Avoid the Canon 18-200mm lens like the plague

[RayTheRat]

In September of 09 I bought a Canon 18-200mm IS EF-S lens.  I used it twice.  Once at World Finals and again as I was shooting a heavy snow storm from my front window (on a tripod.)  When I took the camera off the tripod and unloaded the images onto the computer, the lens lock broke.  I noticed it as I put it back on the tripod.  To make a long story short, the lock is there to keep the zoom from creeping all the way out under its own weight while being carried around on a camera.  It broke in such a way that it jammed not only the zoom, but the focus ring, rendering it totally unusable.  I sent it in to the Canon Repair center in California.

A few days later I got an email from the Repair Center telling me that it would cost $124 to repair the broken lens lock on the 18-200mm lens.  I did my best to explain that it wasn't the result of mis-use, but rather an engineering defect, since I'm certainly not the only one to report this...there are several on Canon's own site stating it.  All I could get was a 20 percent reduction in the charge.  This ain't right.  It's a lousy design; a cheap piece of plastic and their attitude was, "we only warrantee factory defects."  and when I called them again today, I was told, "the warranty doesn't cover broken parts."  WHAT?  Well, they gave me a break.  They knocked 20 percent off the repair bill.  Absolutely magnificent of them to do that.  (Sarcasm intended.)

I ended up against a stone wall and finally caved in and paid the $100 to get it repaired.  But I also promised the gatekeepers that I'd let everyone I can reach know what a POS that lens lock is and what a poor excuse for a warranty/repair department Canon has.  I hate to say this, but it has me considering selling all my Canons and buying Nikons. I sure can't recommend that lens or any other that uses that type of locking mechanism.

I'm really Packarded-off at Canon right now.  (Or is that Plymouthed-off.  I forget.  )  I put a disparaging review on amazon.com where I bought the lens:
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-18-200mm-3-5-5-6-Standard-Lens/product-reviews/B001ET6QFY/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1 and I've reported this mess to as many people who will read my emails and web reports.  I'm gonna call Amazon now and see what they can do about it.

[aircap]

Wow! Sorry to hear about your troubles, Ray - and way to stick it to 'em.

[smitty2]

5 years ago I switched from Charter Cable to Direct TV... About every 3 months I get a call from Charter asking me how I like my cable, and would I like to upgrade. Customer service has gotten so bad that I will do anything to avoid calling about any problems I have... I'd just as soon junk the product than try and get it repaired.
 Sorry to hear about your problems with Cannon Ray, but that's the world we live in now.

Press 1 for English, 3 for Spanish and if you would like to hear a Duck quack press 5.
Smitty   

[McRat]

I had a similiar experience with Canon warranty, with a S2-IS camera.  It has a motorized lens, which started acting up shortly after purchase.  It was barely out of warranty when it finally quit 100%.  Charged me $180 to replace a defective internal plastic part.  I had written to their tech support while it was still under warranty, and they kept saying it must be batteries.  Since it was random/intermittent at first, new batteries "fixed" it.

While it was a "cheap" camera, it has other design problems that indicate sloppy engineering.  The instructions say you can click off a still frame while taking a movie, and yes, you can.  But it puts a CLICK audio and a freeze spot in the video.  So you lose the .25 second of the movie, which is a lot when you're trying to capture drag launch.  It's fast-shoot rate is about 1/3rd slower than advertised as well.  It's auto focus system is pretty lousy as well, it gets confused too easy, especially in low light.  Cameras costing 25% as much do it better.

[RayTheRat]

I agree about cable companies.  I dropped Comcast like a hot rock a few years ago for various reasons.  I'm very happy with DirecTV.

Amazon refunded the amount that Canon charged me after I mentioned that I could add their name to the negative review of the lens.  I'm grateful Amazon did that, but I'm still unhappy with Canon.

At least in this internet-connected age, there are some ways to add a little bit of leverage without having to hire an attorney.  Sad commentary that it happened the way it did, but I'm happy that I don't have to pay for something that wasn't my fault.

