where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
http://www.lensrentals.com/news/2009.11.01/lens-repair-data-35
What is most interesting, IMHO, is their comments near the bottom re: the 14-24 and 24-70.
There are quite a few qualifiers in the body of the page and I hope y'all read those before drawing conclusions.
Wow, thanks for posting that.
Thanks Soap, extremely interesting. Perhaps they were rented less frequently, but the Nikon super telephotos showed no signs of problems, pretty reassuring considering their prices. I also find it interesting that three Canon primes made the list 50/1.2, 50/1.4 and 35/1.4.
There is a place in Burlingame, California (SF Bay Area) that is also renting lenses. I'll ask them to publish their stats too. But at this point they're pretty new. http://www.borrowlenses.com/
I wonder about the Zoom ring on the Nikon 14-24 and 24-70 like my 70-200. I impacted mine right on the zoom ring, could not be seen, the rubber ring hide any damaged. But zooming sure became difficult. The above lenses are also heavy and minor impacts against the zoom ring will make them hard to zoom also
Pete
Maybe since they're so popular, they get rented more and get abused more...?
Not trying to be a fanboy, but those lenses really are no brainers to rent/buy.
Sorry but every time they "update" this list it always causes "an uproar". I really think it's just a cleaver way to drum up attention and business.
Sounds counter intuitive.
Since these lens break the most, shouldn't I be shying away from renting it and instead actually buy the actual lens to keep it from breaking on me when I actually use it?
I don't see any cause for uproar if the text is actually read, not just the table.
I don't think any of Nikon's repair numbers are out of line. I would expect the lenses mentioned to get extreme usage as rentals. Road bumpers always look smaller when you're driving a rental car. I've never heard of reliability issues among people who own these Nikon lenses, in fact, they art part of the pro's standard toolkit and known for reliability. Is there other data available about that? Perhaps if you have to shoot a rodeo from under the horses, you leave your own lens at home and rent one.
The interesting thing to me, and the thing which can not be apologized away, is the uniform nature of the repairs performed on the 14-24 and 24-70.
A theoretical "perfect" product would see an even distribution amongst the points of failure, not a 100% spike at one point. While no product (outside a clay brick) will ever see such a failure pattern, a strong deviation from the mean shouldn't be ignored.
A very similar Achilles' heel appears to be true of the Canon 50 1.4.
NSXType-R said:
Maybe since they're so popular, they get rented more and get abused more...?
ted2001 said:
Perhaps they were rented less frequently, but the Nikon super telephotos showed no signs of problems,
Rental rate is accounted for.
My thoughts exactly ted.
NSX would any of this repair data stop you from renting a lens? Your not buying it your just trying it out. This post gets them free advertisement otherwise we wouldn't be talking about them unless you actually used them and wanted to discuss your experience.
Soap I can read. I've know about this "table" since they started up the business a few years ago. They update it every 6 months or so. The "uproar" came about when they stopped using sigma lenses because they broke so often. It got them "on the map", but it also got them in trouble with Sigma so that's why they have that big bold statement at the bottom saying how much Sigma has improved.
I think Ziplens.com and Rentglass.com are better. Oh and LensProToGo gives you a 10% discount if your a NAPP member.
Regardless of this being a marketing move or not, how does that change the validity of the numbers?
How can you or I say those numbers are valid? Just take their word for it, that's it? If it's on the internet is must be true. If these numbers were from more than one source then I'd show more interest.
About every single thread on these forums is bunk if we're going to question every published "fact" without having contradictory evidence.
You're dancing the fine line of accusing them of malfeasance. Motive? To drive interest in their site? Really? I'll pass on the Kool-aid.
Why are you saying it's fact? Where's your evidence? This one retailer, that's it? I wouldn't call putting something up on a retailer's website as a published fact.
and their motive to accuse the three lenses I pointed out of consistent failures is???
You're accusing them of out-and-out lying. Why?
There you go assuming again. I never said they were lying. I just don't see how this one retailer's experience should cast a cloud over all the worlds Nikon 12-24 and the 24-70 lenses. That's it. I'll say it again...if this information collaborated with what other people, websites, retailers were "publishing" then I'd consider it more.
I judge products from my own experience and from researching "facts" from more than one place. This is a retailer not Consumer Reports. They make money selling and renting lenses and they have big smiles on their faces because of this thread. These lenses get shipped out regularly through the mail and take a beating before they ever even get mounted to a camera. You don't think that has anything to do with the failure rate at all?
NikoDoby said: I never said they were lying.
NikoDoby said:
Why are you saying it's fact? Where's your evidence? This one retailer, that's it? I wouldn't call putting something up on a retailer's website as a published fact.
So are their numbers made up, a published "fact", or a lie?
Nobody but you suggested reading more into THEIR numbers than being THEIR numbers.
EDIT: But even only as THEIR numbers there are safe and there are unsafe conclusions which can be drawn.
NikoDoby said:
These lenses get shipped out regularly through the mail and take a beating before they ever even get mounted to a camera. You don't think that has anything to do with the failure rate at all?
So shipping damage causes consistent failures on one model and random failures on another? That's a strange conclusion. The rate is not the interesting part, the mode is.
I knew you were going to give the quote feature a work out, lol
NikoDoby said:
I judge products from my own experience and from researching "facts" from more than one place.
Then do be a doll and bring "facts" from another place.
NikoDoby said:
I knew you were going to give the quote feature a work out, lol
I'll chalk this up as another example of attacking the person and not the meat of the argument. lol (and, yes, I know you'll say I'm over reacting to what is clearly humor on your part - but the point stands. Of all the points I made, what gets replied to? That's right - me(!), not the subject of debate.)
I'm not claiming to have heard about this from else where. And I'm not attacking you soap. I haven't used the "quote machine" at all :^)
Then what is the difficulty with accepting their numbers for what they are? (Their experience with far more copies of far more lenses than most of us (or consumer reports) ever touch. A sample size significant enough to draw conclusions regarding /trends/ if not rates.)
What's a sample size and it's significant enough for who?
There I go assuming again. I assumed most of us were college grads and most of us had at least one statistics class. ;)
So now your saying I don't have a degree? Bravo soap you win. I actually have two.
You must log in to post.
