• UPDATE



    The forum will be moving to a new domain in the near future (canonrumorsforum.com). I have turned off "read-only", but I will only leave the two forum nodes you see active for the time being.

    I don't know at this time how quickly the change will happen, but that will move at a good pace I am sure.

    ------------------------------------------------------------

24-70 f/2.8 L II front coating peeling off?

Sort by date Sort by votes
#61
personally I have had nothing but good experiences with both canon and sigma service

85 f1.4 siggy went in for +13 afma came back perfect 5 days later and been good as gold ever since

had a brand new canon 5Dmk3 with faulty AF unit very first ones off the line, whole camera replaced immediately.

another 5Dmk3 with faulty lens mount would lose communication with heavy lenses and AF would intermittently stop working mostly happended using 70-200 lenses canon replaced the lens mount and associated electronics and camera was back in 4 days.

24-105 covered in iron ore slurry me and the 1D3 aswell, ended up getting iron ore in the focus ring, lens was out of warranty but it was stripped cleaned checked and came back like new 3 days later and cost $150.

70-200 f2.8L (wifes one) she tore the weather sealing gasket (i have no idea how) anyway they replaced it and lens was back in a couple of days (also out of warranty).

product support and service is something IMO that canon do extremely well
 
Upvote 0
#62
Mt Spokane Photography said:
So far, we've had three failures, not by regular members, but those who came to the group asking for info.
Click to expand...

I've been reading/lurking this forum for a while. When I saw others were having the same problem I had with the 24-70II, I figured it was time to register and post my story. I do feel this is a very limited problem, but people should know about just in case.

So, an update. The lens shipped out today. Canon service assured me it would be taken care of because the lens was still under warranty (for another week). So, it looks like everything will be OK, and I'm not out much except shipping charges and loss of the lens for a week or two. Kudos to Canon service on that front. I wasn't as happy when they said in order to replace the 10 cent part which fell off the top of my 5d3 (ie the piece that says AV, TV, M, etc) I would have to send my camera in and the whole dial assembly would have to be replaced at fair cost. Yikes. Fortunately, I scoured my car and kayak and luckily found it and will re-glue it myself.

All in all, I've been generally pleased with Canon service, though there have been a few issues along the way.
 
Upvote 0
#63
24-70mm II front element damage from mist

Has anyone had the coating come off of the front element after the lens got mist on it. I was shooting High School Football last Friday night and we had a mist. When I whipped the front element (no uv protection) the coating came off the glass. Canon is saying it it water damage. I am saying that the lens is advertised as Highly resistant to dust and water, enabling shooting even in harsh and rigorous conditions. Right now the estimated repair is 436 usd. >:(
 
Upvote 0
#65
So my 24-70 II did the same thing over the weekend. We has a slight mist while shooting Football. The nano coating came off when I wipe the excess moisture off. Canon is saying it is water damage because I was honest and stated it happened in a mist. This is very disappointing. The lens is advertised as "Highly dust and moisture resistant." I have been hung-up on, disconnected and chat and given the run around by Canon Repair center employees. I am not happy since canon wants 432 to replace what should have been covered under warranty.
 
Upvote 0
#66
Re: 24-70mm II front element damage from mist

John, is the lens in warranty? How old is it? That is a big factor in getting it repaired. I'd politely ask to appeal the case to a manager, based on the number of reported incidents like this. Canon seems to be tightening up on their warranty service and are not as easy going as when profits were high. I assume that they have the lens and perhaps found evidence of water damage??

I'd be very unhappy if it happened to me on such a expensive lens.
 
Upvote 0
#67
johnmowry said:
So my 24-70 II did the same thing over the weekend. We has a slight mist while shooting Football. The nano coating came off when I wipe the excess moisture off. Canon is saying it is water damage because I was honest and stated it happened in a mist. This is very disappointing. The lens is advertised as "Highly dust and moisture resistant." I have been hung-up on, disconnected and chat and given the run around by Canon Repair center employees. I am not happy since canon wants 432 to replace what should have been covered under warranty.
Click to expand...

But it is highly moisture resistant. As in, you'd have to be high to think it was moisture resistant. That's what they meant, right? :D

But seriously, any lens coating that can't tolerate water also cannot be safely cleaned, which by definition makes it a fundamentally defective lens coating whose very existence does far more harm than good. If Canon refuses to cover such an obvious manufacturing flaw under warranty, it is highly likely that Canon is breaking the law.

I'd like you to try contacting them again, this time by certified mail with a return receipt. Point them to this forum thread, where a number of people have reported having the same failure with that specific lens. When you do, be sure to mention the magic words "Magnuson Moss", "fraud", and "class action". I think you may have better luck with that approach.

If that doesn't convince them to honor their warranty, I would strongly encourage you to contact a lawyer. Ask for punitive damages, and treble damages. After all, if they've been presented with evidence that this is a fairly common failure that is not caused by customer abuse, and they still refuse to cover it, that constitutes a willful violation of the law, which is much, much worse than just breaking the law.

Caveat emptor: IANAL.
 
Upvote 0
#68
Re: 24-70mm II front element damage from mist

johnmowry said:
Canon is saying it it water damage. I am saying that the lens is advertised as Highly resistant to dust and water
Click to expand...

