How important is build quality to you?

[table1349]

Like most other things in this world, I think a lot of it depends on the individual photographer and what they shoot. I do a lot of sports and wildlife (the kill you and eat you kind, not the back yard/park kind) I want well build gear I can rely on. Dodging a 240lb linebacker and a 260lb running back who are positively going to end up in my space on the sidelines means possibly stressing my gear a bit as I dive to get out of the way of this particular train wreck about to happen.

Someone shooting the kids in the back yard, zoo, etc. maybe not so much.

 

[Neil S.]

Like most other things in this world, I think a lot of it depends on the individual photographer and what they shoot. I do a lot of sports and wildlife (the kill you and eat you kind, not the back yard/park kind) I want well build gear I can rely on. Dodging a 240lb linebacker and a 260lb running back who are positively going to end up in my space on the sidelines means possibly stressing my gear a bit as I dive to get out of the way of this particular train wreck about to happen.

Someone shooting the kids in the back yard, zoo, etc. maybe not so much.

I guess it is very subjective...

 

[table1349]

Like most other things in this world, I think a lot of it depends on the individual photographer and what they shoot. I do a lot of sports and wildlife (the kill you and eat you kind, not the back yard/park kind) I want well build gear I can rely on. Dodging a 240lb linebacker and a 260lb running back who are positively going to end up in my space on the sidelines means possibly stressing my gear a bit as I dive to get out of the way of this particular train wreck about to happen.

Someone shooting the kids in the back yard, zoo, etc. maybe not so much.

I guess it is very subjective...

Absolutely.

 

[pbelarge]

For me, I want well built. I have reached an age where I can afford to make it work.

I have been a hiker for more than 50 years. I take a camera with me hiking. I have also been out in the snow when it was more than 3ft deep. There are times I need to worry more about myself than the equipment, yet as I recover I want the equipment to still be working.
My tripod has dual purposes, I use it as a hiking stick many times. I use it so hard, that I do not believe it will last as long as one in a studio, but it has saved me many times from loosing my balance.
So I would say quality counts.

 

[MrLogic]

Well, it's petty well-known that the Canon 50/1.8 Mark II and the Canon EF-S 10-22mm quite frequently snap into two pieces...

Here's a web page showing a typical barrel separation fault on the Canon 10-22 EF-S lens that MrLogic brought up in your thread about build quality.

EF-S 10-22mm Broken!!! | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

This is what you call cheap design...press-fit, no screws,all-plastic,and cheezy engineering.

He didnt say aything about what your talking about at all, it was just a useless post in my opinion.

I didn't think I had to spell it out, but yes, that was what I was referring to. The 10-22 has a certain reputation, as Derrel pointed out. Odd that you didn't sell it, if you place "a very high value on build quality." It just... stood out to me, so I commented on it. It's not like I had to search for your sig. So, nothing personal.

As for me... it depends. I sold my Tamron 70-200 because it was a piece of ****, basically. But cheaply built, light weight primes are okay with me.

 

[ghache]

Quality counts but if all depends on what you do with your equipement and how you threat it. All my plastic lens are scatch free, i dont use any filter on my lens except a polarized filter once in a while. my body is in perfect shape and ive trown that d90 almost everywhere. Partys, fishing, hiking, winter, rain and much more. it even fell off a table and its still working as new. (stupid cat was playing with the strap hanging off the table....lesson learned)

I think that if you take good care of your gear, Even if they are not alloy and metal lens/bodys, they will last forever. I mean, entry level plastic dslr had proven themself to be more than reliable in most circumstances. I sure there is some exception but there are all pretty decently build.

