lens lifetime

What are the expectationsbof a lifespan of a modern all

purpose lens? Lie 18-200mm, when is it time to change?

2 years? Is it done? Does the quality of pictures degrades

with time? Or is it more like 10 years?

Moderate travel use..

<p>At least 10 years..<br>

This weekend i used a 28-80 2.8-4.0 L that i bought in 1993 , still working as the day i bought it.<br>

my 70-200 2.8 Lis is from 2004, also still working as new. <br>

So buy the best lens you can afford, you'll have to work with it a long time.</p>

<p>Lenses can, with care, last for a long time, much longer than camera bodies. For one thing there is less to go wrong and also body technology is going out of date much more quickly.<br>

To maintain value the lens front element can be protected with a clear (UV) filter. This will protect it against accidental knocks.<br>

Another factor is lens quality. A lens that is good quality will maintain its usefulness (and hence its value) much better than a cheaper, lower quality lens.<br>

So - take care of you lenses and buy as good quality as you can afford and your lenses will last pretty much as long as you need them for.</p>

 

<p >That is a very difficult question to answer because of all the variables. Your lens could break today or last you a lifetime. Much depends on your physical care of the lens. Some lens like the Canon 50mm f/1.4 is known to be quite fragile, yet I've had mine for many years with no problems. Provided you have no mechanical problems with your lens or camera, the picture quality should remain the same. The only time you will need to change this lens is when it fails to meet your future requirements as you progress with your photography.</p>

<p>There's a huge difference in build quality between an L-series and most "kit" lenses. You'd expect an L-series lens to last for several hundred thousand shots in all kinds of conditions. OTOH, a "kit lens" is unlikely to be used for more than ten or twenty-thousand shots over several years.</p>

<p>If you find yourself shooting thousands of shots per month, then it's time to move up to an L-series. If you're shooting a hundred per month, then your lens is likely to last you several years.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>when is it time to change? 2 years? Is it done? Does the quality of pictures degrades with time?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, if you don't damage a lens, the quality of pictures does not degrade with time. However, sometimes things break--for example, electrical connections, or a diaphragm. If you are satisfied with the quality of the lens, just use it until something breaks. Even with an inexpensive lens, that could be many years. So don't worry about it.</p>

<p>I recently used a Takumar 50mm 1.4 lens on my 5D2 using a screw mount to Canon adapter. It still takes lovely pictures and it's 50 years old.</p>

<p>Jim said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I recently used a Takumar 50mm 1.4 lens on my 5D2 using a screw mount to Canon adapter. It still takes lovely pictures and it's 50 years old.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Those were made to last. I wish my preset 200/f3.5 hadn't been stolen. ;-(</p>

<p>If still in doubt, send your two year old lenses to me, and I will make sure they have a long and happy retirement.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> .....L-series lens to last for several hundred thousand shots in all kinds of conditions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not all of them. My 24-105 f/4L failed after circa 20k shots. The diaphragm unit had to be replaced. Some 10 years ago there was a discussion about USM lenses. They are expected to fail after a few thousand hours of use - don't know in how many shots that translates since focussing time is very short, in general below 1 second. Probably several million shots.</p>

<p>It's pretty impossible to predict when something might fail. All manufacterers can do is state statistical "MTBF" (mean time between failures) figures, as they do for shutters (but not for lenses). But a MTBF is just a statistical average of when a failure is most likely to occur. Meaning, some will fail before, some after. Some immediate, some never. Only if you have a vast amount of lenses, you can make a meaningful statement on how long it'll last - most of us do not own enough lenses, and good lenses last long enough that most of us do not have enough time to break them.</p>

<p>Generically, image quality does not degrade over time, though tolerances of zoom lenses with many moving parts may get a bit more loose, but the lens elements should stay in place well enough. It's more likely something will stop working - mechnical or electronic failure, it can happen both and I wouldn't bet on which lens is more sturdy (as long as you don't drop it). So, just use a lens till it falls apart (and then check whether it's still worth repairing), or until you want to sell it. It's very likely to outlast your camera, and the next one you get.</p>

