flare is a major problem to me, and flare resistance major consideration when I select lenses. i dont use special effects filters. in fact, any Ive found that any filter can add a flare or reflection problem. only one of my lenses has a skylight filter on it - my bomb around 24-70 L and even then its a B+W. imo, IS on a lense this f.length is ante-deluvian. i avoid IS as it required so many extra elements in a lens. my 300mm f/4 L is non-IS and I love it. if I shot sports, I would surely use a long IS, but otherwise, it seems prone to problems and it uses up your batteries faster. i do corporate work - ymmv.
Wiseman wrote:
Is there is really a recall from Canon? I think they should recall all 70-300 DO before this one
I used my 70-300DO to take pictures of the sunrise a few days ago and all the images have flare spots and/or the whole image is washed out. It's not always that bad.
But I still like the DO because a bigger/heavier lens would stay home and there would often be no pictures at all from 200 to 300mm.
If the 24-105L gets a bad reputation it will hurt sales of the 5D. I think that's the main reason why they are taking the complaints seriously on this lens. They need to protect the camera sales.
I really nearly died laughing when I read about people trying to FIND a fault with a piece of equipment.
If it works for you and you are satisfied with it it really doesn't matter if others have got a problem with it.
Maybe your Lens was actually a Leica which fell into a Canon batch by mistake.
I've had good results with some lenses (such as the Sigma 20-40 2.8 and the Sigma 12 - 24) which some people have had problems with and have found the 17-40 which a lot of people find excellent less than satisfactory on even a 1.3X camera 1D2).
If you HAVE a problem with gear then fine try and see what's wrong but don't LOOK for problems if you don't have any.
As Engineers say "If it Ain't Broke don't fix it".
Kyle Yates wrote:
If it works for you and you are satisfied with it it really doesn't matter if others have got a problem with it.
Yes, but there should not be that much flare. Regardless, the 24-105 is a very good lens at f/8, where the light falloff is gone and overall image quality (including flare) is fine other than the distortion. I would only replace it if a revised 24-105 were available. However, I would hate to see the optical design compromised to reduce the wide angle, wide aperture flare. Anyway, there is plenety of time left on the warranty to decide, if the option even exists.
herve wrote:
leaving for my big winter of travels just before NY's eve. After all the hoopla, and this waiting period for shipment, now recall, what are the chances I will be able to have one delivered before last week of december, IYO?
You can have this lens FAST. Like, in days. Mine is for sale. See my ad in the Buy Sell forum, or PM me.
nguyen430 wrote:
I've try to get the flare but not success. Maybe I'll try harder.
RJJR wrote:
OK, I've tried shooting into the sun, with the sun in the corners of the viewfinder, in the edges of the VF and just outside of the corners and edges of the VF all at 24/f4 with no strange flaring. In fact, hardly any flaring at all.
Would you mind sharing your serial number? In another thread someone said only the very first copies produced had this problem. Maybe we can confirm this by comparing serial numbers. Thanks in advance.
The lens itself is great, except for the distorsion at the wider angles, im extremely happy with it. Im debating if i should even send it in when its been working so great even though its supposed to be "mandatory".
The area that shows the problem is actually very very slight, only below 35mm and at very wide apertures. A quote from a Canon support mail said between 37 and 45 degrees angle from the lense. Kindof shining on the lens from just outside the fram when on an APS-C camera. Its actually quite easy to reproduce on the 20D. Just have a dark room with a single strong light source and place the camera so the light shines on the lense from the above angle, and place the light source just outside the frame in the viewfinder and move it inwards and outwards. At some times you will see a very slight ray effect in the viewfinder, and if you get the shot then you get the effect. It doesnt matter if you have the shade on or not.
If i would lengthen the shade to adapt to the APS-C size of the 20D, i would never see the problem at. Also, i've seen quotes from Canon USA issuing a recall, and it wasn't that many sold, somewhere around 1500 lenses and so. When i spoke to one Canon product executive today, he said a official press release here is forthcomming next week. Also the store where i got it has sent email to all customers with this lense saying they are sending a prepad packing slip for the issued returned.
Seem ALL sold lenses so far is affected, and everybody i've spoken with so far can reproduce it if done properly.
lexvo wrote:
Would you mind sharing your serial number? In another thread someone said only the very first copies produced had this problem. Maybe we can confirm this by comparing serial numbers. Thanks in advance.
I've listed the date and serial number in that thread but I've since been able to reporoduce the flare at will once I figured out how. Turns out I have to be within a foot (inches really) of the light source at the proper angle, which of course isn't possible using the sun as I did before.