[wobblywalrus]

Ray, a lot of us use Canon cameras.  Tell us if you find a tele lens that will not break. 

[Freud]

Have any of you considered a manual focus film camera?

They  were quite reliable.

FREUD

[Peter Jack]

Ray:

I use Olympus, Pentax and Nikon DSLR cameras, all for different reasons. I've heard similar stories to yours with all three brands. Usually these problems are in the minority but I believe they do happen. Unless it happens again I wouldn't be too eager to jump ship as there's no guarantee that you wouldn't have the same thing happen with the next brand and you may have already got over your one bad experience with Canon. If you're looking for another somewhat similar lens that I can vouch for take a look at the Tamron 18 - 270 mm. I use it on my Nikon D90 and I have two friends using it on Canon 50D's. It does a great job at a somewhat reasonable price and the only complaint with it is that it's a little stiff through the middle of the focusing range for the first little while. The extra 70 mm is a bonus.

While I tend to use a variety of lenses with all three brands when I'm out shooting specific things, I tend to carry a camera in the car most of the time. Rather than carry several lenses I just use an 18 - 180 mm with the Olympus and an 18 - 250 with the Pentax as well as the above lens on my Nikon. Works well and keeps things simple.

Glad to hear things worked out in the end for you.

Pete

[754]

Freud, like my 77 Canon TLB, I was using at Speedweek...

[Freud]

Peter:

Anything that can survive a winter in Calgary is an amazing piece.

Can u send me some detailed images of the sun?  I just want to know that it's still out there.

The only thing we have 3 choices of down here are Charmin, Wal-Mart wipes and the Sears catalog.

These are all used for the same reason.

FREUD

[Peter Jack]

Sorry Freud. Haven't seen the sun for a few days now because of the constant fog and snow fall. On the other hand if you want to take pictures of hoar frost laden trees the selection is practically unlimited. They look like infrared even before you take the picture.

Pete

[Rchop]

Ray, I use a Sigma 18-200mm Optically Stabilized lense (DC) with my Nikon body. It seems to hold up well in a busy enviornment. My only complaint would be the slow AF drive, but I don't use AF on a lense that size anyway, so it has worked well for me.

[PorkPie]

Ray,

I don't like to do salt in the wound - but may be you remember what I said you about this lens.

The real problem is - that a so lens with this range on high quality has to be sold for 3500 dollars. This is the real problem.

the material which Canon has to use to get the prize for this lens had to be on the lowest quality level. Just see the lock - this is the cheapest design which is possible.

Sorry for that  - but in the base a so lens to the prize never can be a good value and quality......this is simple the fact.

The other problem is that the quality is so bad that damaged can be easily happend by very cold or very hot temperature.

Especially by cold temperature the plastic like the lock breaks very fast.

This lens was never for temperature extremes like Bonneville or cold winter in  Salt Lake designed - this is also the fact.

At last - this lens was never produced for professional level - this is for standard user which not like to spent  too much money but need once the year a long lens.

It is not necessary to move to Nikon - you will be not happy with this change.

The reason is, by Nikon the good quality cost you 30 percent more - and a proper cheap you will never get by Nikon.

You got a very got 7D body and this brilliant 100-400 mm lens - as I said you before - you have to spent some more money on the short distance lens - this will be one bigger bill for a good lens like the 24-105 lens - which is solid good design a proper value. If you like to get some ideas for the right stuff for you write me a mail - you know how you can get me  

Don't worry mate - this problem with this lens was not you - in reality is also not a Canon problem - the real problem is the market from people, who like to get a Canon 500 or 1000 and don't like to spent the money for a proper lens.

Canon just fill the market with a product the customer crowed ask for - a sh.. cheap crap.........

What Canon's problem is, is the arrogance of the warranty issue - they know that this lens is crap - but they let customer pay the bills for that.......but, unfortunately Canon is not alone....you will get the same problem with all the other like Sony or Nikon......only that you have to pay more for the repair.......

