pixelpix,
Thanks so much for your information. At this point, I think I'll just hold off a bit. I have a rental coming next week to give it a try before purchasing but I feel that I'll still wait a while especially considering the cost of a new lens.
Do you know of any such problems with version 1 ?
wib3 wrote:
pixelpix,
Thanks so much for your information. At this point, I think I'll just hold off a bit. I have a rental coming next week to give it a try before purchasing but I feel that I'll still wait a while especially considering the cost of a new lens.
Do you know of any such problems with version 1 ?
Not that I have heard, but V1 is not even close to V2 optically.
If the locking nut is loose when you tilt it, and tightened snug but not too snug after you tilt it. It's physically impossible for it to get any tighter without your input. I have 3 T&S lenses and have owned 6, none of them have self tightened by themselves. It's user input that overtightens it. So not to disagree but check your techniques. This is not a common complaint in fact I believe it is the first time I have seen it on a public forum. Be sure you are not tilting the lens after snugging the lock nut because this can and does tighten the lock nut in excess. It's only a hand tightened nut, a very simple device
This is the first I've ever heard of this problem. I've never encountered it with either the original 24 TS-E or the second version, both of which I own/owned. Never had a problem with handheld either, having done about 1/2 my use that way, with shift. I've also used the 17 TS-E, and now own the 90, again, no problems.
My main tip is to not over-tighten the locking knobs, and always make sure to loosen before making an adjustment, then immediately locking (gently).
I wouldn't say the original 24 should be completely disregarded due to its imaging. It is a terrific lens, but does suffer from CA color fringing. This can now be easily cleaned up in LR4, making it again a promising lens to use. Granted, the second version is better all around, including sharpness, but I successfully completed many jobs with the original, right up until just over a year ago.
If the locking nut is loose when you tilt it, and tightened snug but not too snug after you tilt it. It's physically impossible for it to get any tighter without your input.
I wish that was so, but it does happens. At no time have I ever over-tightened the knobs.
I have 3 T&S lenses and have owned 6, none of them have self tightened by themselves. It's user input that overtightens it. So not to disagree but check your techniques.
I do appreciate your input, but my techniques are fine.
This is not a common complaint in fact I believe it is the first time I have seen it on a public forum.
Mike K wrote:
I have noticed that when I use the shift or tilt lens movements without loosening the lock knobs, but simply leaving them loosely tightened, that this tilt/shift motion may cause the lock knobs to over tighten.
Don't do that! They are not tension adjustments: the knob needs to be fully loose (but not forced against the stop) when the lens is shifted/tilted or fully tight (but not forced). See page 12 of the manual. On my lens, there is no creep in either shift or tilt with the knobs loosened. I do usually tighten them before taking the shot and always before tearing down/moving on.
I have one more suggestion for those who use the lens on a 5 series camera. If you turn the camera upside down with this lens mounted and in its default configuration you will see the locking knob for tilt sticks out below the rig in a very exposed position where it could be bumped and will take the rig weight when you put it down. When I used this lens on my 5D (original) I always parked the tilt turret at 90º so that the tilt and shift controls lined up. Now the bottom of the rig is smooth and the locking knob no longer exposed.
pixelpix wrote:
We should not have to tippy-toe around such a simple thing as a lock mechanism.... regardless of storing it with loose knobs or tight knobs, regardless of a bit of vibration or movement during transport, these knobs should still not freeze, as none of this is akin to abusive over-tightening.
With respect, abuse is exactly what it is. I would like the locks to be clicky toggle buttons. I would like the shift at least to be operable with one hand. I would like the lens to be weather sealed. But that's the way Canon made the lens, and common mechanical sense has to be exercised.
With respect melcat, this lens has locked on me for absolutely no apparent reason what so ever.... to be able to make an exposure, gently unlock the lens, apply shift, gently lock the lens, take the second exposure and then immediately find that the lock knob has frozen is not outside acceptable "mechanical sense" IMO..... if this is the way Canon made the lens, then they have grossly under-engineered the mechanism for it's task.
pixelpix wrote:
With respect melcat, this lens has locked on me for absolutely no apparent reason what so ever.... to be able to make an exposure, gently unlock the lens, apply shift, gently lock the lens, take the second exposure and then immediately find that the lock knob has frozen is not outside acceptable "mechanical sense" IMO..... if this is the way Canon made the lens, then they have grossly under-engineered the mechanism for it's task.
I've been reading this thread with interest since I acquired a 24mm TS-E II recently. Fortunately I haven't had the lockup problem you describe so far. But I agree with you - if the problem is normal for this lens then Canon never should have foisted it off on unsuspecting buyers. And if it's not normal, as I suspect, then Canon should either fix it or replace it, assuming you did nothing to create the problem. Not that Canon is likely to replace an out-of-warranty lens free of charge but it's what they should do IMHO.
