Durability if IS lenses

[scott_g2]

IS lenses have been out for a while now. Has anyone had problems or

issues relating to the durability or reliability of their IS lenses?

 

By virtue of the lens being more complicated, and Canons "upgraded"

weather/dust sealing if new lenses, I would suspect there is more to

go wrong. However that perception my not be accurate in practice.

 

What experiences have you had?

 

Thanks!

[jay_.]

Are you speaking of L or non-L IS lenses? I have heard of wear loosening of both the 75-300IS and 28-135IS but I have never given a passing thought to the former and the latter has performed admirably for me with no signs of wear. I have the 300/2.8IS and 70-200/2.8IS and both are flawless--of course neither are that old.

[peter_phan]

I have the Canon 28-135 IS and the 100-400L IS. After several years of use, both continue to work without any problems, although the 28-135 IS sometimes gives off a groan as if the IS gyros can't quite react quickly enough to the occassioanal situation. But I have put the 28-135 IS through lots of abuse, abuse that its consumer level construction really isn't design to be put through. If Canon ever came out with an "L" alternative of this lens, I would retire my 28-135 IS and upgrade to the "L". Nevertheless, both lenses continue to work without any problems.

 

In spite of their widespread popularity and usage, I have yet to hear of any IS mechanism failure. I suspect any trauma strong enough to damage an IS mechanism would be strong enough to destroy the entire lens.

 

You can rest assured that IS is a reliable technology. Plus, Canon's weather/dust sealing has nothing to do with IS. That weather/dust sealing is being applied to non-IS lenses, too. Besides, you could probably need a significant amount of dust or moisture inside the lens before IS is effected. But again, that amount of dust or moisture would be enough to render the entire lens unusable. And by then, the IS mechanism would be the least of your worries.

[gary voth]

I have owned two samples of the 28-135. The first developed a severe softening in the outer 1/3 of the frame, presumably a decentering or IS lens group alignment problem. The second (a mint used sample I picked up to replace the first one) also displayed the same behavior, though less so (I returned it). This indicated to me this was a potentially endemic condition with this lens and I have not used one since.

 

The 100-400 I owned also developed sharpness problems, though over the whole frame (perhaps indicating a different problem). Canon confirmed that the zoom was "out of adjustment" and was able to improve it, though I eventually sold this lens too.

 

I currently own the 70-200 IS and the 300 2.8 IS and both have been fine (so far). I previously owned a 300 f/4 IS and never had any problems either.

 

I am inclined to believe that most of the L-series IS lenses are durable enough. The non-L 28-135 is probably a special case. I expect the 100-400 has its own optical quality issues that probably do not have anything to do with IS.