Camera gear is now disposable?

[TheBoogieKnight]

So over lockdown I've been trying to keep myself busy with the odd photography job and I noticed that my Panasonic 50mm didn't seem as sharp as it was when I got it. I did a few tests and surely enough it had become pretty soft (for whatever reason).

Sent it off to be looked at/repaired and was immediately told they aren't reparable. Fortunately the lens was under warranty (runs out in November) and I was quickly sent a new one which is perfect. I have to say it's kind of scared me a little though and I've seen a few reviews on Lens Rentals where they basically said the same about the Canon RF glass. If the same thing happens in four months time I've got a hunk of glass worth nothing.

I'm seriously interested in an R5 but the thought of paying (for example) 2.5k for the 85mm lens only to find it develops a minor fault and is worth nothing a year later just seems insane to me. Unlike many here I'm firmly at the semi-pro level and while I can just about justify prices like this for a 5 year investment (or at least the ability to sell it on), one year is totally nonviable. Are all lenses built this way now? What do you lot all do, invest in extended warranties? Are they worth the paper they're written on?

 

[Stab]

Hmm interesting. 

What could cause a lens to become softer over time? Especially in such a short period? 

And it is indeed sad thay they arent even trying to fix it. They are probably just throwing it in the bin and sending you a new one. 

Bleh. 

[noone]

No camera gear should be looked at as an "investment" (a very few items do rise in price over time though) and in a sense it really IS all disposable.

That said, there have been a few items that had a particular regularly occurring fault over time but often too late for any remedy.

Some that come to mind that I have had, I have two Olympus 43 HG zoom lenses that developed known faults (something to do with a cable snapping I think).     They were my late dads and I want to see if they work at all at some point (no camera anymore to use them on).

Another issue I have is with Canon FD L lenses have a dissolving bearing issue that ends up making focusing very very loose.

It does not affect all of them but it does my FD 85 1.2 L (unlike lesser FD lenses that use plastic bearings, I understand some FD Ls use rubber coated brass bearings and the rubber disintegrates).    It turns a valuable lens into a much less valuable lens or even a paperweight and bad luck if you are the new owner of an old lens it starts happening with after you get it.

If your lens is known for the fault, sell it now unless you REALLY like it

Years ago I had a very expensive for the time Sony point and shoot camera....it was a total piece of crap and it also developed a known fault (the sensor ended up just taking weird solarized photos after about a year of use).     Way too late I found out I could have got it repaired (after I threw it out).

 

[Snowfun]

Reminds me of Jannard’s “obsolescence obsolete” claim about the Hydrogen...  I suppose RED have managed some degree of upgrading an existing unit but for lower priced items disposal and buying new is, unfortunately,  here to stay. 
I remember the day when I could fix my Land Rover with some string and a bit of wire... 

[MrSMW]

We could argue about the semantics of whether  any camera gear is an ‘investment’ or not but anything that allows you to do ‘more’ than you otherwise could have done is arguably an investment because it has a return.

But kit in general whilst not exactly ‘disposable’ does have a shelf life these days.

Of course it does not have to, but for most users it does.

Lenses for me are simply either as long as I have the compatible system or until they break or are superceded.

Bodies until something quantifiably better comes along that justifies the change/expense.

I’m a hybrid wedding shooter. XT3 after XT2 after XT1 made absolute sense, especially from 1 to 2 for obvious reasons.

There’s new stuff coming out shortly, namely Sony S Thing and Canon R5/6 which may be a future ‘investment’/direction for me but it will come down to that individually unique combo of; need/cost/return.

But all camera gear depreciates unless it’s some rare vintage piece so arguably it’s all disposable to a degree these days.

[homestar_kevin]

I think this is definitely true and has been for awhile.

It seems with current production methods/ideas, the more electronics and software go into lenses the less serviceable they will be.

I remember with the Samsung NX glass they did the same thing. You could go on Samsung parts website and buy 'Parts' lenses, which were just brown box replacement lenses for a much cheaper price. This was because they rarely or didn't service lenses, they just replaced them.

Now the other side of this is that everything seems to be getting to this point. 

There are pretty nice 2x1 flexible bi-color LED panels like the 3060a that are like ~$150-200 bucks. That's what I'd call cheap enough to be almost disposable, or at least if I'm on a shoot and it goes down I wouldn't be as concerned as I would've been 8-10 years ago with a $2000 Kinoflo Diva or something.

 

 

 

[hoodlum]

I remember seeing a number of complaints related to Panasonic lenses not being repairable with the 100-400 getting mentioned a few times with more recently the 10-25 f1.7.   These are expensive lenses and I don't believe Olympus lenses having the same issues.  That is interesting regarding the RF lens issue but the only reference I could find at Lensrental was the reference to the linear focus system but that would be an issue with all mirrorless lenses.