And what exactly does that mean? It means that the lens will resist dust and water to the point it will no longer resist dust and water.

There are measurable standards for water resistance. I don't think any of the major camera manufacturers would even agree to submit their bodies/lenses for this type of certification.

I ignore any marketing verbage about weathersealing (what does that term mean anyway?). I treat my bodies and lenses as if they were vunerable to water/dust and I try to protect them as much as I can.

Good luck with it. Don't be surprised if Canon tries to weasle out of it. All they have to do is claim that it is damage in excess and how can you, the consumer, prove otherwise?
 
Upvote 0
#69
Re: 24-70mm II front element damage from mist

AcutancePhotography said:
Good luck with it. Don't be surprised if Canon tries to weasle out of it. All they have to do is claim that it is damage in excess and how can you, the consumer, prove otherwise?
Click to expand...

You don't have to. You can insist that they repair only the problem you sent it in for—the failed coating—which cannot possibly be caused by water unless the coating was fundamentally flawed to begin with. At that point, the burden of proof falls on Canon.

To legitimately disclaim the warranty on the coating, Canon would have to claim that it is reasonable for a lens coating on a roughly $2,000 camera lens to flake off when exposed to water. If Canon made such a claim on the record, no one in their right minds would ever buy a Canon lens again.

Obviously if (many years from now) something else fails because of water damage, that's your problem... but realistically, it probably won't.
 
Upvote 0
#70
I was getting no where with phone calls to the service center yesterday. Hung up on and and given a run around about the lens specs. I would be the first to admit if I had water damage. I gave Canon a description of a light mist so they could document an issue if one exists. From this forum there seems to be a few cases. Mist became water damage, I did not agree. I finally was feed up and tweeted canon on poor customer service and not treating CPS members as valued customers. I received a tweet in minutes asking for the contact and case info. I was contacted via phone within an hour. The Rep spoke to a floor supervisor to prove water damage. The only damage the could prove was my description of a mist getting on the front element. The Rep that contacted me had the Floor supervisor wave all charges. This is all with the Warranty expiring on last Saturday. On a side note the calls I placed to the service center were reviewed and are being reviewed with the employees that I spoke with. I should have my lens back early next week. Thanks Canon.
 
Upvote 0
#71
johnmowry said:
I was getting no where with phone calls to the service center yesterday. Hung up on and and given a run around about the lens specs. I would be the first to admit if I had water damage. I gave Canon a description of a light mist so they could document an issue if one exists. From this forum there seems to be a few cases. Mist became water damage, I did not agree. I finally was feed up and tweeted canon on poor customer service and not treating CPS members as valued customers. I received a tweet in minutes asking for the contact and case info. I was contacted via phone within an hour. The Rep spoke to a floor supervisor to prove water damage. The only damage the could prove was my description of a mist getting on the front element. The Rep that contacted me had the Floor supervisor wave all charges. This is all with the Warranty expiring on last Saturday. On a side note the calls I placed to the service center were reviewed and are being reviewed with the employees that I spoke with. I should have my lens back early next week. Thanks Canon.
Click to expand...

I've learned that Amex doubles your factory warranty (One year additional Max) when you buy a product with the card. If the manufacturer will not fix it, they will. They do not cover abuse, but you were not abusing the lens.
 
Upvote 0
#73
How widespread is this issue, honestly?

I've been gearing up to sell my 24-105 to be replaced with a 24-70 f/2.8 to complement my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.

Weather resistance is important though. I don't shoot in the rain, but humidity and condensation are issues I constantly have to deal with because I live in two extreme weather environments.

I've also not yet seen photos of this problem. Is the lens not usable after the coating peels off?
 
Upvote 0
#75
Well, you can add me to this growing list for this issue.

I've owned 15+ Canon L-Series lenses over my career and this is the first time this has happened. I'm not sure how or when it happened, I haven't studied the front element for some time but I noticed some pretty severe damage to the coating today.

Frustrating. I'll contact Canon and be sure to keep you guys posted on the current way that this issue is being handled.

My lens is well out of warranty, but it's clear to me that there are some defective coatings out there.
 
Upvote 0
#80
I wanted to let everyone know that I am also experiencing a Defective Coating on the front element of my Canon 24-70 version ii lens that was purchased in March of 2014 from B&H. I talked to canon CPS today and they told me they have never heard of this happening, but obviously this is a defect. I have cleaned this lens the exact same way as I treat all my other L glass and this is the only one I have ever had a problem with. It seems like the lend coating is rubbing off and scratching very easily.

Canon definitely needs to address this Defect. I will be sending the lens to them and will let you know the results.

Here is a Pic of the coating.
http://s14.postimg.org/ijuob2npd/IMG_7611.jpg
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Is this possible?
Replies
3
Views
1K
tothandris
T
S
Is a RF 24-70mm 2.8 L II with internal zoom still possible?
Replies
3
Views
2K
stillviking
S
L
R7 strange lockup issue when reviewing images
Replies
4
Views
1K
Bob66
B
Nrbelex
I Have an R5 MK II. AMA.
Replies
83
Views
14K
photoy
photoy
T
RF 24-70 peeling film inside the lens
Replies
4
Views
4K
Keith Man
K
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu