the irony of the 24-105 situation

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload

end

Archive 2005 · the irony of the 24-105 situation

kheldar
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #1 · the irony of the 24-105 situation

So we can add a new one to the list

Magic Drainpipe - 80-200L
Coffee Grinder - 100-300L
Dust Trombone - 100-400L IS
Plastic Fantastic - Tokina 19-35
Plastic Piston - 90-300
Pocket Rocket - 80-200 F4.5-5.6
Coke Bottle - 16-35L ?
Prime-Pipe - 200 F2.8L
Hyper Pipelet - 135F2L
Grandad - 50 F1.8 Mk1
Radar Gun - Sigma 170-500
Bigma - Sigma 50-500EX
Goldfinger - Champagne Coloured 24-85USM
Popeye - Sigma 12-24HSM
BogRoll - 75-300 (Non-IS)
Fake Drainpipe - Sigma 70-210 F2.8 APO
The Hack - 28-70L
Hack-II the Sequel - 24-70L
and
Photon Torpedo - Canon 24-105 F4.0 IS

Oct 20, 2005 at 09:45 PM

EB-1
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #2 · the irony of the 24-105 situation

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.

EB

Oct 21, 2005 at 12:31 AM

Canonizer
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #3 · the irony of the 24-105 situation

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.

Oct 21, 2005 at 01:58 AM

Andrew Gough
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #4 · the irony of the 24-105 situation

I guess paying lotsa money for a defective product is just ok these days...

Oct 21, 2005 at 03:09 AM

lexvo
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #5 · the irony of the 24-105 situation

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.

Oct 21, 2005 at 03:30 PM

Aphasia
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #6 · the irony of the 24-105 situation

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.

Hers a shot where i used the fault as an effect.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Heres a UGLY version of the fault when reproducing what it can be.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Oct 21, 2005 at 11:13 PM

Bobster2
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #7 · the irony of the 24-105 situation

Aphasia wrote:
Hers a shot where i used the fault as an effect.

That's a prize winner! Awesome.

Now replace the cup with a burned piece of toast that looks like a religious icon. It'll sell for millions on e-bay. No joke. It really will.

Oct 21, 2005 at 11:45 PM

RJJR
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #8 · the irony of the 24-105 situation

lexvo wrote:
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.

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.

Oct 22, 2005 at 12:13 AM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end