Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Canon 28-135 USM IS Ultrasonic AF ZOOM Lens Shake

Reply
Thread Tools

Canon 28-135 USM IS Ultrasonic AF ZOOM Lens Shake

 
 
Phil Wheeler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2006
MarkČ wrote:
> Phil Wheeler wrote:
>> David Littlewood wrote:
>>> I believe it is because the helical movement for the zoom is a very
>>> lightweight mechanism, which needs a very slack fit to work. Well, I
>>> say work, my daughter's copy of the lens has now developed a fault
>>> in the zoom mechanism which makes it stick part way most of the time
>>> - another indication that the mechanism is flimsy. Bit disappointing
>>> really.

>> I have a friend who has worn out two and is now on
>> his third: Too much plastic, I guess.

>
> If he's worn out two...then he's doing something wrong.
> I shot with one for about 6 years, and a gozillion shots (perhaps 70,000
> exposures) ...no problems.
>
>



He shoots more than that, believe me.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2006
Phil Wheeler wrote:
> MarkČ wrote:
>> Phil Wheeler wrote:
>>> David Littlewood wrote:
>>>> I believe it is because the helical movement for the zoom is a very
>>>> lightweight mechanism, which needs a very slack fit to work. Well,
>>>> I say work, my daughter's copy of the lens has now developed a
>>>> fault in the zoom mechanism which makes it stick part way most of
>>>> the time - another indication that the mechanism is flimsy. Bit
>>>> disappointing really.
>>> I have a friend who has worn out two and is now on
>>> his third: Too much plastic, I guess.

>>
>> If he's worn out two...then he's doing something wrong.
>> I shot with one for about 6 years, and a gozillion shots (perhaps
>> 70,000 exposures) ...no problems.
>>
>>

>
>
> He shoots more than that, believe me.


I was being conservative... It's probably more, but if he's shooting a LOT
more than that, he should likely be looking into L lenses which are built to
take it. I'm all L now, and it's worth it...for more than just their
tank-like build quality...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Skip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2006
"Sudee" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Skip wrote:
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> >> Well, we have two, and they both do it. So, if it isn't normal, now
>> >> we know

>> of at least three lenses that do it.
>>

> Make that four. Mine has a little bit of play to it too. It's been working
> fine for several months.
>
> Sue

I should have said that mine has been working fine for about 8 years...

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm


 
Reply With Quote
 
Skip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2006
"Phil Wheeler" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news5O6h.869$(E-Mail Removed)...
> MarkČ wrote:
>> Phil Wheeler wrote:


>>> I have a friend who has worn out two and is now on
>>> his third: Too much plastic, I guess.

>>
>> If he's worn out two...then he's doing something wrong.
>> I shot with one for about 6 years, and a gozillion shots (perhaps 70,000
>> exposures) ...no problems.
>>
>>

>
>
> He shoots more than that, believe me.


Well, I couldn't tell you exactly how many shots mine has been around for,
but it was my primary lens from 2000 until 2004, on an A2, 1n, D30 and the
early days with my 20D. Probably in the neighborhood of 100,000 shots, and
a few since then, since it is the lens our assistant uses at weddings.
But I'd agree, too much plastic for a lens that gets used that much.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm


 
Reply With Quote
 
David Littlewood
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2006
In article <b3N6h.862$(E-Mail Removed)>, Phil Wheeler
<(E-Mail Removed)> writes
>David Littlewood wrote:
>> I believe it is because the helical movement for the zoom is a very
>>lightweight mechanism, which needs a very slack fit to work. Well, I
>>say work, my daughter's copy of the lens has now developed a fault in
>>the zoom mechanism which makes it stick part way most of the time -
>>another indication that the mechanism is flimsy. Bit disappointing really.
>>

>
>I have a friend who has worn out two and is now on his third: Too much
>plastic, I guess.
>

Yep; my daughter borrowed mine to use in S America, and she tells me
that one is showing signs of similar dodgy behaviour as well.

