Casualty of War - Not for the faint of heart...

[jamison55]

2 Bodies - 17-40 on one, 70-200 on the other. 35 in my front pocket. Saw the flower girl walk up to the bride for the first time. The bride leaned down. Needed a better angle to capture the moment. Ran for the angle. Heard a sickening sound of bicarbonate skidding across brick. Looked down and saw...:

[aparmley]

You won't do that again, ;)

Damnit! ouch.

"Over the river and through the woods to CPS we go. . . ." :D

[jamison55]

Yep, shipped off to Jersey yesterday morning. I definitely need a better way of securing my unmounted lenses. Problem is, I still want to look stylish... A belt or vest system doesn't quite work with a black jacket!

[cwphoto]

Ouch! Unfortunately an all too familiar sight as a working pro - get used to it.:(

[TheObiJuan]

duct tape?


:p


any idea how much it will cost for repair?

[timmciglobal]

We mourn your lens....

How do you like the 35 1.4 though? I had chance to pick one up and passed because I've heard questionable value of it vs the F2 35.

Tim

[Vich]

We mourn your lens....

How do you like the 35 1.4 though? I had chance to pick one up and passed because I've heard questionable value of it vs the F2 35.

Tim
I've only heard things like "best lens ever", "who would think that little prime could cost that much, but well worth it", "I use it because I'm just too lazy to Post Process and this little jewel does it right the first time, paid for itself many times over in time savings", etc. Time and time again. But, no experience to back it up. Curious to hear the answer.

Jamison, my heart bleeds for you. Front pocket ... bad parent!:mad: .. :D :)

[24Peter]

Ouch! :eek:

[aparmley]

. . . I definitely need a better way of securing my unmounted lenses. Problem is, I still want to look stylish... A belt or vest system doesn't quite work with a black jacket!

[scratch scratch] . . . So, fanny pack then?

ROFLMAO. . . "Whaaaaaaaaaat???" you could so totally hide that behind your jacket. . . just don't get caught putting it on! LOL :D

[arigato]

Very painful indeed. As for ways to solve where to place it next time, you could always have a deep pocket made on the inside of the jacket like a lot of jackets have, or deepen the side ones it came out of, ....or try deeper pockets in your pant legs but then im sure youll have a few people wondering:

"What do you have in your pocket there"?

and you can tell them:

"Why, a Canon of course"

:D

[coldrain]

"What do you have in your pocket there"?

and you can tell them:

"Why, a Canon of course"

:D
Or ...

"What do you have in your pocket there"?

and you can ask them:

"Why, aren't you just happy to see me?":D

[DonSchap]

No matter how they fall, a dropped lens is the worst. I suspect many find their way to ebay, after repair. :(

I have often wondered (and should look into it, really): Is there a "professional" insurance plan available for this kind of malady? I should think there would be... it seems you can insure darn near anything. At what level do these fall and can you get, pardon the expression, "bag insurance?" You know, in case of camera case theft or loss, during events or at the airport? (You know how "they" love to have you check your bags). :(

I found this article on another website that addresses this issue...

http://www.photo.net/learn/insurance

[coldrain]

Don, will you cut it out already (your making the entire forum into your personal "I can not afford a certain lens so I will be ridiculous about it" peeve rant forum)? And you have NO idea what poly carbonate is, do you. It is real tough stuff.

Now if you really think everything should survive without a scratch when thrown on a concrete floor, you really have odd ideas. And your rants, without seemingly to listen to any arguements of others, do get very, very long in the tooth. I say rants, because discussions really take on a different form. Less dogmatic, more intelligent.

And of course you can insure equipment, but insuring against you throwing things on concrete of course will be very expensive, as you probably can imagine.

[DonSchap]

Obviously, there are two kinds of insurance issues at play here... pro and con... I mean, consumer (aka non-pro).

It appears that "pro insurance" runs a level much higher than standard rider coverage and valuable items insurance. It assumes loss of revenue during a claim and pays for the inconveniences involved. That can get pricey as you might expect. Hence, the higher cost.

Consumer-style insurance falls under the valuable-items policy and simply pays the replacement cost for the "registered" or "scheduled" items, if they are not being used professionally. The insurance companies are extremely touchy about "professional use" aspect. This cost varies from company to company, but a good range seems to be around $1.35 per $100.00 of value (some are even lower... shop around). You can cover property, in addition to cameras, such as:


china and crystal
coins (rare and current)
firearms
furs
golfer's equipment
jewelry
musical instruments
personal computers
stamps (rare and current)
silverware
works of fine art, including paintings, etchings, pictures and other bona fide works of art (such as oriental rugs, statuary, rare books, manuscripts and bric-a-brac) of rarity, historical value or artistic merit.


