Jesse Evans wrote:
Did you end up having Canon clean the lens? How much did it cost if so?
It was during the warranty period, just a few months after purchasing the lens back in Feb 2021. It went back to Canon to be re-cleaned repeatedly in July and August 2021 while covering the Dixie and Caldor Fires in Northern CA. I never had to pay for the cleaning since it was under warranty.
I can answer the question of how much it will cost to repair a lens with dust inside!
I recently had both the RF 24-70 and RF 70-200 2.8 serviced at Canon for dust. My 24-70 was the worst - there was so much dust it was affecting image quality. Before the CPS discount, the 24-70 "repair" (it didn't fall under the usual cleaning) was $702 (after CPS 20% discount it was $531). The 70-200 was $672/$511.
I have a backup 70-200 I have yet to send in, and I expect it to be the same story. I'm not at all happy to be spending $1500+ to "repair" a weather-sealed lens with copious amounts of dust inside. 🤬
For the 24-70, they said this: "Your product has been examined and it was found that there was dust under the Front Element and under the 4th-6th Group Lens Assembly. Dust has been removed to bring the lens to Canon Factory Specifications."
I am a commercial photographer focused on Equine brands and publications, so I basically ONLY shoot in dusty environments. I'll be getting my hands on the 24-105 2.8 before I start shooting again next year. I'll also look into a high-quality filter for my remaining lenses.
Lensrentals I seem to remember do not allow any of their equipment to go to the Burning Man event because the chances are the equipment would come back damaged is very likely. They keep your deposit if you do this. The message I take from this is that smoke and ash are things that just do not mix with camera gear. Looking at the repair cost I can see why. Great shots by the way.
First of all awesome work. I’ve personally haven’t had what you’re describing with any of my RF L series zoom lenses when I had them. Granted I don’t shoot forest fires but I have shot with them at the beach where I live, in Eastern Africa during the dry season in the Serengeti as well as a number of deserts in Morocco and Saudi Arabia with no issues—sand like ash can easily get into a lens or camera body.
In your case I would strongly recommend you purchase CarePak Plus when you buy a lens. It will cover (with zero deductible) everything you had paid for with your 2 lenses.
Oh and by the way lovely work Shelley.
summerset wrote:
I can answer the question of how much it will cost to repair a lens with dust inside!
I recently had both the RF 24-70 and RF 70-200 2.8 serviced at Canon for dust. My 24-70 was the worst - there was so much dust it was affecting image quality. Before the CPS discount, the 24-70 "repair" (it didn't fall under the usual cleaning) was $702 (after CPS 20% discount it was $531). The 70-200 was $672/$511.
I have a backup 70-200 I have yet to send in, and I expect it to be the same story. I'm not at all happy to be spending $1500+ to "repair" a weather-sealed lens with copious amounts of dust inside. 🤬
For the 24-70, they said this: "Your product has been examined and it was found that there was dust under the Front Element and under the 4th-6th Group Lens Assembly. Dust has been removed to bring the lens to Canon Factory Specifications."
I am a commercial photographer focused on Equine brands and publications, so I basically ONLY shoot in dusty environments. I'll be getting my hands on the 24-105 2.8 before I start shooting again next year. I'll also look into a high-quality filter for my remaining lenses.
I cannot comment specifically on the RF L lenses (I own a few, but have no issues so far). I did have the issue on an old EF 24-70 L. I dropped that lens towards the end of its life and damaged the front element. I decided to dissect the lens out of curiosity (I'm an engineer - what can I say?).
It was clear the steps that had been taken to seal the lens - gaskets and "wipers". What was clear to me was that the wiper that squeezed what I call the ''inner barrel" was deformed in places. Despite their best efforts at quality control, no doubt some of these lenses have less than perfect seals/wipers even when new.
If you want, I'll take your lens apart and have a look
summerset wrote:
I am a commercial photographer focused on Equine brands and publications, so I basically ONLY shoot in dusty environments. I'll be getting my hands on the 24-105 2.8 before I start shooting again next year. I'll also look into a high-quality filter for my remaining lenses.
Hi Shelley. I shoot equestrian events as well, sometimes at pretty dusty, wind-blown venues. While this info is not really published anywhere that I am aware of, I believe that Canon has recommended a front filter be used with certain lenses to ensure best weather resistance.
My older multicoated UV filters have caused focus shift issues with my R-series bodies and lenses, so I have so far just made do with deep lens hoods. I try to be mindful of dust accumulation and blow stuff off between rounds.
If you do find a quality filter brand that works, I'd be grateful if you would post the details here.
So I found the Breakthrough Photography UV filter worked fine on my RF lenses when working in dusty/dirty/smoky/windy environments. I don't use filters otherwise. I found that when I had the lens filtered in those environments, I didn't have any more intrusion issues.
I'm now happily using the internally zooming 24-105 f2.8 so hopefully the problem is also solved with the upgrade.
fgphoto wrote:
So I found the Breakthrough Photography UV filter worked fine on my RF lenses when working in dusty/dirty/smoky/windy environments. I don't use filters otherwise. I found that when I had the lens filtered in those environments, I didn't have any more intrusion issues.
I'm now happily using the internally focusing 24-105 f2.8 so hopefully the problem is also solved with the upgrade.
The RF 24-70 L is also internally focusing, but not zooming. Air gets displaced even with internal focus and zoom but surely enjoys less air movement with a stationary barrel.
