How long do lenses last?

A

allthegearnoidea

Messages
36
Edit My Images
No
As per title really. I've had my Canon F2.8 200mm leans for 10 years now. It's been dropped and repaired and well used. I've had my moneys worth probably but can't afford to go out and buy a new one but it just doesn't seem to give me the results I think I should be getting.

Should it last forever or has it had it?
 
•
For ever if no bad luck happens… which is not true for bodies!
 
Is it worse than it used to be?

The answer to your question is probably the same as how long is a piece of string. A lens as a lens doesn't have a lot to go wrong with it, in terms of wearing out. It might have a focusing mechanism in it (not all lenses do) which can seize up; it might have an autofocus motor which can fail; it might have a shutter which can fail or need servicing.

Dropping a lens could decentre it, giving poor results; and from your post it seems to be optically that you're worried about.

It might be worth getting it checked.

My oldest lens is about 60 years old and still going strong.
 
I guess primes will last longer than zooms (less moving parts) but they should last donkey's years as long as they aren't abused.

allthegearnoidea said:
it just doesn't seem to give me the results I think I should be getting.
Click to expand...

Are you comparing it to images you've taken in the past, or comparing it to images others have taken?
Also, what body are you using? (same body as when you started?)
 
I assume it has some electrical and electronic components and ribbon cables so I'd expect those to fail at some point. The oldest tech I have is probably a digital clock I've had for over 35 years but I have had to attend to dry joints a couple of times.

Don't know how long things can last but I'd expect a modern electrical lens to fail at some point before a mechanical one with no electrical innards.
 
Last edited:
The other thing to consider is when it needs parts as to whether Canon still support repairs with parts available.

Rather than wait check if it still fully supported and if so get it serviced now because if you wait you may be disappointed!
 
I'm using it with a 7D, but have had three of four different camera bodies during it's use.

I know it's in my head but I'm doing everything as I've always done but the results are invariably disappointing when I'm sure they should be better. I wouldn't say I've abused it but it's been around the country with me and I've not really treated it like it's a bar of plutonium ;)
 
Are you using it on a more demanding body now
 
From personal experince.
Takumar screw mount lenses at least 10 years (film days)
Digital years (and my lenses have never been dropped)
Tokina 100mm f2.8 macro estimated. <1000 pics.
Tokina 80-400 (1) about 30 photographs.
Tokina 80-400 (2 and a replacement for #1) about 14,000 photographs and about 14 months.
I do not recomend anybody buy a Tokina lens,
Canon 24-105 F4 L - About 17000 pics and 5 years (known fault)
Canon 100-400 - About 240,000 pics over 6 years (I think I wore it out)
Havn't had any othe lens failures (yet), including a Tokina 12-24.
 
Lenses for digital cameras have come a long way in the last ten years.
an undamaged lens that has been looked after is likely to be as good as it ever was.
But the latest sensors will show up its shortcomings.

Complex zooms with all the bells and wistles will definitely have a finate lifespan. We will probably all have to expect them to fail at some point, and they probably will not be economical to repair or even possible to do so in ten years.
They should probably be amortised over no longer than that. Insurance will not be much use either unless damaged.
 
do you people think canon build quality has got worse over the years in all honestly though?
 
IMO it's not really a QC or BQ thing but rather that modern lenses are so much more complex in construction than older ones. A 40 year old lens will be MF and completely mechanical - no little electrical connections and ribbon cables to break/come unsoldered. Add in that today's lenses are also made to be driven by TINY motors so have to be much freer to allow these motors to rotate them compared to the old clockwork inside "traditional" cameras or even the old fashioned focus motor - the hand!
 
From personal experience with digital tend to shoot a lot more with digital.

Example #1
In my film days I normally shot 3 rolls of 36 (transparencies) , 108 photographs, for a days motor racing.
Now days it is more like 2000 per day.

Example #2
In 1969 on a 3 week vacation in New Zealand I shot 15 rolls of 36 (540 photographs).
Our last big vacation of 6 weeks, I shot about 5000 photographs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top