It might just be a great idea to get started... making the list, despite your insurance decision. When she eventually takes you to divorce court, for paying so much attention to your photography habit... all the property is right there... to cut in half! :rolleyes:

I figure my personal film camera/digital camera systems are within the $5000 bracket... so I will post what I find out, figuring that's about the average for the serious hobbyist. For you pros, though... I'm sure you already have your sources. ;)

[jamison55]

Don, all of my gear is covered by my all encompassing "professional photographers" insurance (liability, errors & omissions, and gear), but I think my deductible is $500...and I'm hoping the cost of repair will be far less than that, and I know that a claim will bump up my premium (I already pay $650/yr).

However, If someone made off with my bag and $$$$ worth of gear, the $500 to replace it all would be a small price indeed!

[DonSchap]

$500 would be a small price to pay, indeed. ;)

After sitting down and going through the digital gear, tripod hardware, just the EOS-3 body and even without the Cokin filter system replacement costs... OMG... I'm up over the $5,000 limit! That really changes the complexion of the rider for my insurance policy. Up to $5000 was a no-brainer, but when you get serious... receipts, lists and photos of the equipment are requested.

You "pro-types" must be in up to your respective eyeballs... adding the costs of the white lenses and asscoiated filters out there. :rolleyes:

I'm also finding out that you have to have started some kind of renter's or home owner's insurance to take out these kinds of policies. They have nothing alone to cover this kind of stuff. I can see that as a problem. I mean, what if you're still under eighteen or are a 35yo and still living with the folks (don't laugh, there are plenty)... or you're a vagabond photographer and live in a cardboard box, down on the corner of Wacker and Jefferson (no real permanent address) or ridin' the rails of the good ol' USA... and you don't do either of these kinds of insurance? :eek:

[Vich]

Don, all of my gear is covered by my all encompassing "professional photographers" insurance (liability, errors & omissions, and gear), but I think my deductible is $500...and I'm hoping the cost of repair will be far less than that, and I know that a claim will bump up my premium (I already pay $650/yr).

However, If someone made off with my bag and $$$$ worth of gear, the $500 to replace it all would be a small price indeed!
Hey, NEVER make an insurance claim you don't have to.

Do you know that AAA won't even consider insuring a home where the PRIOR owner made an insurance loss claim OF ANY KIND (except auto) within the past 3 years! At least that's how I understood it (dumbfounded). AAA aren't the only ones. A $300 savings could cost you $10,000 on the value of your home. It's there for disasters, of a more serious financial nature.

Maybe if your Incorporated company made the claim it would be different.

I'm no expert on it, but have been advised by experts on this so just passing it along as something to consider.

[jamison55]

This may end even better than I thought!


Dear Jamie :

We have received your equipment for evaluation and repair. Based on our initial examination, we will start the necessary repairs at no charge to you. You can expect the repair to be completed and returned back to you within approximately 7 business days* from the date shown above. There is no need to respond to this notice.

Please note that in the unlikely event that any additional internal damage is found due to liquid/water, sand, corrosion, battery leakage or impact (such as dropping the unit), a revised estimate will be sent for your authorization, since these conditions are specifically excluded from warranty coverage.

Thank you for purchasing Canon products and for allowing us this opportunity to serve you.




Best Regards,
Canon Factory Service Center

[jamison55]

We mourn your lens....

How do you like the 35 1.4 though? I had chance to pick one up and passed because I've heard questionable value of it vs the F2 35.

Tim

Tim, sorry I missed this the first time through. While the 35/2 was a really good lens (on par optically and functionally with the 50 f1.8), the 35 1.4 is in a different league all together - in fact, it's in a different sport! It focuses quickly, accurately and silently, and is the sharpest lens I have ever used. In fact, in some of my portrait work it is a bit too sharp...don't necessarily want to see all of her pores and the texture of her makeup!

I did a test here when I bought the 35L: http://www.bigredstudios.com/35.htm

I can't wait to get her back!

