24-70Mk2 fell off my 5DMk3 and smashed

[mrsfotografie]

To dislodge or remove the lens from its breach-lock system mount you need to deliverately press the release button and twist the lens barrel counter-clockwise. Any veteran canon user knows this.

You can knock-off the lens if it was half-hazzardly mounted and not hearing that re-assuring click.

I know I shouldn't be picky, but the Canon FD system was a 'breech-lock'. The EOS system ( and virtually all other systems ) use a bayonet mount.

Originally, yes. Then the FDn lenses became bayonet mounted with a lens release button on the lens, not the body

The breach-lock is a pain in the @$$ IMHO (I still have some old FL stuff that's breech lock).

 

[pierceography]

I generally grip my camera with my thing and middle finger (left hand) around the zoom ring...

Great. Now that's a mental image I wish I didn't have!

Ha! That should have been "thumb and middle finger". Yikes, you'd think sitting in front of a keyboard all day I'd be a little better at this whole typing gig. ;-)

 

[TotoEC]

To dislodge or remove the lens from its breach-lock system mount you need to deliverately press the release button and twist the lens barrel counter-clockwise. Any veteran canon user knows this.

You can knock-off the lens if it was half-hazzardly mounted and not hearing that re-assuring click.

I know I shouldn't be picky, but the Canon FD system was a 'breech-lock'. The EOS system ( and virtually all other systems ) use a bayonet mount.

I stand corrrected.

 

[rumorzmonger]

@dylan777 Why would I make this up?

You're embarrassed that you dropped your lens... that's understandable, it's happened to a lot of us. The part that's hard to understand is why you're trying to blame someone else for your mistake?

 

[Loswr]

@dylan777 Why would I make this up?

You're embarrassed that you dropped your lens... that's understandable, it's happened to a lot of us. The part that's hard to understand is why you're trying to blame someone else for your mistake?

Maybe Canon should put a warning label on there, like "Caution, hot contents," on a coffee cup? :

Unfortunate and tragic user error? Yes. Design flaw? No.

 

[3kramd5]

To the OP: Have you checked for looseness with other lenses? Perhaps the spring is too weak.

edit - re-read. Never mind.

 

[jhanken]

Last night while shooting an event, my new (2 months old) 24-70 Mk2 FELL OFF MY 5DMk3 and smashed on a tile floor.

I think I threw up a little bit when I read this. Ouch. Looking into insurance for my gear now...

 

[archiea]

@dylan777 Why would I make this up?

You're embarrassed that you dropped your lens... that's understandable, it's happened to a lot of us. The part that's hard to understand is why you're trying to blame someone else for your mistake?

Unfortunate and tragic user error? Yes. Design flaw? No.

Maybe Canon should put a warning label on there, like "Caution, hot contents," on a coffee cup? :

I do think that canon should put on a slip of paper ( as opposed to the manual, as no one reads those!) that one should make sure that the zoom lock mechanism, unique in this focal length, should be engaged when mounting and unmounting the lens. Without the zoom lock enable, you could be turning the lens on the mount thinking that you are mounting the lens, but you are really just spinning the zoom. The zoom may stop hitting its limit and you think you reached the lock on the lens mount. its just the end of the zoom. The lens is just partially mounted. You zoom later, the tension on the zoom is tough enough that you can unmount the partially mounted lens.

 

[mrsfotografie]

@dylan777 Why would I make this up?

You're embarrassed that you dropped your lens... that's understandable, it's happened to a lot of us. The part that's hard to understand is why you're trying to blame someone else for your mistake?

Unfortunate and tragic user error? Yes. Design flaw? No.

Maybe Canon should put a warning label on there, like "Caution, hot contents," on a coffee cup? :

I do think that canon should put on a slip of paper ( as opposed to the manual, as no one reads those!) that one should make sure that the zoom lock mechanism, unique in this focal length, should be engaged when mounting and unmounting the lens. Without the zoom lock enable, you could be turning the lens on the mount thinking that you are mounting the lens, but you are really just spinning the zoom. The zoom may stop hitting its limit and you think you reached the lock on the lens mount. its just the end of the zoom. The lens is just partially mounted. You zoom later, the tension on the zoom is tough enough that you can unmount the partially mounted lens.

"The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?" - as found on the Internet

 

[Loswr]

"The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?" - as found on the Internet

Not sure about that. Maybe greed. See, right here in this thread we have someone who suffered an unfortunate accident and cries out, "Design flaw," not my fault, someone else should take responsibility. The next step is litigation - sue Canon for bad design or lack of proper warning, of course with the expectation of a financial award.