 

[Derrel]

Build quality today is what it is. Some lenses are built very ruggedly, while others are not. A good number of today's zoom lenses have a very high amount of plastics in their construction, and some of the longer range lenses have double-extending barrels, which is the design Tamron invented back in the 1980's when they designed the very first 28-200mm superzoom lens; these double-extending barrels are a barrel, then an extending barrel, and a third barrel, the second one which extends. Closest thing to it is the old pirate's telescope! The definition of flimsy,and yet...people eat these things up. Some brands make zooms of this class that have a LOT of wobble on the front,and yet, somehow, these things actually shoot pretty decent pictures. A LOT of moderately priced lenses have pretty low build quality compared to say a Leica or Zeiss prime lens, or a 1970's Canon or Nikon lens. I dunno...build quality is what it is...if you want a particular lens you might just as well buy it, but as Lensrentals.com's articles over the last few years show, there are Sigma, Canon, and Nikon lenses that have annualized breakdown rates of over 21 percent!!! The new Nikon 70-200 VR II model is riding at 21% right now,and the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS-USM Mark II, the new $2200 model, is at 13.75% annualized repair rate and it is a brand new lens design. So...while these are expensive pro-grade lenses, they are currently breaking down at what I consider to be a terrible rate! And yet the build quality would rate as "high". Go figure.

 

[Neil S.]

I didn't think I had to spell it out, but yes, that was what I was referring to. The 10-22 has a certain reputation, as Derrel pointed out. Odd that you didn't sell it, if you place "a very high value on build quality." It just... stood out to me, so I commented on it. It's not like I had to search for your sig. So, nothing personal.

Ya you do need to "spell it out", that is at least until I learn how to "read minds".

I am working on that by the way, along with "using the force to move stuff around".

Its easy to get the wrong idea when someone says (only) something like "Says the guy with the..."

And again yes I do put "a very high value on build quality", and still having my EF-S lenses has nothing to do with that fact.

I will sell my lenses when I am damn well ready to, and I dont need you to tell me when that is. Ty for your concern about this though, I am just glad you care enough to tell me what I should be doing in my life.

Nothing personal? LOL are you serious?

Why are you even trying to defend a useless and argumentative posts like that one? Its not like you can do so successfully.

Just move on imo...

 

[Neil S.]

The new Nikon 70-200 VR II model is riding at 21% right now,and the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS-USM Mark II, the new $2200 model, is at 13.75% annualized repair rate and it is a brand new lens design. So...while these are expensive pro-grade lenses, they are currently breaking down at what I consider to be a terrible rate! And yet the build quality would rate as "high". Go figure.

I think this may be more of a quality assurance thing...

The way I see it the Canon and Nikon 70-200s are built very well, at least in terms of materials used, etc.

My 70-200 has a magnesium barrel, and I think it goes without saying that it could probably take some serious punishment.

This is more what people mean by "good build quality" I think, that and the weather sealing, etc.

Even if it is just a QA thing though, it does seem strange that there is such a high rate of failure.

I should look into this more...

 

[Garbz]

I don't own an iPhone because it would be broken within 1 week. I still own my D200 because it's built like a truck.

It's not that I'm reckless, it's that I purchase gear that doesn't need to be coddled, polished and babied.

 

[MrLogic]

Nothing personal? LOL are you serious?

Why are you even trying to defend a useless and argumentative posts like that one? Its not like you can do so successfully.

Of course I'm serious. I'd have said the same thing if someone else had posted it and had the 10-22 listed in his/her sig.

Stop crying.

 

[MrLogic]

The new Nikon 70-200 VR II model is riding at 21% right now,and the Canon 70-200 2.8 IS-USM Mark II, the new $2200 model, is at 13.75% annualized repair rate and it is a brand new lens design. So...while these are expensive pro-grade lenses, they are currently breaking down at what I consider to be a terrible rate! And yet the build quality would rate as "high". Go figure.

I think this may be more of a quality assurance thing...

The way I see it the Canon and Nikon 70-200s are built very well, at least in terms of materials used, etc.

My 70-200 has a magnesium barrel, and I think it goes without saying that it could probably take some serious punishment.

This is more what people mean by "good build quality" I think, that and the weather sealing, etc.

Even if it is just a QA thing though, it does seem strange that there is such a high rate of failure.

I should look into this more...

It's quite common with newly released zooms these days. "Early adopters face risks," as the article at LensRentals states. That may or may not be true, but the data certainly seems to support it.

The 24-70 Nikon is now virtually trouble free, but it had all kinds of issues when it was first released.