# Canon Date codes gone? Why?



## daveypoo (Jan 12, 2015)

I recently purchased a new 70 200 F2.8L USM IS II lens and could not find a date code. When I contacted Canon Professional services I was told that Canon has discontinued putting date codes on lenses. What could possibly be the reason for Canon to omit date codes on their lenses? Also, does anyone know when this practice started? I can see this hurting resale values down the road.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 12, 2015)

I was under the impression that Canon simply changed their method and started integrating the date code into the serial number. I don't think anyone is 100% sure and Canon hasn't released an official key or explanation. Keep in mind that Canon doesn't care about maintaining a system to support resale values. If anything, they would prefer everyone buy new. This may be the reason for keeping the date code "secret" in the first place. Good resale values doesn't help Canon make profit, it helps the buyer save money and in a way is probably considered competition.

Here is a good web site for understanding what is known about the date codes.
http://www.eflens.com/lens_articles/canon_lens_date_codes.html


----------



## JonAustin (Jan 12, 2015)

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Aging.aspx


----------



## Carlos575 (Jan 12, 2015)

When i bought my 70-200 f2.8 IS II about 18 mths ago, it didn't have a date code, but my 400 f5.6 which i bought a couple of months back did have one! (UC) ???
In other words, i've no idea what Canon have in mind!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 12, 2015)

They stop using date codes on newly designed lenses in 2010. Seems that older designs which had date codes continue to have them stamped on even in recent production runs. As far as I know, the 70-200/2.8L IS II (launched in early 2010) is the only lens to have initially had a date code, which was then dropped (production runs later in 2010 lacked a date code).


----------



## NancyP (Jan 12, 2015)

On the other hand, even used lenses get the new owners more committed to the Canon system, so used sales do benefit the company in the long run. I have a mix of new (2/3) and used or refurbished (1/3) EF/EF-S lenses.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 12, 2015)

NancyP said:


> On the other hand, even used lenses get the new owners more committed to the Canon system, so used sales do benefit the company in the long run. I have a mix of new (2/3) and used or refurbished (1/3) EF/EF-S lenses.



I totally agree. It's a bit of a Catch-22 for Canon. Having a solid and high quality new & used market of lenses and all other Canon gear gets a larger following and encourages brand loyalty even if it means less new sales. And I could be wrong but it seems like there are more Canon users than Nikon users overall. Seems like a lot of the beginners tend to buy Rebels. Just my observation.


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 13, 2015)

Hi Rusty. 
I would suggest contrary to your theory, a good resale market actually helps new sales, the second hand purchaser cannot necessarily afford to splurge for a new lens, and if I can't sell my lens for a decent price I cannot afford to purchase my new upgrade. I believe this hold true for many high value items. 
Obligatory automotive comparison follows. ;D
Take cars, without a second hand car market many manufacturers would not have made it this far, considering the problem of establishing brand loyalty with an item that is not part of a system, so no system lock in, it is considered crucial for a brand to have a good resale value, on a par with good service? 

Cheers, Graham. 




RustyTheGeek said:


> I was under the impression that Canon simply changed their method and started integrating the date code into the serial number. I don't think anyone is 100% sure and Canon hasn't released an official key or explanation. Keep in mind that Canon doesn't care about maintaining a system to support resale values. If anything, they would prefer everyone buy new. This may be the reason for keeping the date code "secret" in the first place. Good resale values doesn't help Canon make profit, it helps the buyer save money and in a way is probably considered competition.
> 
> Here is a good web site for understanding what is known about the date codes.
> http://www.eflens.com/lens_articles/canon_lens_date_codes.html


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 13, 2015)

daveypoo said:


> I recently purchased a new 70 200 F2.8L USM IS II lens and could not find a date code. When I contacted Canon Professional services I was told that Canon has discontinued putting date codes on lenses. What could possibly be the reason for Canon to omit date codes on their lenses? Also, does anyone know when this practice started? I can see this hurting resale values down the road.



For resale value I think its irrelevant. Does anyone (serious) buy a used lens without seeing an original reciept from the seller?

Its very likely Canon just decided they did not need a date code because lenses do not tend to "age" and they can - themselves - see exactly when a lens was produced through the serial number. Writing the date for the questionable pleasure of buyers is therefore only a cost waiting to be eliminated. And savings count in an industry that is under intense profit presure.

BTW what is the date code of your TV, bicycle, printer, refrigerator? No I don't know either. And who cares?