[TheBoogieKnight]

8 minutes ago, hoodlum said:

I remember seeing a number of complaints related to Panasonic lenses not being repairable with the 100-400 getting mentioned a few times with more recently the 10-25 f1.7.   These are expensive lenses and I don't believe Olympus lenses having the same issues.  That is interesting regarding the RF lens issue but the only reference I could find at Lensrental was the reference to the linear focus system but that would be an issue with all mirrorless lenses.

Yeah I've seen a few people had problems with the Panny 50 too; usually the clutch but sometimes other things. I realise anything can fail but I can't think of many things that are a complete write-off if basically anything goes wrong. Certainly not at these kind of prices anyway. 

[TheBoogieKnight]

1 hour ago, homestar_kevin said:

I think this is definitely true and has been for awhile.

It seems with current production methods/ideas, the more electronics and software go into lenses the less serviceable they will be.

I remember with the Samsung NX glass they did the same thing. You could go on Samsung parts website and buy 'Parts' lenses, which were just brown box replacement lenses for a much cheaper price. This was because they rarely or didn't service lenses, they just replaced them.

Now the other side of this is that everything seems to be getting to this point. 

There are pretty nice 2x1 flexible bi-color LED panels like the 3060a that are like ~$150-200 bucks. That's what I'd call cheap enough to be almost disposable, or at least if I'm on a shoot and it goes down I wouldn't be as concerned as I would've been 8-10 years ago with a $2000 Kinoflo Diva or something.

 

 

 

Yeah it's where you draw the line with pricing I guess. Like you if a 100-200 item breaks after a year it's fair enough and I've probably got my money's worth. A 2.5k lens is something else entirely though. What happens to the faulty ones, they're get torn apart and the salvageable parts used to make new ones I presume!? I did see the official repair price of the lens (well replacement obviously) which was half standard retail. That's at least something I guess but no idea if Nikon/Canon/Sony etc. etc. offer the same?

 

[Mark Romero 2]

14 hours ago, TheBoogieKnight said:

So over lockdown I've been trying to keep myself busy with the odd photography job and I noticed that my Panasonic 50mm didn't seem as sharp as it was when I got it. I did a few tests and surely enough it had become pretty soft (for whatever reason).

Sent it off to be looked at/repaired and was immediately told they aren't reparable. Fortunately the lens was under warranty (runs out in November) and I was quickly sent a new one which is perfect.

Are we talking about the $2,300 L Mount 50mm f/1.4 panasonic lens???

[Geoff CB]

I rented the $2200 Nikon 24-70 2.8Z and the autofocus was broken and it couldn't focus past ten feet. Needless to say I will NOT be purchasing that lens. Did not give me confidence in the Nikon Z system.

[TheBoogieKnight]

26 minutes ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

Are we talking about the $2,300 L Mount 50mm f/1.4 panasonic lens???

Hi Mark, yes. To be fair I can't fault the return process.

[Video Hummus]

I don’t know...When I’m paying $1,800 for the 10-25, 1,600 for a 50-200, or $2,300 for a 50mm f1.4 prime (!!!) I would except it should last with normal usage for a while. Unless of course you have a serious drop or damage.

Thats a lot of money and if you aren’t using the lens every single day making hundreds of dollars a day on jobs then it’s even worst.

Makes me wonder all the old vintage glass, like the nikkor stuff, some with only 3-7 elements and manual focus, still perfectly fine after 30 years and NO SERVICE.

Our glass will never be vintage because it’ll all be broken or unusable!

[Stab]

5 hours ago, TheBoogieKnight said:

Hi Mark, yes. To be fair I can't fault the return process.

So, what happened exactly?

Is it soft because of the autofocus? Or did the lens actually become less sharp when you  manually focus at stuff? And how is that even possible? Is there dirt or damage on the elements? Did elements became misaligned?

[TheBoogieKnight]

10 hours ago, Stab said:

So, what happened exactly?

Is it soft because of the autofocus? Or did the lens actually become less sharp when you  manually focus at stuff? And how is that even possible? Is there dirt or damage on the elements? Did elements became misaligned?

Hi Stab

I think the optics must have become misaligned somehow but I've got no idea how. I ended up getting a halo around high-contrast areas. I don't know if it happened suddenly or was a gradual thing. As I said I noticed during lockdown after taking a few pics. I didn't need to pixel peep, it was pretty easy to see.

I did initially think it might be the AF but I did some tests and it definitely wasn't; something had happened inside the lens. This is probably just a one-off but as I said I've read a few people having problems with the AF/MF clutch and aperture ring on these lenses and (as far as I know), they had to get replacements as even those parts weren't serviceable.