[Vich]

Tim, sorry I missed this the first time through. While the 35/2 was a really good lens (on par optically and functionally with the 50 f1.8), the 35 1.4 is in a different league all together - in fact, it's in a different sport! It focuses quickly, accurately and silently, and is the sharpest lens I have ever used. In fact, in some of my portrait work it is a bit too sharp...don't necessarily want to see all of her pores and the texture of her makeup!

I did a test here when I bought the 35L: http://www.bigredstudios.com/35.htm

I can't wait to get her back!
Thanks Jamison! Very enlightening comparison. I suppose it's always easier to add blur in PP rather than the other way around.

Hope your repairs turn out!

[Clyde]

I did a test here when I bought the 35L: http://www.bigredstudios.com/35.htm



I know this is old news, but to my eyes, on my laptop, the 28-105 keeps up with the big dogs. Practically revelatory. Please let me know if I am wrong, but while the f/1.4 prime is in a league of its own, the rest seem pretty similar, in a group above the f/2.

Really nice to see you do all that work for us, thanks buckets.

Clyde

[jamison55]

I think that surprised a lot of us. It's a heck of a lens for $200!

[jamison55]

So all's well that ends well, and I am a happy Canon customer!

I completed the online form create a repair request, and the Canon computer automatically called it a "warranty" repair. Not wanting to argue with the computer I printed out a "receipt", included it with the lens, and shipped it off to NJ. I got an email last week saying that it would in fact be repaired under warranty.

Yesterday I called to check on the status, and they said it was repaired and was being tested. I explained that I was shooting a destination wedding and flying out on Friday morning, and asked if I could pay extra to overnight. Nope, I couldn't pay, they FedEx'd it to me for free.

It is on my desk at work good as new! Total cost for the fall (including overnight shipping): $0.00. Way to further secure my loyalty, Canon!

PS - they even cleaned the glass elements, unfortunately I'll have to do it again since they are all covered with lip marks!

[jwhite]

That is awesome customer service!! I wish more places would follow their example. I'm glad I'm a Canon owner.

How old was the lense?

[jamison55]

UT Date Code, so manufactured in '05. My receipt said purchased in Feb '06.


Also, my lens had a nice big speck of dust inside...more like a chunk really. Now it's gone!

[24Peter]

Awesome - glad it worked out. Certainly bodes well for Canon customer service.

[aparmley]

Sounds like great service. I'm glad shes back in your hands before you skoot off for your DW! Have fun buddy! "Bring me back something french!"

No offense but I should think that service is to be expected with a $1100 lens. So its nice to see you didn't get shafted on that transaction.

[cdifoto]

Wow...a lot happens while I'm gone.

Andy, I don't feel Canon should be obligated to fix these dum dum moves by photographers free of charge regardless of lens price. Yeah it's a $1000+ lens but it's also not a manufacturer defect that caused the breakage...

That said...it's excellent that they fixed it at no charge...sweet move on Canon's part. Congrats on the honky doryness of the fixation. Have fun on the DW.

[coldrain]

Sounds like great service. I'm glad shes back in your hands before you skoot off for your DW! Have fun buddy! "Bring me back something french!"

No offense but I should think that service is to be expected with a $1100 lens. So its nice to see you didn't get shafted on that transaction.
Hm... So parking a Ferrari against a tree also should warrant a free of charge repair? I do not see how dropping a lens on concrete ever "warrant" a free of charge repair.

[jamison55]

Agreed. My butterfingers - or butter pockets - caused the breakage, I was prepared to pay the repair fee (it's a tax deduction anyway). But since Canon seemed to have a "don't ask, don't tell" attitude towards my lens it speaks volumes about the CS. The $200 or so (I'm just guessing) that they lost by not charging me is a good investment in my overall satisfaction with the company. And they'll get a fat return in the $$$ I spend in the future!

[aparmley]

Hey if the service department wants to call parking a ferarii in the middle of lake erie a warranty repair thats up to them, thats not my point. My point is turnaround time - Canon classified Jamie's situation as a warranty repair, for whatever reason, But what I am talking about is that if someone who does spend that kind of money on a lens and needs a repair, it should be expedited and overnighted both ways, because, to borrow a line from my good pal Chuck, "Anything else would be uncivilized."

I guess a better way to clarify my point - Don - I think your gear should have been turned around quicker and they should have at the very least came off to you as on top of everything even if they couldn't pin point your gears exact progress.

With regards to L glass, I think all repairs should be handled in the manor in which Jamie's was. Whether it comes out of the pocket of the customer or not is beside the fact.

Take me out back and shoot me with a Sigma - Thats MHO.