Date codes on Cameras makes more somewhat sense. As far as I know Canon continues with this.


----------



## J.R. (Jan 13, 2015)

daveypoo said:


> I can see this hurting resale values down the road.



No it won't. Just keep the original receipt with the packaging material intact.


----------



## e17paul (Jan 13, 2015)

Once upon a time, in the days of paper records, a date code was the only easy way for Canon or a service centre to establish the date of production of a lens. Nowadays, with easy access to computer databases, any lens can be dated from its serial number. That could be why codes are no longer necessary for Canon.

However, it doesnt help us to know.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 13, 2015)

daveypoo said:


> I can see this hurting resale values down the road.



Why? Lenses are valued on condition not age.



Maiaibing said:


> For resale value I think its irrelevant. Does anyone (serious) buy a used lens without seeing an original reciept from the seller?



Are you serious or did you forget the sarcasm tag? I have sold several lenses and never had the original receipt. 

Very recently I sold an 11 year old 16-35 f2.8 that has had a 'professional' use its entire life, I paid $1,250 for it new and sold it for $900, it had the original box, caps and hood, as well as the unused soft case, all packaging and the instruction booklet. Nobody that asked about it asked for the date code, they were only interested in the condition.

As far as I can see date codes have never been anything but a hobbyists conversation piece, they served no real purpose, Canon could trace much more detailed info from the serial number if they wanted to. If any reason for omitting them was needed I would cite cost, it cost something to put it there.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 13, 2015)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Rusty.
> I would suggest contrary to your theory, a good resale market actually helps new sales, the second hand purchaser cannot necessarily afford to splurge for a new lens, and if I can't sell my lens for a decent price I cannot afford to purchase my new upgrade. I believe this hold true for many high value items.
> Obligatory automotive comparison follows. ;D
> Take cars, without a second hand car market many manufacturers would not have made it this far, considering the problem of establishing brand loyalty with an item that is not part of a system, so no system lock in, it is considered crucial for a brand to have a good resale value, on a par with good service?
> ...



Excellent points *Graham* and I totally agree. Well put! Going with your thought process, with larger purchases like cars, homes and in our case, expensive camera gear, there are people who buy used and people who buy new. The used stuff must go somewhere and without a market, the new stuff would move a lot slower. No one is going to pile up 20 years worth of used cars in their driveway or 20 years worth of expensive used lenses in their closet!


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> daveypoo said:
> 
> 
> > I can see this hurting resale values down the road.
> ...



Totally agree *PBD*. At this point in my photography "career" I have bought and sold a lot of gear. Everything you say is true. Condition is paramount and having the box to pack it "like new" does help. Like almost everything used, a receipt rarely will impact the sale. Sure it's a nice thing to offer but having it will rarely affect the sale or the value.

And good point on the date codes. They are discussed to death but rarely will affect the outcome of a used gear purchase. It's not like your 11 year old lens would have sold better if it had only been 8 years old. And I have that same 16-35 lens! I still use it and love it. I bought mine from a National Geographic Photographer who took it all over the world in her film days. She sold it to me in 2010. I never asked for or expected a receipt. And she didn't believe in keeping boxes either. But it's a sweet lens!


----------



## Valvebounce (Jan 13, 2015)

Hi Rusty. 
Both of these items are in my view differentiators of professional versus hobbyist / amateur. 
To a professional, it is a tool to earn hard cash, it goes through the books, receipt goes in the accounts folder, box is in the way the moment the item is removed from it so goes in the bin. 
To a hobbyist it is an investment of hard earned cash and thus requires that receipts and packaging are kept just in case. 
I just realised I have no boxes for any of my mechanics or engineering tools, and the receipts for much of it will be in the accountants folder. 

Thrupence worth of thoughts there. 

Cheers, Graham. 



RustyTheGeek said:


> I never asked for or expected a receipt. And she didn't believe in keeping boxes either. But it's a sweet lens!


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 13, 2015)

Valvebounce said:


> Hi Rusty.
> Both of these items are in my view differentiators of professional versus hobbyist / amateur.
> To a professional, it is a tool to earn hard cash, it goes through the books, receipt goes in the accounts folder, box is in the way the moment the item is removed from it so goes in the bin.
> To a hobbyist it is an investment of hard earned cash and thus requires that receipts and packaging are kept just in case.
> ...



