Canon 28-135 USM IS Ultrasonic AF ZOOM Lens Shake

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by stefanocorso@gmail.com, Nov 15, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Hi,

    just a question, I have just bought on ebay a Canon 28-135 USM IS
    Ultrasonic AF ZOOM Lens. It looks like working well, but I noticed that
    the front lens support (the one on where the front lens is attached) is
    moving a little bit, as is not really fixed on the rest of the body of
    the whole lens.

    Just to know if it is normal of this kind of Canon USM lens or I have
    to return back the item to my seller... sounds a little bit strange to
    me that part of the body is not so fixed to the rest of the lens.

    Thanks in advance for your support.

    Stefano
     
    , Nov 15, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Skip Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi,
    >
    > just a question, I have just bought on ebay a Canon 28-135 USM IS
    > Ultrasonic AF ZOOM Lens. It looks like working well, but I noticed that
    > the front lens support (the one on where the front lens is attached) is
    > moving a little bit, as is not really fixed on the rest of the body of
    > the whole lens.
    >
    > Just to know if it is normal of this kind of Canon USM lens or I have
    > to return back the item to my seller... sounds a little bit strange to
    > me that part of the body is not so fixed to the rest of the lens.
    >
    > Thanks in advance for your support.
    >
    > Stefano
    >

    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.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    www.pbase.com/skipm
     
    Skip, Nov 15, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. al-Farrob Guest

    wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > just a question, I have just bought on ebay a Canon 28-135 USM IS
    > Ultrasonic AF ZOOM Lens. It looks like working well, but I noticed that
    > the front lens support (the one on where the front lens is attached) is
    > moving a little bit, as is not really fixed on the rest of the body of
    > the whole lens.
    >
    > Just to know if it is normal of this kind of Canon USM lens or I have
    > to return back the item to my seller... sounds a little bit strange to
    > me that part of the body is not so fixed to the rest of the lens.
    >
    > Thanks in advance for your support.
    >
    > Stefano


    A very good lens, mine has been on duty for 2 whole years and has
    always done that.
    No problem

    al-Farrob
    www.al-farrob.com
     
    al-Farrob, Nov 15, 2006
    #3
  4. Sudee Guest

    Skip wrote:
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>Hi,
    >>
    >>just a question, I have just bought on ebay a Canon 28-135 USM IS
    >>Ultrasonic AF ZOOM Lens. It looks like working well, but I noticed that
    >>the front lens support (the one on where the front lens is attached) is
    >>moving a little bit, as is not really fixed on the rest of the body of
    >>the whole lens.
    >>
    >>Just to know if it is normal of this kind of Canon USM lens or I have
    >>to return back the item to my seller... sounds a little bit strange to
    >>me that part of the body is not so fixed to the rest of the lens.
    >>
    >>Thanks in advance for your support.
    >>
    >>Stefano
    >>

    >
    > 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
     
    Sudee, Nov 15, 2006
    #4
  5. Orion Guest

    Yes, that is normal for the Canon lens. It has to be loose in order to be
    able to move to correct for lens shake.


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Hi,
    >
    > just a question, I have just bought on ebay a Canon 28-135 USM IS
    > Ultrasonic AF ZOOM Lens. It looks like working well, but I noticed that
    > the front lens support (the one on where the front lens is attached) is
    > moving a little bit, as is not really fixed on the rest of the body of
    > the whole lens.
    >
    > Just to know if it is normal of this kind of Canon USM lens or I have
    > to return back the item to my seller... sounds a little bit strange to
    > me that part of the body is not so fixed to the rest of the lens.
    >
    > Thanks in advance for your support.
    >
    > Stefano
    >
     
    Orion, Nov 15, 2006
    #5
  6. In article <atM6h.2523$>, Orion
    <> writes
    >
    ><> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> just a question, I have just bought on ebay a Canon 28-135 USM IS
    >> Ultrasonic AF ZOOM Lens. It looks like working well, but I noticed that
    >> the front lens support (the one on where the front lens is attached) is
    >> moving a little bit, as is not really fixed on the rest of the body of
    >> the whole lens.
    >>
    >> Just to know if it is normal of this kind of Canon USM lens or I have
    >> to return back the item to my seller... sounds a little bit strange to
    >> me that part of the body is not so fixed to the rest of the lens.
    >>
    >> Thanks in advance for your support.