 

[mrsfotografie]

"The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?" - as found on the Internet

Not sure about that. Maybe greed. See, right here in this thread we have someone who suffered an unfortunate accident and cries out, "Design flaw," not my fault, someone else should take responsibility. The next step is litigation - sue Canon for bad design or lack of proper warning, of course with the expectation of a financial award.

You're quite right of course, that seems to be the direction in which the world is moving :'(

 

[RGF]

"The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?" - as found on the Internet

Not sure about that. Maybe greed. See, right here in this thread we have someone who suffered an unfortunate accident and cries out, "Design flaw," not my fault, someone else should take responsibility. The next step is litigation - sue Canon for bad design or lack of proper warning, of course with the expectation of a financial award.

Neuro

Please re-read the original post carefully. The OP asked a question if there is a design flaw or if this something unique to his/her work style. If there was a design flaw I suspect that it would have be discovered long ago. I think this was a very unfortunate combination of events.

I do agree that the US population (in general, no specific individual) is looking for a free lunch and all too quick to blame the other guy for their misfortunes. Then again individuals within companies at times do not responsible leading to bad rep. Very complicated problem with no easy solution and finger pointing does not help.

BTW I do not intend to finger point at you, or be harsh, nasty, etc in any way - if I came across that way, my apologies.

 

[Dylan777]

Sorry...but I found this is hard to believe :-\

Why?

It's a "SNUGFIT" between the lens and body. You really have to push the release button deep down. Then the lens needs to rotate with slight pressure. Both steps need to happen at the same time for the lens to be released. And you asking me WHY?

In this case, I would look for product quality issues or operator errors, not "design flaw"

 

[Dylan777]

@viggo Thank you for your comments. I needed a good laugh right now.

@dylan777 Why would I make this up?

@everyone else Thank you for your words of support and encouragement.

I'm not saying you make this up. I'm more leanning to product quality issues or operator errors.

 

[Loswr]

"The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?" - as found on the Internet

Not sure about that. Maybe greed. See, right here in this thread we have someone who suffered an unfortunate accident and cries out, "Design flaw," not my fault, someone else should take responsibility. The next step is litigation - sue Canon for bad design or lack of proper warning, of course with the expectation of a financial award.

Neuro

Please re-read the original post carefully. The OP asked a question if there is a design flaw or if this something unique to his/her work style. If there was a design flaw I suspect that it would have be discovered long ago. I think this was a very unfortunate combination of events.

I do agree that the US population (in general, no specific individual) is looking for a free lunch and all too quick to blame the other guy for their misfortunes. Then again individuals within companies at times do not responsible leading to bad rep. Very complicated problem with no easy solution and finger pointing does not help.

BTW I do not intend to finger point at you, or be harsh, nasty, etc in any way - if I came across that way, my apologies.

Apologies to the OP if I came across as pointing a specific finger, my remarks were more of a general lament about our litigious society.

 

[archiea]

@dylan777 Why would I make this up?

You're embarrassed that you dropped your lens... that's understandable, it's happened to a lot of us. The part that's hard to understand is why you're trying to blame someone else for your mistake?

Unfortunate and tragic user error? Yes. Design flaw? No.

Maybe Canon should put a warning label on there, like "Caution, hot contents," on a coffee cup? :

I do think that canon should put on a slip of paper ( as opposed to the manual, as no one reads those!) that one should make sure that the zoom lock mechanism, unique in this focal length, should be engaged when mounting and unmounting the lens. Without the zoom lock enable, you could be turning the lens on the mount thinking that you are mounting the lens, but you are really just spinning the zoom. The zoom may stop hitting its limit and you think you reached the lock on the lens mount. its just the end of the zoom. The lens is just partially mounted. You zoom later, the tension on the zoom is tough enough that you can unmount the partially mounted lens.

"The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?" - as found on the Internet

Well that was a productive answer.

Like I said: the lock button is new to that focal length. Previous zoom locks functioned to prevent the lens from extending w/o the user's intent. On the 24-70, because the zoom butts right up to the lens mount, the only place one finds purchase to rotate the lens is the zoom ring itself. Most other lenses have room there for a molded grip to help you rotate the lens. The 24-70 does not. This differs from the default action that many photographers commit to muscle memory as they swap lenses in the field. As a result, a note from canon would serve as a reminder for photographers to not rely on this muscle memory for this lens, and take precaution. I know this because it happened to me but I caught myself in the act when I didn't hear the reassuring click. Try hearing that click in a loud concert or event.
Was that hard to understand mrsfotografie, or should I type slower?