Well I don't fit that mental idea! I am a pro, the receipt went into the expenses folder, and the 'investment' had to earn its keep, but, I kept the box and packaging, I even moved it across several countries (along with all the other boxes I have!).

Hmm, maybe I am a pro that likes my gear? Maybe I realise that the capital write off is just a few dollars so the additional hundreds can go in my pocket? ......


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone (serious) buy a used lens without seeing an original reciept from the seller?
> ...



I am dead serious. A market between private people for valueable and easily exchanged electronic goods is excellent for everyone. But if buyers do not insist on seeing receipts they can easily end up helping churn stolen goods. 

I personally would never - ever - buy something like a lens without seeing a reciept. This is how our stolen camera gear gets shifted around. I think every buyer should carefully consider the risks involved when buying expensive things from private sellers that are not able to document their purchase. Were I live its a stong norm to ask for reciepts or else many potential buyers will shun the goods like the plague. It is almost always the question I get first if i forgot to say in my add that I have a receipt.

The good thing is that with all the on-line buying and Canon CPS etc. its become much easier to document your stuff.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 13, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...



I have never, ever, had a buyer ask to see my original receipt.

Stolen gear very rarely, if ever, has the original box packaging and accessories. Besides, it would take me about 4 minutes to make a pretty decent B&H receipt. When buying it is all about getting a feeling for the seller, one piece of paper doesn't do anything for me for or against. 

But then I sold my 16-35 to the first person who actually looked at it, I showed them test images shot with the lens and I let them try it for 10 days before paying for it, I am just like that.........


----------



## Coldhands (Jan 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



+1

When I switched from Olympus I sold 2 bodies and 5 high-grade lenses, all to different buyers and not a single one asked for receipts.

Present yourself as a photographer first and foremost, show some images taken with the equipment (good strategy for selling anyway), and there should be no reason for a buyer to doubt that the equipment is yours.

Besides, I would imagine that most stolen goods go through a pawnbroker rather than a private sale. Quicker to offload and fewer questions asked... Not that I have first hand experience, of course


----------



## monkey44 (Jan 13, 2015)

One way to prove you own the lens (if no receipt) -- show date stamped .exif images from a random year ... that will prove you owned and used the lens at least that long ago. 

How may thieves shoot a 'proof image', then wait a couple years to sell a 'hot lens' ... just a thought.

I have a 100-400 V.1 from a 1999 purchase -- and can't imagine where that receipt is now. And, I just bought the V.2, so will be selling the V.1 soon. I hope no one asks for a receipt, but I can show images from 1999 to recently shot with the lens. And correct above, a receipt can be 'faked' in about five seconds ... unless someone actually took the receipt and asked for verification from B&H, Adorama, or maybe better, make the receipt from a 'no longer in business' camera retailer -- receipt, nice to have, but not a deal-breaker in my mind.


----------



## Zv (Jan 13, 2015)

I have never heard of anyone asking for a receipt when buying used. I used to keep my receipts but after I started buying things online I realized there is no need to keep them. Tossed them all. Don't even need it to return an online item these days. 

Like PBD said - If I have the original box and packaging and the item is in pristine condition, what more does the buyer need? A piece of paper saying someone bought it at some point in time? What if it was a present? Does that imply it's a stolen good because I don't have a receipt? Nonsense. 

edit - I live in Japan where stolen stuff is rare and most people here wouldn't even dream of stealing stuff never mind selling stolen lenses. I've been spoiled! Though, I can see this being more of an issue in other countries where people are perhaps a bit more mistrustful.


----------



## TeT (Jan 13, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> For resale value I think its irrelevant. Does anyone (serious) buy a used lens without seeing an original reciept from the seller?



I bought over 250 used pieces of camera equipment in the past year, 95% of them lenses, 90% of those sight unseen (pictures). 0% with a receipt. Returned 15 pieces to the sellers.

Sold everyone of them . Only 3 purchasers saw the item before handing over the money. No one saw a receipt. 2 pieces were returned back to me. Both were resold.

Out of all of this only 1 real lens issue that got by me & I was stuck for a small loss.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 13, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Maiaibing said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



+1

I keep packaging. I keep receipts for insurance purposes and no buyer has ever asked for one.


----------



## Luds34 (Jan 13, 2015)

Plus, how would selling 2nd hand work? If you must see a receipt, it's like saying each new purchase has one resale transaction built in, after that, it's used up. I couldn't imagine asking a seller to print me a receipt of our transaction at a coffee shop so that I can resell it again down the road.

