Does age matter

Phideaux

Phideaux

Messages
221
Edit My Images
Yes
Regarding Canon L series lenses:

Is there any difference between a lens manufactured in 1996 and the same model manufactured in 2006? Obviously the older lens may have had more use, but significant wear&tear would be apparent from the surface finish of the body. I'm thinking specifically about the USM, focusing speed etc and whether the performance of the older lens will be any less good than a lens only a year or two old.

Is there any difference in the quality of the optics for the same model between 1996 and 2006?

Is there any rough guide to the % reduction in price per annum?

All the above assumes that the optical performance of a lens remains constant over time (unless damaged).
 
I know some of the older Sigma lenses don;t work on Canon bodies as they over expose too much. I found this with a Sigma 28-300 that used to work on my 300V then when I bought a 350D I found it was useless.

I imagine as with all things as time goes by technology has impoved for the better. Having said that I do know people who have older equipment and who swear by it.

Rob
 
I've no idea on how much % of depreciation would be applied to a lens but I have a fairly old 300mm f4L non-IS that is optically perfect and as sharp as I would expect from a L prime. (A tad sharper than my 70-200 f4L)
 
I guess I should have specified that I'm asking about Canon L series lenses.
 
Phideux,

It would seem that any lens designated as MkII is an improvement on a MkI. The later ones tend to have faster AF but it's not always the case. It seems fairly common that zooms are replaced by one with a slightly modified focal length as in 28-70 became 24-70, 17-35 became 16-35, 35-350 became the 28-300. Primes obviously stick with their "standard" lengths and usually get designated as Mkxx

The oldest L that I have is the 35-350 and it's still probably as good as the day it was made although the same lens made today (they don't) would probably be a little faster in the focus department. I've got about 15 L's dating from 2000-2007and don't see any ageing issues yet.

There are some good value older lenses out there and I don't see anything to worry about.

Bob
 
I'd agree with Bob. This is also backed up by the excellent s/h value that L lenses hold.
The glass and build quality are really why they are more expensive and as long as there are no issues out the box, these lenses tend to keep going on and on and on...

Hope that helps! :)
 
The laws of optics don't change. However manufacturing techniques do. So a lens made in 1990, should still be as good today as the day it was made. But it may be possible to make a good lens better with differing materials and techniques. For example adding Image Stabilisation. or using improved optical materials.

It's interesting to note that whilst camera manufacturers bring out new models on a regular basis they don't in general do this for their lenses such as the Canon L range. The classic is the 100-400L IS zoom. That's been around for years now with no sign of an upgrade.
 
My friend uses a 5D with a 20-35mm L f/2.8.

It's a really rare lens, hard to get hold of. It was originaly launched in 1989 but his gives great results.
 
8utters said:
My friend uses a 5D with a 20-35mm L f/2.8.

It's a really rare lens, hard to get hold of. It was originaly launched in 1989 but his gives great results.
Click to expand...

Enough said
 
I know it's not an L lens but Mk1 nifty fiftys make more 2nd hand than the Mklls, presumably
due to the metal body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top