So, Ray, head up......and let me know how I can help you.

[McRat]

Blurb from somebody who has been in the quality control field for ~25 years:

Often problems such as these have nothing to do with price.  It's a high-level management decision on where to cut costs.  Many CEO's believe that testing and QC is not a "profit center" so they trim these functions back as far as possible.  Not too long ago, even the normally quality-conscious automaker BMW went through this.

I usually stay away from the "cheapest" version of what I'm looking for, but in my experience it doesn't change things.  It's the company itself that dictates how much effort will be put into the quality side of their product line, from their packaging to their most expensive items. 

I have a first gen (first year as well) Sony digital camera with thousands of pictures taken on it over the last 13? years, and is still in daily use.  It is so old it writes to 3.5" floppy discs, memory sticks were not out.  It has been dropped dozens of times, gotten wet, used by a least a dozen people, yet is still 100% functional, and does everything that it's brochure said it should do.  It's software has never been updated, yet it has never locked up.  It has never failed to take a picture when needed.

It's a safe guess that Sony did more testing and QC than Canon currently does.  It does not matter what the product is though.  It could be a blender or a jumbo jet. 

It sure sounds like Ray's problem was with a part that skimped on the testing/QC phase.  If they would have caught the error during testing, it would probably cost less than $1000 to correct it for that model and all subsequent models.  In my poor experience with a Canon product, some features apparently were not even tested, as it even had software bugs that were discovered by a new user within hours of initial use.  If someone at Canon had taken a camera out of the box and used it for a weekend they would have seen the same thing.  Yes, it was only a $500 camera, but it was in the middle-to-high price range of it's segment, not the cheapest.

We as consumers have all the power here.  The mfr cannot pry money out of our wallet.  We "vote" with our wallet as a member of their Board of Directors.  And in that aspect I screwed up.  I was a bad consumer.  What I was SUPPOSED to do was the instant I realized that what I bought did not perform as it was claimed, was to return the product.  It cost the mfr quite a bit of money to handle returns, and sends a direct signal upstream that more money needs to be directed towards QC.  "Spreading the word" helps to a lessor degree, because the signal is poor initial sales, which can have many causes.

With large companies, the corporate QC mentality is not necessarily carried out equally across divisions.  Sony makes some really poor quality personal computers, and after two of them, I refuse to consider them again.  So Canon could perhaps have better QC in other divisions.  And of course management changes can alter their philosophy as well.  But it is very expensive to skimp excessively in the QC area, because you can lose a whole generation of buyers.

 

[RayTheRat]

Pork, I think McRat (nice name.  Very good name.  ) hit it on the head.  It's not because it was a consumer rather than a pro lens.  If I could have found an L lens with IS in the 17-100 range I would have bought it.  But this was the only one in that area.  And at the time I bought it, it had nothing but good reviews.  There was only one negative report at that time.  The problems started being reported (with one exception) after I bought it. 

I could agree with you about the difference in pro vs consumer quality if it had broken as the result of pro-type use.  But I'd only used it at WF and then once at home.  Even the cheapest of consumer lenses would be reported as having poor quality with a record like that.

If you can show me an L lens that meets the requirements, I'd be delighted to look into it.  But as far as I know, Canon doesn't make one.  I just checked their site to see if they'd added something new when I wasn't watching. 

The other thing that is bothersome is Canon's warranty and customer support.  Based on my experience, it seems that they are doing their best to avoid repairing items under warranty and to charge for repairs that shouldn't have been necessary or should have been covered.  If ya boil this down, it appears that Canon is trying to make their warranty service a revenue rather than a "cost " department, in addition to trying to save every cent possible on each item they build...to the point where they start producing shoddy items.  This manner of doing business is only profitable in the short run and can be ruinous in the long run.  Japanese companies have long been noted for their long-term approach to doing business...but this looks like they're falling prey to the demand for stakeholder dividends "right now!" 

The problem I (and others) encountered has very little to do with pro-vs consumer products and a lot to do with short-sighted business practices.