Issues with the EF2.8L 70-200mm USM II lens

[lellyk]

Hi

I am an amateur however it is a serious hobby and I have been asked to photograph some weddings and decided to invest in this lens.

The results I am getting are shockingly bad.  I understand due to the size of the lens that I must use a reasonably quick shutter speed, however the photos are not sharp.

I have a 70-300 F4 lens which I have been using instead as the results are constantly clear and sharp using the same settings.  The expensive 2.8L gets left at home.  Does anyone know of issues with a particular batch of this lens?  The first one I got fell off my 6D (at a wedding, right at the vows!) and luckily the vendor replaced it, so it makes me wonder what on earth is going on.

Can anyone help with this?

Thanks

Lesley

[ebiggs1]

Call Canon Suport first.

My lens fits perfectly on all six of the current bodies I am using.

[Waddizzle]

Thanks, Ernie.  I had thought about doing that.

[Stephen]

Hey Wadizzle,

Don't think, do. Our team of professionals is here to help! If you haven't called before, you'd be surprised of the wealth of knowledge this small group of people contain! They have access to 99% of the EF lenses that have ever been made, and all of the bodies, so chances are they'll be able to put your kit together and tell you what is what, or what they've heard from other people.

Plus, it's free. You can't beat free AMERICAN professional support! 1-800-OK-CANON (800-652-2666).

[Waddizzle]

Thanks, Stephen.  They have just advised me to return it to the store, and see if a different model still has the same issue.

One thing though, the service person that I spoke with on the phone said that Canon DOES put "a small amount of play" in the lens mount of this particular lens, "about 2mm" he said, which is consistent with my observation of between 1/16 and 1/8 of an inch of play. 

That's not good.  It rattles when you turn and point it.  And, it seems to me that that would negatively impact focusing.

[ebiggs1]

It is hard for me to comprehend the possibility of a Canon lens falling off a Canon body.  Forgive me but I only have my own experience to go by here.  I have been doing this photography stuff for ever and never had it happen to me. I was not and still am not a casual user either.  I have a camera in my hands every day.  Back in the day for many hours a day.

There are some 40+ plus lenses in my inventory right now and likely well over a hundred through out the years.  Including going back to the old FD days.  Not to mention a lot of bodies.  Never had a lens fall off.  Sorry for the apparent lack of sympathy. I just have not experienced it.  Whether manufacturing error or user error, I am sure it is heart shattering.  I do know, well, the sound of a 1 series with an "L" lens as it strikes a concrete floor.  Makes you sick.

In your case call Canon.  Today, you will be pleased with them.

[ebiggs1]

Oh, OK, I see you did.

 BTW, 2mm is a little over a 1/16 no where close to an 1/8th.

[Waddizzle]

I didn't measure it.  It was an eyeball guess-timate.  Hard to believe, but the guy said they purposely introduce some play.

There is both rotational, and on-axis slack.  In other words, the distance of the lens elements from the sensor is affected, too.  It affects the quality of the focus, too.  I tried some test shots,, pointing at the same target, and some were sharp, and some were not. 

I guess it depends upon which position the lens has shfited itself to.  I used a tripod, used AF to focus, and then turned it off.  I took a shot, removed the camera from the tripod [shake, rattle, and roll], remounted it on tripod, and took another shot.  Some were tack sharp, and some were not.

[lellyk]

Interesting. I tried the first one on both my cameras too and it definitely felt different to any other lens I own. I was lucky as I took an insurance policy with the first lens or I would have been even more upset about it falling off!

[Waddizzle]

---

@lellyk wrote:
Interesting. I tried the first one on both my cameras too and it definitely felt different to any other lens I own. I was lucky as I took an insurance policy with the first lens or I would have been even more upset about it falling off!

---

EXACTLY.

The lens does not fit like any other lens in my collection, either.  Everybody is snug as a bug, except for this guy.

[Waddizzle]

GOOD NEWS: 

I exchanged the lens last night, and the new one has a much better fit.  It is still not as tight and snug as my other lenses, but it doesn't shift or rattle, either.  There is just a little play, which is barely visible to the naked eye, or at least mine.  The slack is more audible than it is visible.  I can hear a faint click.

Meanwhile, I've brainstormed as to why they would purposely introduce some play in the mount, and the only logical answer that I can come up with is thermal expansion and contraction. So, I'll keep this one for now, and put it through some paces, which ain't gonna be a whole lot of outdoor shots.  It's below zero outside. 

The IQ is fantastic.  This is the first lens I've used where using a filter creates a noticeable degradation in IQ.  I've imagined it in the past, and realized that I am looking for something that may not really be there, but this lens definitely shows a difference.  The focus, AF turned on, is just simply not as sharp, and images have a little graininess to them.  I used a Bower filter I had laying around.  I had bought it once thinking I was getting a B & W.

Thanks, for the kick in the rear, Ernie.   Now, I need some barbells.  This thing is heavy on my 6D with a battery grip. 

BTW, the 6D, with battery grip, with the lens and its' hood all fit inside of my Lowepro "Top Loader Pro" 75 AW II camera holster.