16-35 f2.8 II Noise on focus ring

[leorait]

Hello!

I've been photographing for a couple years, and after some time suffering in events and architecture with only the 50mm, i've maneged to buy  16-35 f2.8 II and life got a lot easier 😄

I've picked up a second hand lens from 2015, but  it was in perfect conditions, and i believe the problem it is showing has nothing to do with its prior conditions.

For the first 3 months the lens was perfectly fine, but just yesterday i was inspecting the lens out of the body for dust, and i realised the focus ring was making an unusual sound, is like there is something making pressure when rotation is applied to the focus ring, sometimes it sounds like dust and other times it sounds just like gears turning, but it is all very subtle.

The wird part is that this sounds doesn't happen when the lens is on the camera and turned on, just when it is off and when the lens is tilted upright or at some angle. It also doesn't affect autofocus, and the zoom ring is perfectly fine

There is a minor looseness on the on the focus ring, and sometimes it looks like this is to blame, cause depending on wich side you put pressure when rotating the ring, it makes the noises.

I've searched some forums and found some quite related issues, mainly with de 27-70 II, and most people said is just fine. The lens itself is ok, no loss of sharpness neither any signals of damage.

I do believe the lens is fine, but i wanted to know if someone else had this problem or could know better what is happening. As the problem seens minor, and canon services are WAY expensive here in Brazil, i dont wanna take the lens to inspection.

Thanks!

[Waddizzle]

"The EF-S 18-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS STM is a focus-by-wire design that requires the camera to be live our the lens to be wakened from its sleep mode. Full Time Manual, FTM, focusing is available, but only after AF completes." 

So what.  The OP is strictly talking about when the lens is not mounted.

I can say for certain that the lens should not be making loud noises when the lens is tilted at awkward angles, and the focus ring is turned.  My advice is the same as what the doctor told the pole vaulter, "Stop doing that because it hurts."

BTW, I don't think the EF16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is worth the jump from the 17-40mm purely for speed.  I cannot compare IQ, but I can say that the EF 16-35 f/2.8L II USM has very fast AF, great color and contrast.  If you look for it, you will notice "keystoning" at the short end, even when the camera/lens has been leveled.  The distortion is not entirely eliminated by LR, either.  But, you have to look for it, and choose your shots carefully.

[ebiggs1]

I said what I said and  I meant what I said.  You will admit the pole vaulter did go to the doctor.  You, however, are making a diagnosis without actually seeing the lens.  You may be right. You may be foolhardy.  But you can't know for sure until you "see the doctor (lens)".

If I do buy one and find I don't like it, I will sell it on.  No biggie as I do that all the time.  Sold two lenses last week.  Bought one today.  They come and go.  The good ones find a home!

[Waddizzle]

"If I do buy one and find I don't like it, I will sell it on.  No biggie as I do that all the time.  Sold two lenses last week.  Bought one today.  They come and go.  The good ones find a home!" 

I have been shopping around for locations to do a long exposure at night.  I have been using the 16-35 to take shots during the dawn golden hour.  I have also taken some shots looking for moire distortion.  But, I was primarily looking at how my AFMA adjustments turned out.  I think it worked.

Those are 35mm shots.

You can see some keystoning in the full 16mm shot of Nordstroms in the gray building on the lower left.  These were taken at sunrise in low light, with broken clouds on the horizon.  The detail, colors, and contrast is breathtaking.  This is could be a good location for a long exposure, except from the other end of the block on the left, looking towards this shooting position and capturing the intersection at the next red light.

[Waddizzle]

Here is another shot at 35mm from the same location, but different direction, looking for moire distortion.

Crude, yeah.  But, the lens is fantastic, though.  BTW, the full moon is hiding behind the clouds on the right,  Aaargh.

For the pixel peepers out there.

I have to put this lens up there with the 70-200 f/2.8L Mk2.

[leorait]

I thank you all for the kindness and support, it's been some busy days shooting, but heres a quick update on the case:

Despitte the curiosity, i basically did what Waddizzle said "He said that the doctor had told him that if it is painful to move your arm just so, then DON"T move your arm just so." and just stopped searching for problems.

At the first sets of shooting in monday, there was still some noise while manual focusing, but at some point the sounds started to get less noticeable, and tuesday when i had a little time to rest i tested the lens and the clicking and looseness just vanished, no matter how much i twist and shake the ring. It just seens that by autofocusing so much, something went back to its original place.

[ebiggs1]

Or, perhaps, there was nothing wrong with it in the first place.  Again without actually seeing and handling your lens, none of us can say.     In spite of doctors and pole vaulters.  

[ebiggs1]

Was there or is there a point to this post? 

"I have also taken some shots looking for moire distortion"..."I was primarily looking at how my AFMA adjustments turned out."..."You can see some keystoning in the full"..."could be a good location for a long exposure,"

... or are you just rambling?

[Waddizzle]

"Was there or is there a point to this post? " 

Yeah, there was.  I posted some sample images taken with the 16-35 f/2.8L II, that's all.  The images were shot to see how well the lens was focusing at hyperfocal lengths.  All of the shots were taken from a tripod, not handheld.  I posted them to give you, or anyone, some idea of what the lens is capable of doing. 

It is definitely "L" quality glass, for sure.  It captures details, colors, and contrast similar to my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM.  It is hard for me to compare the two lens' sharpness because of the focal length differences.  You can't focus on the same subject, and then take similar shots.  [Well, I suppose that I could if I broke out my old sneaker zoom.    It's similar to sneaker net, before there was inter net.]

I think the lens takes fantastic shots, provided you take your time.  You have to keep in mind when setting your exposures that the lens does not have Image Stabilization.  My handheld not shots are not nearly as crisp as those from a tripod, probably because I do not have the steadiest hands in the world.    Age is catching up to me like an old hound dog.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

"Was there or is there a point to this post? " 

Yeah, there was.  I posted some sample images taken with the 16-35 f/2.8L II, that's all.  The images were shot to see how well the lens was focusing at hyperfocal lengths.  All of the shots were taken from a tripod, not handheld.  I posted them to give you, or anyone, some idea of what the lens is capable of doing. 

It is definitely "L" quality glass, for sure.  It captures details, colors, and contrast similar to my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM.  It is hard for me to compare the two lens' sharpness because of the focal length differences.  You can't focus on the same subject, and then take similar shots.  [Well, I suppose that I could if I broke out my old sneaker zoom.    It's similar to sneaker net, before there was inter net.]

I think the lens takes fantastic shots, provided you take your time.  You have to keep in mind when setting your exposures that the lens does not have Image Stabilization. ...

---

I hadn't realized that until you mentioned it. The slightly newer(?) f/4 version does have IS.

[ebiggs1]

"It is definitely "L" quality glass, for sure."

I am sure Canon will be elated you agree with them.  Were/are you surprised?

"I was primarily looking at how my AFMA adjustments turned out."

Not applicable at that distance, is it?  Again, so what is your meaning?

"You can see some keystoning in the full"

Easily correctable in PS.  Or, perhaps you were not perpendicular to the subject?

"I have also taken some shots looking for moire distortion"

PS lens correction.

All lenses show these things and some much worse.  I suppose some much better.  Most photographers concede some post editing is always required and a good idea.