Oh my sainted au--dropped and broke my new 70-200mm VRII

[dfoo]

I dropped my ex-5d in a small rock pool next to the ocean with a 17-40mm L lens lens attached. That was back when the 5d was quite new and still cost > $2k USD. The camera was completely wrecked, but luckily the lens was fine. Ouch!

 

[user237428934]

This camera lens combination is solidly built, unlike the flimsy plasticky feeling AF lenses made by Canon, Nikon and just about everyone else these days.

If I could have only one, superior optical quality or superior build quality then I choose the optical quality of a lens. And now please don't argue that your old zoom lens has an image quality comparable to the modern high end zoom lenses.

 

[dtcls100]

If I could have only one, superior optical quality or superior build quality then I choose the optical quality of a lens. And now please don't argue that your old zoom lens has an image quality comparable to the modern high end zoom lenses.

Actually, if you look into it (including test reports like Popular Photography), the Zuiko 35-80mm f2.8 zoom (which was the last OM Zuiko lens introduced in 1995) has the image quality to match or better pretty much any zoom lens in its range. Don't fall prey to the simplistic notion that all modern zooms are necessarily better than all somewhat older zooms in image quality. Some older zooms have the image quality as good as the best of modern zooms and can be much faster (in aperture).
Also, your comment overlooks that build quality can influence image quality. A cheaper build quality lens' elements are more easily knocked out of alignment (and probably weren't built to the highest quality control standards to begin with) than a better constructed lens. A camera lens that is used a good amount tends to absorb a fair share of knocks and should be able to do so with adverse impact on its performance, let alone break in half.

 

[dtcls100]

Hey trust me, I'm with you on the rail against consumer plasti-cism but aside from the futility and metaphorical dead-end that direction would take us, it doesn't do much good when your initial RFF post is a rant against pretty much the way the entire world works today.

Just to note - no one should ever, ever leave an SLR body, digital, chrome or kevlar, attached to a telephoto lens weighing roughly 2kg and reaching almost 10" in length and expect it to survive a fall of over 1ft.

Trust me, I'm the one who has to pay out of his own pocket. I would love to do everything in my bag of wily, sneaky powers to get out of paying this if I could. But this time, I'm willing to admit my mistakes and take full responsibility.

If the lens had been detached from the body, I have no doubt both the body and lens would still be in one piece, with nary a scuff to either. As it were, the weakest point between two adjoining pieces is, well, the joint. And that's what broke here. Perhaps there should be a much stronger, kevlar-reinforced mounting system, but no doubt that would be at the detraction of ease-of-use, and time it takes to remove/mount a lens.

On another note, Nikon have just informed me the total repair cost will be US$500 - a lot less than the US$1000+ I was expecting to pay.

Whew

My comment wasn't a useless rant; buyers' willingness to put up with greatly reduced build quality in modern AF lenses is the reason that most manufacturers have cheapened the build of their lenses. Also, regardless of the size of your lens, you dropped it in a PADDED case. If you had dropped it 3 feet without a padded case onto a hard floor, I could understand better how your lens broke. One has to ask the question of what does a PRO Lens designation (and price to match) mean if it can't survive a moderate drop in a padded case without shearing in half or is rendered completely unusable because the photographer tripped backwards and fell while shooting?

Also, having used/handled MF Nikkor lenses and the modern AF lenses, there can be no question that the build quality has dramatically declined. The modern AF Nikkor lenses I have tried have a build quality on par with low end MF lenses of the 1980's. Even including new features, modern circuit boards and more automated manufacturing processes have greatly reduced the cost of manufacturing lenses. So what justifies the high prices for fragile modern AF lenses? Sure development costs partially do, but alot of the cheapening of construction is the deliberate result of trying to increase profits. That's fine and well, but really shouldn't be tolerated in expensive ostensibly pro-level gear.

 

[dtcls100]

These lenses are designed to break that way. If they weren't, you'd rip the lens mount off of the camera, or worse. Most camera bodies are made of magnesium (or plastic) these days. Neither take well to drops/impacts - but especially the magnesium. I've seen shattered (yes, shattered) bodies.

Your response underscores my point, doesn't it? Cheap build quality seems to be the rule today and leads to all sorts of compromises to durability. Older lenses didn't have to be designed to snap in half under somewhat minor impacts, as older camera bodies were much stronger. In my younger days (1980's), I photographed quite a few college football and basketball games on the sidelines and saw a good number of photographers with huge 300-400mm f2.8 or so lenses on monopods get smashed by players running out of bounds, with the photographers, cameras, lenses and monopods smashing on the hard ground -- which is a hell of alot more abuse than dropping a camera and lens in a padded camera case three feet. After dusting themselves off, the photographers would check their equipment and resume shooting with the same equipment. Despite some scratches and dents, I never saw any snapped in half lenses, shattered camera bodies, or sheared off lens mounts.