80% of the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II lenses that I own, have had this problem. A few out of warranty. Each repair has required a shift unit replacement and runs about $700. It's the most frustrating lens in the rental lineup.
I have curbed some of the problems by sending the lenses with the knobs loose, sort of like we do with the 100-400 and the locking ring on it.
I'm not sure if it's design, abuse or a bit of both.
pixelpix wrote:
if this is the way Canon made the lens, then they have grossly under-engineered the mechanism for it's task.
What I am suggesting is that if the locking bolt is knocked when loose and the shaft bent, when it is tightened later it could cock over and jam in the thread. It may go in and out a few times gouging the thread wider and wider before that eventually happens. Normally when the bolt is tightened down it is under tension between the thread and the surface it locks against inside the lens and is therefore rigid. (It does require some force to start unscrewing a metal bolt in a metal thread, because it has cold welded onto the thread .)
Or if the screw is once overtightened the bolt may deform in order to be shorter and fit, the raised part will gouge the thread as the bolt turns and eventually the thread will be so loose the bolt will cock over and jam.
It is the nature of mechanical things that they can fail some time after the damage was sustained.
I have the 45 so it may not be exactly the same, but the knobs seems to be very small and only require a very light touch to lock. You might test yours to see what is the minimum amount of pressure you can apply. I know even "fight-tight" is more than I need.
jerrykur wrote:
I have the 45 so it may not be exactly the same, but the knobs seems to be very small and only require a very light touch to lock. You might test yours to see what is the minimum amount of pressure you can apply. I know even "fight-tight" is more than I need.
+1
I lightly "touch tighten" these knobs, meaning when the knob first makes contact from the loose position, I consider it tight enough.
I also have 3 of the 4 TSE lenses (no 17mm) and I never crank them down. As I mentioned before though, I had one that was stuck, like it was welded. I'm not sure how/why it happened, but there was no way I was going to make it move.
If you hold the lens in your hand (not mounted) with the locking knob on the right so that tilt is in the up and down axis. You can tigthen the lock nut, tilt down and freeze the locking nut with the lens in your hand. The downward tilt tightens the locking nut excessively. You just have to be aware of whats going on and pay attention to what you are doing. It's totally avoidable by keeping the tilt locking nut loose until set. Have you ever noticed that shifting does not tighten the shift locking knob when you shift? It's becasue shift doesn't rotate and the locking knob maintains the set tension becasue the rotational factor is missing Just keep the tilt locking nut in mid rotation and the problem will go away.
Gunzorro wrote:
I wouldn't say the original 24 should be completely disregarded due to its imaging. It is a terrific lens, but does suffer from CA color fringing. This can now be easily cleaned up in LR4, making it again a promising lens to use. Granted, the second version is better all around, including sharpness, but I successfully completed many jobs with the original, right up until just over a year ago.
A little OT, but...
I can't believe anyone would think the lens is rubbish. I still have the original, and think the first version is the best deal around - comparatively at least.
Major problems include:
a) people don't understand the lens (the shape of the lens means that it treats corners differently) and they think the corners are soft, without knowing why.
b) don't know how to use it. The tilt or swing - depending on how you use it - often requires a far smaller movement than people think.
IMO, not only can any CA/PF easily be removed in PS/LR, what is there is no worse than what you're going to see on the 85L (any version FD, I/II).
I fiddled with my 24 Mark II a few moments ago, and realized a few things;
1) The locking mechanism isn't required when the desired motion (tilt or shift) is taking place in the horizontal direction (this is pretty well self evident as gravity has no effect in the horizontal direction).
2) If I don't vibrate or bump the lens, in most (vertical) positions of adjustment (tilt or shift), it will pretty stay in one place without the locking nut (my lens hasn't had a lot of use and may be stiffer than others). The torque required on my lens to ensure it doesn't "creep" with a vertical tilt or shift is minimal. I can't think of a way to describe in numerical terms how little torque is required but put it this way: if the locking knobs were smooth and covered in grease, I could probably apply enough torque to lock it. This is about how much torque it requires - very damn little.
3) There are no click stops with the tilt or shift adjustments so the contact point of the locking mechanism can be tightened in an infinite number of locations. However, if at some time a knob was tightened too hard, is it possible that an indentation could have been made at this point that would hamper smooth movement near this location on future settings?
I'm just throwing out some possibilities.
After reading this thread carefully, I realize that I've probably been too aggressive with the tightening knobs, and will be much more careful in the future. This is something that we should all be aware of - they require very little torque to keep the lens from creeping vertically.
I would dearly love this to be a one-off, as it would then be a simple matter of changing lenses.