    >
    >Yes, that is normal for the Canon lens. It has to be loose in order to be
    >able to move to correct for lens shake.
    >

    I agree it is normal (we have two here and they are both like that).
    However, I don't think your explanation is correct; the IS is very
    definitely an internal lens element movement.

    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.

    David
    --
    David Littlewood
     
    David Littlewood, Nov 15, 2006
    #6
  7. Phil Wheeler Guest

    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.

    Phil
     
    Phil Wheeler, Nov 15, 2006
    #7
  8. Mark² Guest

    wrote:
    > Hi,
    >
    > just a question, I have just bought on ebay a Canon 28-135 USM IS
    > Ultrasonic AF ZOOM Lens. It looks like working well, but I noticed
    > that the front lens support (the one on where the front lens is
    > attached) is moving a little bit, as is not really fixed on the rest
    > of the body of the whole lens.
    >
    > Just to know if it is normal of this kind of Canon USM lens or I have
    > to return back the item to my seller... sounds a little bit strange to
    > me that part of the body is not so fixed to the rest of the lens.
    >
    > Thanks in advance for your support.
    >
    > Stefano


    That's normal. The front element extends quite a way out, and some movement
    is expected.

    I had one for years, and it performed well.

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Nov 15, 2006
    #8
  9. Mark² Guest

    Orion wrote:
    > Yes, that is normal for the Canon lens.


    True.

    >It has to be loose in order
    > to be able to move to correct for lens shake.


    Completely untrue/unrelated to IS.

    IS is controlled internally, and has nothing whatever to do with the front
    lens element.


    >
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Hi,
    >>
    >> just a question, I have just bought on ebay a Canon 28-135 USM IS
    >> Ultrasonic AF ZOOM Lens. It looks like working well, but I noticed
    >> that the front lens support (the one on where the front lens is
    >> attached) is moving a little bit, as is not really fixed on the rest
    >> of the body of the whole lens.
    >>
    >> Just to know if it is normal of this kind of Canon USM lens or I have
    >> to return back the item to my seller... sounds a little bit strange
    >> to me that part of the body is not so fixed to the rest of the lens.
    >>
    >> Thanks in advance for your support.
    >>
    >> Stefano


    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Nov 15, 2006
    #9
  10. Mark² Guest

    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.


    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Nov 15, 2006
    #10
  11. Phil Wheeler Guest

    Mark² 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.
     
    Phil Wheeler, Nov 16, 2006
    #11
  12. Mark² Guest

    Phil Wheeler wrote:
    > Mark² 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 Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Nov 16, 2006
    #12
  13. Skip Guest

    "Sudee" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Skip wrote:
    >> <> 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
     
    Skip, Nov 16, 2006
    #13
  14. Skip Guest

    "Phil Wheeler" <> wrote in message
    news:D5O6h.869$...
    > Mark² 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
     
    Skip, Nov 16, 2006
    #14
  15. In article <b3N6h.862$>, Phil Wheeler
    <> 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
     
    David Littlewood, Nov 16, 2006
    #15
  16. Phil Wheeler Guest

    Mark² wrote:
    > Phil Wheeler wrote:
    >> Mark² 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
     
    Phil Wheeler, Nov 16, 2006
    #16
  17. Skip Guest

    "Phil Wheeler" <> wrote in message
    news:IJP6h.921$...

    >
    > 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
     
    Skip, Nov 16, 2006
    #17
  18. Mark² Guest

    Phil Wheeler wrote:
    > Mark² wrote:
    >> Phil Wheeler wrote:
    >>> Mark² 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 Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
     
    Mark², Nov 16, 2006
    #18
  19. Phil Wheeler Guest

    Mark² 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
     
    Phil Wheeler, Nov 16, 2006
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Jack

    Canon 28-135 IS USM lens on 10D front end loose?

    Jack, Jan 15, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    3,400
    LouTheArtist
    Mar 6, 2011
  2. Don dunlap

    Canon 28-135/3.5-5.6 EF IS USM Zoom Lens

    Don dunlap, Nov 12, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    757
    Annika1980
    Nov 13, 2004
  3. Joe Smith
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    403
  4. Mike Walter

    Thoughts on Canon EF 28-135 mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Lens?

    Mike Walter, Jan 8, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    897
    just bob
    Jan 8, 2007
  5. SBFan2000

    Re: "Shake, shake, shake your hard drive..."

    SBFan2000, Aug 17, 2006, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    931
    SBFan2000
    Aug 17, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page