[Andrew Reid]

All those sharp lenses from 30 years ago must have fooled me. Lenses ARE an investment. Some of mine have increased in value by as much as $1000 to $2000 in just 5 years for rarities, some in 10 years. Especially anamorphic.

I have well used lenses from the 1970s that are incredibly sharp nearly 50 years later. Nikon 105mm F2.5

Sure there will be duds

But none of what I read in this topic matches my experience and I have a lot of experience due to being an addict

[newfoundmass]

I assume most equipment is disposable at this point, either because eventually something significantly better comes along or because everything seems to have a shelf life these days. 

I've always thought, or assumed, that lenses would be the one thing that both retain most of their value and will continue to work long after any camera I'm using does. It's only recently that I've started to have my doubts about that, at least when it comes to modern lenses that have motors and lack real manual control. 

My Minolta lenses are older than I am. There's a good chance they'll outlive me and still work! But I don't have high expectations for my Panasonic lenses lasting nearly that long, and that's unfortunate. Part of that is the compromise that comes with technology, but also just the way things have gone with society. 

I don't think I'll ever be able to pull the trigger and pay more than $1,500 on a modern, non manual lens. Not unless I have no other choice or am wealthy/making enough to do so without a second thought. The idea that it could just stop working one day terrifies me. Once that motor is gone, it's gone. 

I also wonder how these lenses will stand up to video usage over time, since I assume that puts more wear and tear on the motors than just auto focusing for stills does. But that might just be my ignorance showing! 

[noone]

 I think that lenses that become more valuable are not that common (I would love to own the ones that do though).

The ones that do are often the ones that were expensive to begin with and are really good and not made in big numbers.

Ones that would not have had a big market in the film days but with a lot more people wanting them, supply and demand keeps them going up.

Very easy though if someone makes a modern variant of a classic for the bottom to fall out of the market.

A lens like the Canon FD 24 1.4 L (and more so the earlier Canon 24 1.4) were for a while some of very few 24 1.4 lenses and once they could be adapted to other systems, the price went way up (the earlier one probably still is a collectors item).    Now that there are lots more versions and many of them better optically, the FD 24 1.4 can be found a lot cheaper now (though some will stay very high on Ebay but less likely to sell now.

In the early auto focus days, Pentax put out the brilliant little 1.7x auto focus adapter (mine cost about $100 with a film camera) .      When DSLRs first came along and Pentax had few longer AF lenses and had long stropped making it (I think it had lead glass in it), the prices went through the roof (I saw them for around $1200 on Ebay)...Suddenly a new supply magically appeared (Pentax never said a peep about it) and the prices dropped dramatically and as new AF lenses came it went back to normal.

My most expensive lenses have all dropped in price and I have very rarely made a profit selling a lens, even a good one (I did get around $300 for a Minolta 85 that cost me a tiny fraction of that from memory).

Some lenses i would regard as investments would be (and are ones I would like).

Nikon 300 f2 (many of the few that were made were converted to video/film use)..I almost got one at $11000  when i had the money and last i saw it was well over $20000.

Original Noct Nikkor (mainly collectors I think).     Almost got one of them too prices seem to have stopped rising on it but if you got one new you would have made a great investment.

Minolta 24 2.8 VFC  with variable field curvature (not many made and still very useful).

I am sure there are many others and many Cine lenses made in small numbers but the percentage of lenses made would be tiny.

 

 

 

 

 

[Geoff CB]

8 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Nikon 105mm F2.5

 

That lens is magic.

[kye]

The lensrental blog talks about how some modern lenses (including my MFT Voigtlanders) are built in such a way that they can't be serviced.  I'd imagine its likely to be things like glueing instead of screwing things together etc.

In a sense, almost everything is repairable, but the thing working against that is the cost of labour.  When you buy a $1500 lens and it breaks, if its going to take 30 hours of labour to take it apart, diagnose the issue, order spare parts, re-assemble, test everything and measure the optics, and send it back to you, and they're charging $50 p/h then you just paid the cost of a new one in labour alone.

You can argue that the one serviced by the technician might be better aligned and setup than one out of a factory, but in high quality manufacturing environments the equipment may be so specialised that its hard to replicate the things manually.  For example machines might have special tools that can exert huge forces onto a part but do it accurately and do it without leaving marks because the tool shape is exactly the same shape as the surface they're pushing onto.

There's a big push in places like the US for "Right to repair" legislation because you buy a huge $250k tractor and it develops a fault and in order to diagnose it you have to call out a licensed service technician because the computer port requires proprietary software and is encrypted to stop you fooling with it.  So instead of you being able to diagnose and fix the tractor in the middle of the field in an afternoon you have to wait, pay a call-out fee, then have the tech spend 2 minutes working out that a sensor needs to be replaced and another 5 minutes fixing it.