testing potentially damaged equipment

[DanK]

Yesterday, when I returned from a photo shoot, I pulled my camera bag out of the car, and it opened. (It was my fault). My 70-200 and my 5D III with a 24-105 attached fell about 2 feet onto the concrete floor of our garage. The filter on the 70-200 shattered. Fortunately, my wife was out of earshot.

The 70-200 obviously landed front-first. The camera had a mark on one corner of its L bracket, and there was one on the filter ring, so I can't tell which end took the worst of it.

Once I stopped hollering obscenties about my carelessness--which took quite a while--I tried testing the equipment by putting a detailed target on the wall and checking for center and corner sharpness. the target was small, so this meant shooting at a close distance. The camera seems fine. The 70-200 showed no signs of damage and was sharp in every section I examined. (Quite amazing, as this is the second time; the first time, a surprise gust of wind knocked over my tripod, and the lens hit hard enough that the filter ring on the lens had to be replaced. There was no other damage that time either.)

The 24-105 (first generation) is harder to evaluate. It showed modest softness and CA in the corners when shot wide open, but those of you know know that lens won't be surprised, and I have no before and after comparison.

(You might say: an opportunity to replace the 24-105 with something better. I have considered 7 alternatives--the two 24-70s from Canon, the 24-70s from Sigma and Tamron, the 24-105 from Sigma, and Canon's second generation 24-105--and none seems enough better to be worth the cash or the sometimes considerably greater weight.)

Our local, very good camera repair shop has a one week wait for a test and estimate and 1-2 weeks more for a repair, if needed.

Anyone have any suggestions about other tests I might run myself? If I see any sign of functional problems, I'll take it all in.

[Shadowman]

I had a similar incident happen to me, luckily mine was inside a backpack and like yours only the UV filter shattered, and gave me a slight cut on my finger.

[rpcrowe]

The 70-200mm Canon lenses seem to be built like tanks. I stumbled one day and fell with the camera/lens around my neck on a strap. The lens hit with the hood taking the major part if the thrust. The hood was the screw-in generic type and was completely shattered but the lens kept on going like the Energizer Bunny.

OTOH, I had a 50mm f/1.8 Mark ii lens on a strap and dinged a door frame just lightly when passing through. The entire front element separated and ended up spinning on the floor...

[shreds]

That is my experience……whilst the pro level gear may seem expensive, it is generally built to withstand most things you can throw at them. (or drop them on). Plastic consumer stuff really has a one hit destruction.

Only managed to destroy a built in lens hood once on a predominantly metal lens, luckily the glass was saved by the lens hood, and it all came back from the repair shop looking brand new and suitably calibrated.

Nevertheless, insurance is essential regardless. You never know when disaster is going to strike. Even after the policy excess, it is usually much cheaper than having to buy brand new again.

[DanK]

Nevertheless, insurance is essential regardless. You never know when disaster is going to strike. Even after the policy excess, it is usually much cheaper than having to buy brand new again.

Only when your damage is substantially greater than the average across all of their policyholders. Otherwise, the insurer would quickly go out of business.

Unfortunately, I am becoming such a klutz that I am probably in the group that damages things more than average.

My experience is limited, but so far, it has been consistent with your point and Richard's: most of the expensive equipment stands up to a lot of abuse. The first time my 70-200 fell, which was about 5 ft onto concrete when my tripod blew over, the damage was limited to the lens hood and protective filter (both shattered) and the front ring that filters screw onto. That time, I did have professionals test the lens, and they found nothing else wrong with it.

[Geoff F]

When I got fed up with my 24-105 and various problems, Dan, I replaced it with the Tamron 24-70 which I have found to be an excellent lens and there is a Mark 2 available now. Although I sometimes miss the 70-100 range. I can cover the gap with my Canon 70-200 but that often means quick lens changes in what can be a 'popular size' for some people.

[DanK]

When I got fed up with my 24-105 and various problems, Dan, I replaced it with the Tamron 24-70 which I have found to be an excellent lens and there is a Mark 2 available now. Although I sometimes miss the 70-100 range. I can cover the gap with my Canon 70-200 but that often means quick lens changes in what can be a 'popular size' for some people.

Geoff,

thanks. That's probably the leading contender among the lenses I looked at. Unfortunately, I do a lot of candids using the range between 70 and 105, but it still may be the best option.

Dan