Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 5, 2005, 4:08 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
JakeTPegg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,767
Default

I purchased a 20D a few weeks ago, and moving from a prosumer camera [FZ10] to DSLR was like walking into a minefield, really unknown territory.I knew the kit lens [18-55] was just a throw-in, much like the 16mb cards one gets with some digicams, just enough to wet your appetite for something better, so the quest began. I opted for a 17-85USM IS, and a week later, addeda EF 70-300 DO USM ISas well.

The DO was reasonable, but not what I was looking for, Canon agreed to exchange it for a EF 100 - 400 [with a little extra cash added], which I have not yet had a chance to really assess, but here is the point of this topic :

I noticed a white speck or sliver of something on the inside of the 17-85lens [on the glass], which migrated to the bottom a day later. I spoke to Canon SA, and they said to send it back, which I did. They sent a replacement [Monday just gone], and thefirst thing I did was check the lens, and .... yes, there was another "white speck", this time looking more like a piece of fibre [about 2mm in length, hair like]. I immediately contacted Canon, and they were as flabbergasted as I was, and again agreed to send a second replacement, and this replacement arrived today, and..... YES, ANOTHER LENS WITH A "WHITE SPECK" [this one hasTWO specks on the inside of the outer lens]. I have not had timeto send thesecond lens back yet, so I have in my possession TWO EF-S 17-85 lenses with white floating foreign objects on the inside, andanother lens having already been returned, making it THREE lenses in a row with the same problem.

Can anyone put a bit of light on this,has anyoneelse had a similar experience. I have always has a high regard for Canon products, however,I must admit thatI am beginning to have doubts about the quality control of their products, and I am hoping there is some logical explanation for this ???



Regards



Jake


Attached Images
 
JakeTPegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Feb 7, 2005, 8:35 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 325
Default

Thats pretty strange ... I have one and borrowed another to compare them and neither had anything in there. Both were crystal clear end to end.... Maybe you have the columbian pure version ? lol
mrkryz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2005, 3:40 AM   #3
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 72
Default

Hi,

I have this lens, and noticed a fair amount of white dust when looking in both ends. Not as large as the original poster but there is more of it.I asked a more experienced photographer about whether I should complain about this. He told me that as this zoom lens extends out of the body that air is therefore sucked in an out, causing a certain amount of dust to eventually get in there. He told me it will not affect my photos. I'm not really happy with this explanation as like you this is a brand new lens, and expensive. I would have thought this will mean dust will continue to build up, which cant be a good thing.

Has anyone else got any ideas about this?

I bought this lens for a rather snooty photography shop in Berlin where I am currently working. It is very difficult I am told by this friend of mine to return lenses to them. Does anyone think I am untitled to return this lens. It was bought in November 2004.

Thanks in advance.

Ian.
vindolanda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2005, 1:13 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
JakeTPegg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,767
Default

Thanks for the input, I have contacted Canon again yesterday and today, and both responses were that they will look into it and get back to me, but no response yet. A thought brought out by vindolanda as well is that it is WHITE dust/specks, which makes me think that it is from the lense itself. Dust comes in all sorts of colors, generally brown, but all three of my lenses have white dust particles, as well as vindolanda's. Seems to me to be a manufacturing issue.

I will post Canon's response [when they respond] In the mean-time I have been doing a little bit of searching to see what else is available, and unfortunately, for me, this lenses focal rangeIS what I amneeding



Regards
JakeTPegg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 8, 2005, 1:45 PM   #5
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

My 17-85mm is dust and fleck free fortunately.

No consolation for you except that its not a generic issue, so a replacement lens may be fine.

Also makes me grateful that I didn't buy it in SA and waited until I got back to the UK. Could it possibly be a rough transit/handling issue do you think?
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2005, 1:25 AM   #6
Member
 
TDM_Canon_User's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 90
Default

Hmm... looks like the lens has been disassembled once of twice.
TDM_Canon_User is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2005, 4:08 AM   #7
Super Moderator
 
peripatetic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
Default

TDM_Canon_User wrote:
Quote:
Hmm... looks like the lens has been disassembled once of twice.
I wonder if Canon SA might be able to help answer this...

I know that import duties in SA can be dependant on whether there is any local labour input into a product. Cars that are assembled locally from imported components for example attract less duty than those simply imported.

Is it possible that the lenses are being part-assembled in SA? From the prices of photographic equipment in SA I assumed that they attracted maximum duty and were therefore pure imports but maybe not, it might simply be Canon SA maximising profits.

Of course I am making an implicit assumption that if there is a quality control issue then it is more likely to occur in SA than elsewhere, which may be a little unfair, but has been my experience unfortunatley; the quality of SA goods sits squarely between the "first" and "third" worlds on par with it's developmental contemporaries like India and Brazil.
peripatetic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2005, 5:51 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2
Default

Yes, I had the same problem with Dust in the lens. Since I live near the Canon service center, I was able to bring the lens in and speak to someone in person vs. on the phone.

The issue that they told is that suction is created when zooming in and out. If any dust gets under the rubber grip used to zoom, there is potential that dust could be drawn into the lens by the vaccuum. This isn't what I wanted to hear, but the person had the lens blown out. Since I'm sure it wasn't in a clean room (since it took ony a few minutes) I suspect the particles will come back.

From now on I am only buying L lenses that are gasketed for dust. Poor design on a relatively expensive lens. Canon should do better than this in my opinion.

Buy the 17-40L and a prime in the 50-85mm range. You shouldn't have these sorts of issues.

Alex

:sad:
bydesignap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 11, 2005, 7:14 AM   #9
NHL
Senior Member
 
NHL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,547
Default

Doesn't this has to do more with a lens design?
i.e. internal focus and internal zooming -> since the lenght of a lens stays relatively constant?

Several L lenses 'trombone' in/out doubling their lenght easily and a lens/camera mount is never air tight; otherwise the various elements can't move (like a bicycle pump). Prime lenses that don't focus internally whether L or not also extend back and forth... :?

... the bigger question is does any of this effect picture quality or is this just a psycho thingy??? :G
NHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 12, 2005, 5:59 AM   #10
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2
Default

Yes, it is a matter of design. I am curious why the design in this particular lens is problematic.

The L lenses have a better design where it makes it more resistant to this issue. Hence the recommendation of the 17-40L.

I do agree that it is more in the mind than anything. The camera will not be able to resolve something that fine on the lens. But I do feel it is a matter of principle that a lens in this price range should be designed well.

Alex
bydesignap is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:49 AM.