<p>Don't drop it and it will last a long time. Drop it and it may not last through the day.</p>

<p>It is quite likely that in due course the auto-aperture blades will cease to stop down due to them jamming up, but when this will happen is not really predictable and will depend on use/abuse, and length of time. These are usually fixed easily. How long the IS units work is anybody's guess, but 10 years seems a reasonable length of time. In general, if longevity is your aim then you are better off with L lenses, since these can be repaired for longer by Canon but even then it will be finite. If you want 50-year longevity then you are probably better off with Leica.</p>

I haven't read much about lens care other than protect it from moisture or fungus and the filter thing. I am careful not to let a lens in a hot car because of the oil inside. So I would keep it in the truck which may be cooler but I don't set it directly on the floor of the trunk for possible damage due to vibration. But that is my idea, never read anything about it.

<p>Had the same thing happen to my 24-105 F/4L. That said, I had it repaired and was back in business. Wasn't cheap, but it wasn't worth getting a new lens over either.</p>

My 17-40/ L is 10 years old and still going strong and my 24-105/4 L (after a rebuild) was still functioning perfectly right up

to the point when it was stolen. My 400/2.8 was built in ~1990s and works perfectly. So buy a quality lens and you can

expect it to outlive the body it sits on by some considerable time.

There's an old saying, "buy cheap, buy twice"

<p>I'm using a 1988 24-70mm lens which still works fine!</p>

<p>Just sold my Canon 17-40 L for about 85% of the new price. That works out at about 5GBP / year cost of ownership. (About 7.5 USD/year). It was 9 years old and as good as the day I bought it.</p>

<p>Form most consumer, cameras and kit lenses, manufacturers hopes are that one will use them at 2 vacation trips, 2 birthday parties and then "upgrade". And then there are people serious about photography and pro's who use their equipment daily, get expensive stuff that can last and be repaired for years. </p>

<p>I still own a cheap kit lens I bought in 1989, the EF 50 1.8, and it still works perfectly after being used on dozens of now obsolete and extinct cameras. It's rare to have a lens break short of dashing it against the wall or dropping in water. My 1994 EF 200 2.8L and 300 4L still look and work like new. </p>

<p>Fungus bloom is what retires most zooms, as there are so many glass surfaces to clean, and you have to pay the piper. Lots of very old and cheap EOS lenses full of fungus 'work' perfectly.<br>

Would you call a 1989 EF 50 1.8 a kit lens? Not trying to be smart, but I understood those early 50's were well put together and well thought of. </p>

<p>I have the 28-80/2.8L lens from 1993 and it works perfectly with my 1Ds and 5D. The images it produces is outstanding, just as sharp or maybe sharper than my 24-105/4L and 70-200/4L lenses. Save your money and buy good quality lenses and they will last a lifetime. If you're a careful shopper the 3 lenses I mentioned can be picked up for $500 or less per lens if money is tight and you don't have to have a new one.</p>

Dima, you mentioned the 18-200 lens yet none of the replies have commented on this lens. I have one, a most useful

travel lens which I've used a lot - perhaps 30,000 exposures. Bought in 2008, a couple of years ago the IS stopped

working. Repaired by Canon for only a little less than the cost of a secondhand one, it now wobbles and rattles... Clearly

a consumer grade lens intended for light duty only. Mine is still exceptionally sharp, but I've chosen to replace it with an L

series lens as I feel I can no longer rely on it when traveling.

 

When and if Canon choose to replace it with a Mark II version I'll buy one. In the meantime, as the other posters have

said, build quality, usage and luck will determine how long any lens will last.

<p>My 2001 Sigma 70-200 EX 2.8 is still going fine and is as sharp as a pin. In that time I've gone through two 50mm 1.8 IIs and used it on 4 cameras.. My 100-400L needed a full rebuild after 5 years. Most of my kit lenses are superannuated by sharper versions. So some L's (24-105, 100-400L Mk1) are a bit fragile others are everlasting. The best way to prevent fungus is to use the lens, sunlight kills the fungus, and store them in a dry place. How long does a lens last ? Depends on the lens and how it is looked after.</p>