I am curious if anyone else has had issues with the RF 24-70 2.8 sucking lots of dust and debris into the lens.
I am a photojournalist who has been covering the recent large fires in Northern California and have had to send my RF 24-70 to Canon twice to be cleaned within a month due to getting tons of dust and ash inside it during the process of photographing the fires. I made the transition over to the R system this year, so all of the bodies (R5's and R6's) and lenses are less than a year old and still under warranty and these are the first large fires I have covered using the RF system.
I have been photographing fires for almost 30 years, most of it with Canon's EF zooms (16-35, 24-70, 70-200 and 100-400 of both the earlier and more recent versions of these lenses) and have never had any issues with crap getting inside the lenses while covering fires on a consistent basis.
I have also had no issues with dust/debris intrusion into the RF 15-35, 70-200 or 100-500 during fire coverage this year... only with the 24-70.
I am also not changing lenses when out in the fires which obviously could introduce foreign objects into the rear of the lens. I am also not doing anything extreme with the lens, dropping it into piles of ash, or anything like that. Just normal use in covering fires.
Canon has happily cleaned the lens twice but has not been forthcoming as to why this lens seems to have such poor sealing compared to my other RF zooms, nor have they shared what steps they have taken (if any) to fix whatever deficiency is causing this lens to start looking like a 24-70 snowglobe after a few days out at the fires.
I am just wondering if others have had dust intrusion issues with this lens or if I just have one that seems to be missing some part of the weather sealing that keeps dust out.
fgphoto, breathtaking work! I don't use mine in such extreme conditions, and I assume few do. However, your post will certainly get others to look closely at this (and other RF lenses) for signs of sucking in dust. The fact that you have only seen debris for this lens is both encouraging (for the other lenses) and distressing. It's odd in that compared to the 70-200 f/2.8 and particularly the 100-500 (both of which I also own) the 24-70 f/2.8 has the shortest extension. You'd think it would be the least likely to suck in dust, which makes me wonder if there is something different/lacking in the design of this lens where it comes to weather sealing.
rcohn, I also am surprised that this is the lens that has issues. Since it is a pretty standard 24-70 build I was expecting to see a lot more stuff getting in the 70-200 and especially the 100-500, but it is not the case. I feel pretty certain that there is just something up with my lens that is causing the issue and is most likely not a production issue that is causing intrusion for lots of people.
I'm imagining that due to the windy, dusty and smoky environment, whatever is causing that intrusion is magnified in a way I might never have noticed, or attributed to a lens issue if I was only shooting commercial work in normal settings and not doing fires, also. After 3-4 days of using the lens on fires, it went from perfectly clean to having hundreds of pieces of stuff inside... twice.
Prior to the fires kicking off early this season, the lens worked fine and as far as I can tell was dust-free when using it in normal non-wildfire environments.
In the past I used the original EF 24-70 2.8 and then went to the version 2 of the lens when it was released and never had dust/debris intrusion issues with either of the EF versions of the lens when doing this type of work.
I'm hoping that they can figure out why it's happening, or if anyone else has had a similar experience, they can share what the fix was.
I have the RF 24-70 2.8 and no dust issues. But, it is used in normal environments. Years ago Canon had an EF-S 17-55 2.8 that had dust issues that could be eliminated/reduced by using a filter on the lens. I owned that lens at that time and the filter worked. If you look at the front element on the RF 24-70, you will notice that there is a ring around the front element with lens info on it. That ring was not airtight (it was basically a decal) on the 17-55 and therefore the lens was not sealed. I don't know about the RF 24-70, but a filter would be my first attempt to reduce your problem. You might give it a try. I seem to remember Canon recommending using a filter on many L lenses to complete the lens seal. Something to look up.
I know you are worried about your lens, but also take care of yourself. That smoke and debris can be dangerous to your health. I wear a 3M N95 mask on the bad days here in the San Francisco Bay Area. I rely heavily on the IQAir app on my phone to monitor air quality daily, it is a great tool.
UCSB wrote:
I have the RF 24-70 2.8 and no dust issues. But, it is used in normal environments. Years ago Canon had an EF-S 17-55 2.8 that had dust issues that could be eliminated/reduced by using a filter on the lens. I owned that lens at that time and the filter worked. If you look at the front element on the RF 24-70, you will notice that there is a ring around the front element with lens info on it. That ring was not airtight (it was basically a decal) on the 17-55 and therefore the lens was not sealed. I don't know about the RF 24-70, but a filter would be my first attempt to reduce your problem. You might give it a try. I seem to remember Canon recommending using a filter on many L lenses to complete the lens seal. Something to look up.
I know you are worried about your lens, but also take care of yourself. That smoke and debris can be dangerous to your health. I wear a 3M N95 mask on the bad days here in the San Francisco Bay Area. I rely heavily on the IQAir app on my phone to monitor air quality daily, it is a great tool....Show more →
Ahh... had not considered using a filter. If the front of the lens is not sealed, or not sealed properly, that could explain why so much junk was getting in there. At the same time, I would expect a $2400 lens to have decent sealing around the front.