David
--
David Littlewood
 
Reply With Quote
 
Phil Wheeler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2006
MarkČ wrote:
> Phil Wheeler wrote:
>> MarkČ wrote:
>>> Phil Wheeler wrote:
>>>> David Littlewood wrote:
>>>>> I believe it is because the helical movement for the zoom is a very
>>>>> lightweight mechanism, which needs a very slack fit to work. Well,
>>>>> I say work, my daughter's copy of the lens has now developed a
>>>>> fault in the zoom mechanism which makes it stick part way most of
>>>>> the time - another indication that the mechanism is flimsy. Bit
>>>>> disappointing really.
>>>> I have a friend who has worn out two and is now on
>>>> his third: Too much plastic, I guess.
>>> If he's worn out two...then he's doing something wrong.
>>> I shot with one for about 6 years, and a gozillion shots (perhaps
>>> 70,000 exposures) ...no problems.
>>>
>>>

>>
>> He shoots more than that, believe me.

>
> I was being conservative... It's probably more, but if he's shooting a LOT
> more than that, he should likely be looking into L lenses which are built to
> take it. I'm all L now, and it's worth it...for more than just their
> tank-like build quality...
>



He has many L lenses and four bodies .. but I
don't thing there is a 28-135 L .. and that's one
of his favorite walk-arounds (since on of his
bodies does not take EF-S lenses).

Phil
 
Reply With Quote
 
Skip
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2006
"Phil Wheeler" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:IJP6h.921$(E-Mail Removed)...

>
> He has many L lenses and four bodies .. but I don't thing there is a
> 28-135 L .. and that's one of his favorite walk-arounds (since on of his
> bodies does not take EF-S lenses).
>
> Phil


Nope, but there's the 24-105 f4L IS USM, which is the reason our 28-135s
don't get used as much as they used to.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm


 
Reply With Quote
 
MarkČ
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2006
Phil Wheeler wrote:
> MarkČ wrote:
>> Phil Wheeler wrote:
>>> MarkČ wrote:
>>>> Phil Wheeler wrote:
>>>>> David Littlewood wrote:
>>>>>> I believe it is because the helical movement for the zoom is a
>>>>>> very lightweight mechanism, which needs a very slack fit to
>>>>>> work. Well, I say work, my daughter's copy of the lens has now
>>>>>> developed a fault in the zoom mechanism which makes it stick
>>>>>> part way most of the time - another indication that the
>>>>>> mechanism is flimsy. Bit disappointing really.
>>>>> I have a friend who has worn out two and is now on
>>>>> his third: Too much plastic, I guess.
>>>> If he's worn out two...then he's doing something wrong.
>>>> I shot with one for about 6 years, and a gozillion shots (perhaps
>>>> 70,000 exposures) ...no problems.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> He shoots more than that, believe me.

>>
>> I was being conservative... It's probably more, but if he's
>> shooting a LOT more than that, he should likely be looking into L
>> lenses which are built to take it. I'm all L now, and it's worth
>> it...for more than just their tank-like build quality...
>>

>
>
> He has many L lenses and four bodies .. but I
> don't thing there is a 28-135 L .. and that's one
> of his favorite walk-arounds (since on of his
> bodies does not take EF-S lenses).


I replaced mine with the 24-105 f4 IS. Fantastic walk-around, and built to
a much tougher spec.
The difference between 105 and 135 is there, but not as significant as one
might imagine.

Mark

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by MarkČ at:
www.pbase.com/markuson


 
Reply With Quote
 
Phil Wheeler
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-16-2006
MarkČ wrote:
>
> I replaced mine with the 24-105 f4 IS. Fantastic walk-around, and built to
> a much tougher spec.
> The difference between 105 and 135 is there, but not as significant as one
> might imagine.
>


Yes .. a very nice lens.

Phil
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: "Shake, shake, shake your hard drive..." SBFan2000 A+ Certification 0 08-17-2006 09:58 PM
Canon 24-105 L IS USM or 24-70 2.8 L USM and 100 or 180 macro? etc. Ideal set ? fr@nk Digital Photography 5 07-12-2006 02:51 AM
Canon Zoom Lenses (75-300mm f/4.0-5.6. USM or 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 USM)? Joe Smith Digital Photography 7 03-02-2005 11:26 AM
Canon 28-135/3.5-5.6 EF IS USM Zoom Lens Don dunlap Digital Photography 13 11-13-2004 03:30 PM
Canon 18-55 EF-S: USM or not USM? Michael A. Covington Digital Photography 6 10-26-2004 10:30 PM



Advertisments