Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="daredevil123" data-source="post: 144256" data-attributes="member: 11958">Baby or not, some parts will still fail. like the infamous focusing motor in the 17-35/2.8. Great optics, but very unreliable. Many of my counterparts have had their focusing motors fail on them on the 17-35. And several of them experienced two or more failures within 3 years, even after replacement.What about the stiff zoom ring/scratched inner barrel problem of the 24-70 and the 14-24? Many have complained, but how many people know the real cause? Canon 24-70 Mk I also suffers the same problem... the cause is very similar. A very famous equipment rental company once did an expose on the problem, but mysteriously that article has disappeared for a while now... (maybe they are not at liberty to say certain things too...)What about the failure of VR of the first version of Nikon 18-200VR? This problem is well documented all over the internet. The problem is also very simple and documented by several repair specialists online.Another infamous lens (though a little OT in this forum) is the Canon 50/1.4 USM. It's AF motor is also very prone to failure.Though I will agree that most newer lenses are optically much better than older lenses, we also have to be aware that we are living in times with an economic landscape that is much more competitive than before. In the relentlessness march towards cost savings and lower prices, corners have to be cut and have been cut at the expense of robustness of parts and materials. On top of that, planned obsolescence also plays a part in product design nowadays.I still hold on to my belief that newer doesn't necessarily means better. And that even when we baby our gears, it will not last a lifetime. The most important thing is to make full use your equipment and plan for backups if you are paid to shoot. So that your equipment gives you the maximum ROI in its lifetime.</blockquote>

Verification