What still stumps me is that this is the only lens with this issue.
As far as breathing protection, I wear a n95 respirator that is specialized to be low profile so you can wear it while shooting. That smoke is really hard on your body, especially if you are out there for days at a time, so breathing protection is a must.
Thanks for the tip on the filter... something to consider.
I don't think it's been established that a filter would help with dust. Is there any evidence that the lens isn't sealed properly at the front? I'd expect more of a problem where the lens extends. Also, not known yet if this is a lens out of spec or a problem with all the RF 24-70 f/2.8s.
rcohn wrote:
I don't think it's been established that a filter would help with dust. Is there any evidence that the lens isn't sealed properly at the front? I'd expect more of a problem where the lens extends. Also, not known yet if this is a lens out of spec or a problem with all the RF 24-70 f/2.8s.
A lot of the debris ended up inside the element group at the front of the lens. It certainly is possible it is getting in from there, but can’t say with any certainty. I have it filtered now and will see if it makes a difference the next time I cover a wildfire.
I haven't kept up on such things as I have a clear filter on most of my lenses, but in the old days (when I bought the 17-40L) a front filter was required for full sealing. I don't know if that's still the case or not. Still, it's surprising that it only happens to one out of three lenses you are using in those conditions, assuming you are using them in equal amounts.
Great images of a tragic event. Nice work.
I have to admit if I were shooting in such an environment I'd be using a weather sealed prime lens WITH a filter as well. About the only way you'd have a chance at some degree of environmental safety.
Hey, I've had the same issue! I owned an EF 24-70mm, and I never once had an issue with dust. I recently picked up an R5 and an RF 24-70mm to go alongside it. I've only been using this setup for 3 weeks, and I already have dust inside my lens. No clue why—I don't shoot in any extreme conditions at all, yet the lens has a few dust particles inside. It's a bit frustrating for sure. I should also note I always have a filter on it.
dcisive wrote:
I have to admit if I were shooting in such an environment I'd be using a weather sealed prime lens WITH a filter as well. About the only way you'd have a chance at some degree of environmental safety.
I would go one further and take my cheapest and oldest body with a lens to match on such assignment.
It makes a good case for original bargain basement 1Dx for such work
I don't shoot in extreme conditions but my RF24-70 also has dust particles that settled in the center of the front element. My Rf70-200 is also a dust magnet but the particles seem to move around - I can see them sometimes and sometimes I can't. The 15-24 is my only lens that is currently dust free.
My old EF lens does not have this much dust settling and they are far much older.
Ah… since this thread has come back to life, here is an update.
Canon told me that they recommend a filter to completely weather seal a lens. The black ring around the end element of the 24-70 is held on with industrial strength double sided tape, basically. If the seal isn’t perfect, junk can be sucked in under that ring when you zoom the lens. That also explained why 90% of the accumulated crud was around the end element.
When covering fires and working in other extreme environments, I use filters, the rest of the time, I don’t. That has helped cut down the debris sucked into the lens. Over a few years of using them, all of the RF zooms have accumulated some dust mostly on the end elements. It seems like more dust than I ever had with EF zooms, but to be honest it could just be that I’m looking more, or just more aware of it now. It’s not enough dust or large enough pieces that it has any impact whatsoever on image quality (unlike the original problems I has with the 24-70) or lens function. The one zoomer that is still dust-free is the 15-35, which is probably good since it would be the most likely to have stuff showing up in images with a buildup of dust.
It’s also funny that this thread came back to life just as Canon announced the 24-105 2.8 that has internal zoom and should suck in less dust that way. I have already put an order in for one.
Anyone looking for a nice RF 24-70 that has been serviced regularly by Canon? ;-)
fgphoto wrote:
Ah… since this thread has come back to life, here is an update.
Canon told me that they recommend a filter to completely weather seal a lens. The black ring around the end element of the 24-70 is held on with industrial strength double sided tape, basically. If the seal isn’t perfect, junk can be sucked in under that ring when you zoom the lens. That also explained why 90% of the accumulated crud was around the end element.
When covering fires and working in other extreme environments, I use filters, the rest of the time, I don’t. That has helped cut down the debris sucked into the lens. Over a few years of using them, all of the RF zooms have accumulated some dust mostly on the end elements. It seems like more dust than I ever had with EF zooms, but to be honest it could just be that I’m looking more, or just more aware of it now. It’s not enough dust or large enough pieces that it has any impact whatsoever on image quality (unlike the original problems I has with the 24-70) or lens function. The one zoomer that is still dust-free is the 15-35, which is probably good since it would be the most likely to have stuff showing up in images with a buildup of dust.
It’s also funny that this thread came back to life just as Canon announced the 24-105 2.8 that has internal zoom and should suck in less dus that way. I have already put an order in for one.
Anyone looking for a nice RF 24-70 that has been serviced regularly by Canon? ;-)...Show more →
Did you end up having Canon clean the lens? How much did it cost if so?
