C100: Normal or faulty lens? Canon 17 - 55mm

BrandonT

BrandonT

Well-known member
I just bought a Canon 17 - 55mm F2.8 lens used on Adorama. I like it a lot so far, and looks to be in good shape. But one problem. If you zoom just past 17, and turn the lens facing down, gravity pulls it through the rest of the zoom range. And if you then turn it pointing up, gravity also makes it zoom back out. I am really doubting that this is a normal function, with as much praise as this lens gets. But I just wanted to check before returning it. Thanks!
 
its not normal, but construction of that lens sucks, so i am not sure what happens after some use. Also dont even think about using it with out filter protection. last time i cleaned the dust out of it, the guy from canon service told that the front part not even sealed, there is a 2 side adhesive tape that holds it. so it sucks the dust inside like crazy!
 
Yes, it's a crazy useful and nice-looking lens on the cinema series cams, but the construction stinks. Over time, dust is a problem, as is the lens creep. I use two copies, and the older one is a little worse with the lens creep. Good idea about the rubber band!
 
I had never heard of "lens creep" somehow. Thanks for all the good info. I think I'm going to return this used one to Adorama and just pay the $200 more for a new one. I think I can pretty well take for granted that the new one will not lens creep, and will only possibly start to down the road after I've used it for a while, right?
 
BrandonT said:
I had never heard of "lens creep" somehow. Thanks for all the good info. I think I'm going to return this used one to Adorama and just pay the $200 more for a new one. I think I can pretty well take for granted that the new one will not lens creep, and will only possibly start to down the road after I've used it for a while, right?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't take it for granted that you won't have lens creep. The tolerances on that lens aren't great. The rubber band trick or piece of gaff tape is pretty standard if you ever feel like you are going to be shooting up or down. If the lens is otherwise perfect, I would just keep it. Check to make sure that the glass is centered as that is a far bigger issue with used lenses.
 
On a related note, can Canon service take the lens apart and clean out the dust that invariably gets trapped inside?
 
drummondb said:
On a related note, can Canon service take the lens apart and clean out the dust that invariably gets trapped inside?
Click to expand...

The 17-55 is surprisingly easy to clean yourself. I cleaned mine back when I owned it. I remember that the outer ring around the front glass with all of the markings was just lightly bonded on. Take that off and I think the front element just screws off.
 
cpreston said:
The 17-55 is surprisingly easy to clean yourself. I cleaned mine back when I owned it. I remember that the outer ring around the front glass with all of the markings was just lightly bonded on. Take that off and I think the front element just screws off.
Click to expand...

Err..no way in hell am I messing with my beloved $800 lens. I'll happily pay a professional to clean it. It is possible though, yes?
 
Why not? It took me less than 30 seconds to fix mine with some electric tape and after one shoot it was as smooth as it was originally. My 17-55 lives on my C100 for about 90% of the time, can't really think of a more versatile lens.

 
Probably my most used run and gun lens. If my zoom was that loose it would be a deal breaker for me.
 
crammond said:
Why not? It took me less than 30 seconds to fix mine with some electric tape and after one shoot it was as smooth as it was originally. My 17-55 lives on my C100 for about 90% of the time, can't really think of a more versatile lens.

Click to expand...
Lots of folks say the same of the 24~105...
 
I have had other lenses with lens creep, it's obnoxious and I agree that having patch your lens with rubber bands is low-rent. In the OPs position, I would exchange it for a new one and pay the extra $200.00 Too bad this lens is a dust magnet too. I wish Canon made this lens for $1,200.00 with the same construction quality as the 70-200 2.8 IS. I would gladly pay a few hundred dollars extra for better quality build.
 
Is it true that the IS on these tend to go out over time as well? Anybody have issues with their copy?
 
Lkorver said:
Probably my most used run and gun lens...
Click to expand...

Me too.

control4userguy said:
Lots of folks say the same of the 24~105...
Click to expand...

IMHO, the 17-55 is optically superior. It's 2.8 vs. 4.0, similar contrast to EF L lenses, and it just plain looks nicer. Give me a 17-55mm 2.8 AND a 70-200m 2.8 IS II, and I can happily shoot just about anything.

DNN said:
Is it true that the IS on these tend to go out over time as well? Anybody have issues with their copy?
Click to expand...

I own 2 copies, and I've rented even more occasionally. I've never heard of this happening. Not to say it's an impossibility, mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top