna buy new, used, or refurb just do some homework and you can save money either way.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

All refurbished items get checked over by the manufacturer by hand, inspected very thoroughly, diagnosed, and calibrated by experienced technicians, and could therefore turn out to be more dependable than a new item - which will only have been checked by a process of systematic quality control protocol i.e. by random sampling as it comes off the conveyor belt.

I'm with MFG team for 11yrs and now 3yrs in R&D. NO - refur items DO NOT get special treatment.

1. Most big companies would just replace defective part(s) or entile PCB inside the lens. They don't want a tech to spend too much time in trouble shooting(time = $$$, replace defective part(s) is cheaper)

2. Once the defective part(s) is replaced, the lens will be tested under "Functional Level Test", NOT same level as manufacture test(much less).

Most of these steps are done by one tech. NO Q.A involved. All data get recorded under company system for their record: failures, part(s) replaced & repaired, and test values. Logistic team will take over once the lens is repaired.

You said "which will only have been checked by a process of systematic quality control protocol i.e. by random sampling as it comes off the conveyor belt" 100% NOT TRUE in manufacture. I think you prefer to SQL Inspection. SQL is applied ONLY if Canon has 3rd party(sub-contract manufacture) build their gear from start(WP) to finish good(FG). I DO NOT believe Canon has CM(s) build their high-end DSLR products.

Bottom line is: DO NOT expect more when you pay less.

I am with an offshore & onshore drilling rig and other related equipment provider ... as a part of my job I have to conduct internal audits for the refurbished items our company provides, (offering discounted prices worth a few hundred dollars to several hundred thousand dollars). Every refurbished item we sell gets thoroughly checked both by our technicians, engineers & quality control team. I believe Canon & Nikon do something similar, if not same. Also my above post is actually a statement clearly displayed by Adorama on their website ... I have also bought refurbished items, all of which worked and continue to work without fail ... whereas several brand new items I had in the past conked off or developed problems but never with a refurbished item ... so from my experience I have reason to believe Adorama and I whole heartedly endorse refurbished items, especially Canon or Nikon refurbs.

 

[pgsdeepak]

The lens came good. From outside, it looks just as new. I took some Zoo photos and I really liked the result. Initially I was finding it hard to justify replacing my 70-300 Non L with the L (I still have the non-L, trying to sell). But after spending some quality time with the lens, I got my justification. The lens is very sharp, period.

Here are some pictures. PLease share your opinion.

More pics at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/98679084@N00/sets/72157633193265030/

 

[Rienzphotoz]

The lens came good. From outside, it looks just as new. I took some Zoo photos and I really liked the result. Initially I was finding it hard to justify replacing my 70-300 Non L with the L (I still have the non-L, trying to sell). But after spending some quality time with the lens, I got my justification. The lens is very sharp, period.

Here are some pictures. PLease share your opinion.

More pics at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/98679084@N00/sets/72157633193265030/

The image of the Lion is AWESOME ... very well composed.
The composition of the birds is not so happening ... of course I say that without a clue of what challenges you might've had to face while making those images. Cheers

 

[JPAZ]

So, does anyone out there actually know exactly what occurs at Canon when they sell a "refurbished" lens? I have seen some very informative statements on this thread. I am not in a manufacturing business but wonder......

If a new product is returned for any reason, a business could a) throw it away or b) sell it as new or c) fix what's wrong and clean it up and sell it as a refurb. Choice 'a' makes no sense because your company will lose the entire cost of the product (actually not the entire cost depending on you nation's tax rules). Choice 'b' is a bad choice because it only takes a small number of defective products sold as new to affect reputation / market share (look at the less than stellar reputation some Tamron or Sigma lenses have gotten) and may damage your company in the long run. So choice 'c' makes the most business sense, in my opinion. Your company may not make any profit on the refurbished sale, but will lose less than simply discarding a returned lens or selling something that has an issue. And, a quality refurb can enhance your reputation and may push consumers to purchase new products as well. Obviously, if a number of new lenses get returned, your company will also investigate both the design and manufacturing processes to decrease the number of returns.

Am I missing something? Nothing is without risk. New lenses occasionally have defects. BTW, if you return your new lens for warranty repairs, then don't you get the same sort of product as a refurb anyway?

Just askin........

 

[Dylan777]

The lens came good. From outside, it looks just as new. I took some Zoo photos and I really liked the result. Initially I was finding it hard to justify replacing my 70-300 Non L with the L (I still have the non-L, trying to sell). But after spending some quality time with the lens, I got my justification. The lens is very sharp, period.

Here are some pictures. PLease share your opinion.

More pics at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/98679084@N00/sets/72157633193265030/

Too me. These pictures look good - SHARP.