 

[Loswr]

Please type slower. On my 24-70 II, there's a nice gap between the zoom and focus rings that I use to mount the lens. The zoom ring feels like...a zoom ring, it's obviously not the bare lens barrel. When I grab a lens to mount/unmount it, my hand expects to feel the barrel, not a knurled ring - if I feel a knurled ring, even in the dark, I shift my grip.

The OP mentions having been shooting for a while before the lens detached. In your experience, if a lens is not mounted fully, can you still take pictures? I usually notice an aperture setting of F00.

 

[DarkKnightNine]

"The problem with America is stupidity. I'm not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why don't we just take the safety labels off of everything and let the problem solve itself?" - as found on the Internet

Not sure about that. Maybe greed. See, right here in this thread we have someone who suffered an unfortunate accident and cries out, "Design flaw," not my fault, someone else should take responsibility. The next step is litigation - sue Canon for bad design or lack of proper warning, of course with the expectation of a financial award.

You're quite right of course, that seems to be the direction in which the world is moving :'(

No, that seems to be the direction that America is and has always been moving. I will never forget the first time I read an article about a lady who ordered a hot coffee in McDonald's and then sued McDonald's when she burn her lip (or tongue) on the drink because it was "too hot". Now McDonald's are required to label all their HOT drinks HOT. Well duh, if you order a hot drink, wouldn't one expect it to be hot?! The case should have been thrown out of court and the lady fined for wasting the court's time, but instead she was able to cash in.


Now back to the subject, I almost experienced the exact same think with my new 24-70 MkII and my 5D MkIII, but fortunately I was lucky enough to catch the lens before it fell. My first thought wasn't to think I want to sue Canon, it was how could I have been so stupid to hit the lens release button while shooting. Needless to say it has never happened again because I am now aware of it and am much more careful. It wasn't Canon's fault, it was my own. I don't understand people who want to fault the manufacturer for their own carelessness. Not saying that's what happened to the OP because I wasn't there, but in my particular case I do believe it was entirely my fault.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Sorry...but I found this is hard to believe :-\

Why?

It's a "SNUGFIT" between the lens and body. You really have to push the release button deep down. Then the lens needs to rotate with slight pressure. Both steps need to happen at the same time for the lens to be released. And you asking me WHY?

In this case, I would look for product quality issues or operator errors, not "design flaw"

1. Yes I am aware that "it's a SNUGFIT between the lens and body".

2. Yes, I asked you "why" bcoz the OP CLEARLY stated: "I must've hit it accidentally and then, when zooming, rotated the lens off the camera. I tested it with my 16-35 (that I've shot with for years with no trouble) and the zoom ring is farther down the barrel, so it doesn't get bumped. Is this a design flaw with the new 24-70 or am I doing something different from every other photog out there? ... no where did he blame Canon for design flaw.
I see that you did, later on, clarify that you are "more leanning to product quality issues", but your original post was just a one line asking that you find it "hard to believe", hence my earlier question Why?

Having said that, the OP came to CR to seek assistance and the least we can do is give him the benefit of doubt that something could have gone wrong with the mount, but surprisingly, several people (including those who are generally helpful) in this thread have just jumped on him without giving him the benefit of doubt ... what if something had genuinely gone wrong with the release button which did not require it to "push the release button deep down"?

I know no one directly blamed the OP that he might sue Canon for this but some of the posts seem to imply that ... imagine coming to a forum asking a question (to seek assistance) but only to hear insinuations that you might be a creep trying to "cash in" on an unfortunate accident ... that's a bit harsh.
Peace

 

[Ladislav]

I pay $7.60 per year per $1K of covered gear. As with all insurance, rates will vary based on your location.

That again reminds me that I still live in "emerging market" (central Europe, part of EU). I just checked websites of few insurance companies - none of them offers such insurance (at least not as a standard service offered on their web sites). One got quite close with musical instruments but the upper bound was $2k-$2,5k and it didn't include insurance of any damage caused by incorrect handling. The price was 5x higher anyway.

The biggest local retailer offers similar insurance. From my understanding of their terms the insurance can be applied only when buying new equipment directly from the retailer. It can be arranged for one or two years and it cost 8x times more per year. I'm not sure how it works when you want insurance for longer time-frame.

There is still possibility that such insurance is provided by insurance company on-demand but from my experience the cost of any on-demand service will be really high. The cost of the insurance will also be affected by the participation in repair / replacement cost after accident. I can easily imagine something like 10% (or even more with small or none participation) of the equipment cost per year and that would be only insurance of the item for personal usage (no business related lose will be included).