The only thing I can think of was one guy asked me to sign a simple transaction statement that I had indeed purchased his camera for $xx as he was a pro videographer and wanted to have some documentation for tax purposes.


----------



## fragilesi (Jan 13, 2015)

Out of interest do other manufacturers put date codes on their lenses? I'm just curious.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 14, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Maiaibing said:
> ...


 
I've sold literally a hundred or more lenses, and only 2 or 3 asked if I had a receipt. I have receipts for lenses I've bought at retail, but generally not for used lenses. I have no concerns about buying a used lens, its pretty easy to tell if a seller is a photographer or not, if they are selling a expensive lens and have no clue, I just pass it up.


----------



## Chisox2335 (Jan 14, 2015)

Maiaibing said:


> daveypoo said:
> 
> 
> > I recently purchased a new 70 200 F2.8L USM IS II lens and could not find a date code. When I contacted Canon Professional services I was told that Canon has discontinued putting date codes on lenses. What could possibly be the reason for Canon to omit date codes on their lenses? Also, does anyone know when this practice started? I can see this hurting resale values down the road.
> ...



If I buy an item from b&h or adorama I don't ask for the original receipt and the date code is important then


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jan 14, 2015)

Carlos575 said:


> When i bought my 70-200 f2.8 IS II about 18 mths ago, it didn't have a date code, but my 400 f5.6 which i bought a couple of months back did have one! (UC) ???
> In other words, i've no idea what Canon have in mind!


Exactly the same happened to me when I bought my 70-200 f2.8L IS II and later bought my 16-35 f4L IS


----------



## mpphoto (Jan 14, 2015)

fragilesi said:


> Out of interest do other manufacturers put date codes on their lenses? I'm just curious.



Sigma's Art lenses have the production year on them, for example "014" for 2014.

A Sony E-mount Art lens I bought new from B&H in October 2014 had "013" on it. This could be a reason why a manufacturer stops using a date code. A picky consumer may complain to a retailer about getting a new lens that is two years old.


----------



## nc0b (Jan 14, 2015)

Certainly condition is paramount, but on the other hand, I prefer to know the approximate age of a lens or camera body. It would seem there must be some kind of lubrication on moving parts that could degrade. When I decided to by a 400mm f/5.6 lens, I realized a used one could be over 20 years old, and not be drastically less expensive than a new one. After inquiring of the date code on several samples of that lens available locally on Craigslist over a few months, I decided it didn't make sense to me to buy a 10 to 15 year old unit. Thank goodness for the date code in this case.


----------



## fragilesi (Jan 14, 2015)

mpphoto said:


> fragilesi said:
> 
> 
> > Out of interest do other manufacturers put date codes on their lenses? I'm just curious.
> ...



Thanks, I was just curious.

And I can't resist suggesting that the date on the Sony lens was actually a "Best Before" date ;D.


----------



## leichenmuehle (Jan 14, 2015)

... yesterday i have bought a new EF 200mm 2.8 L II, it was brand market with an "UC" under its barrel.
"UC" Stands for made in 2014.


----------



## monkey44 (Jan 14, 2015)

I'd come down on the side of "condition is more important than age" ... if you have a hobby shooter, you might have a 10-15 year old lens that's had a combined year of weekend use. And conversely, you get a pro out there every single day rain or shine, you get five years of hard use in a year-old lens. 

For example: I have a Canon 20-35 lens (no longer in production even, and at least 15 years old) ... probably pulled fifty images thru it. But I'd never give it up, it's a great lens when I need that lens. Otherwise, I need to buy another lens below the 24-105 when that one won't quite get where I want it. I bought it on a whim, just because I thought it would find lots of use, it didn't -- but if I sold it, someone would get a pristine lens Canon does not even build anymore.


----------



## Maiaibing (Jan 14, 2015)

Luds34 said:


> Plus, how would selling 2nd hand work? If you must see a receipt, it's like saying each new purchase has one resale transaction built in, after that, it's used up.



Interesting how it works in different countries. In Denmark its the norm and Ebay (DBA) specifically advises people to ask for the original receipt to avoid buying stolen goods.

No problem with resells; you get the original or a copy of the reciept from the first seller, who also writes one for the resell, so if you resell it again you just show the two (or the resell is noted on the original bill).

BTW consumer electronics is at the very top of the goods Ebay recommends this for.


----------

