Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM issue

[kemper]

I just received my new <span id="btAsinTitle"]Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM yesterday. Right out of the box I used the zoom. There is more resistance between the 70-100 range than the 100-200 range. Is this a fault? For what I paid, I expect perfection. If this is not normal (and I've never felt a zoom do this) I am going to send it back.

[Jon Ruyle]

I just checked mine. It seems to have the same property. It also seems to have more resistance zooming out than in. And it is my favorite lens


My 24-105 is even across the whole range, but also seems to have more resistance zooming out than in.

[L33t]

My doens't :S but have you focused and zoom? and then just zoom, it should work propert.

[Jeff Lucia]

Kemper, does it have somewhat more resistance or a lot more resistance?


Mine is very smooth throughout, but when it was new, it took more effort to operate the zoom than I expected, and definitely more than the ES 70-200mm f/4L IS I upgraded from. I checked it against a friend's lens and his had more resistance, but he thought mine was loose. Remember that you're moving a lotof glass around when you zoom this lens.


Post again to let us know what happens!

[kemper]

Thanks for the replies


It isn't so much the higher resistance in moving that bothers me, it's that it is not consistent throughout. Like Jon's, mine seems to offer more resistance zooming out than zooming in, and even then only between 70-100. 100-200 is less resistance.


I checked it out optically and I was amazed and not disappointed at all. But for the price of that lens, I expect optical and mechanica perfection. If this higher resistance in zooming at the lower end is normal, I'll live with it, of course.

[Feanor]

I found this at first too and was a bit puzzled by it. I kept
fiddling around and experimenting during use, and realised that mine
doesn't offer more resistance zooming in or out - it's dependant on
whether I have the lens pointing up or down!


The 70-200 is no
different to any other lens, in that elements still move forwards and
backwards when you zoom - it's just that, I assume, the body of the
lens envelopes its largest zoom size as it were. You can watch the
elements moving in and out if you look through the front of the glass
while zooming - pretty cool in itself with all that glass, IMO.


Anyway.
With my lens, the variation in stiffness is just gravity. There's no
difference if I zoom while the lens is completely horizontal.



The variation in stiffness across the range is different. My 70-200
isn't like that but my 24-70 is. I wondered too if there was something
wrong with my 24-70 but I'm pretty sure someone told me it was normal. I
have heard that some L lenses do loosen up as they get more use - which
isn't entirely a surprise, as this goes for many high-quality
mechanical items in my experience. This does seem to have happened to my 24-70 but I've only had it a few months and it hasn't had heavy use.


I'd give it a couple of months so the lens is still in warranty and if you're still bothered about it contact Canon.

[micdon]

Kemper, I also just received my lens, hopefully not from the same guy in Chicago over ebay... no problems with the lens, but after I read this thread, I too tested the lens and it does the same thing you write. I'm thinking it is a break in thing as stated from others


Let's check back after baseball and Tri season is over and see how they work then


If I only had some more money... I could still get some more stuff... either that or a divorce


happy shooting


mike

[Flish]

That sounds like a similar issue I had recently. I went to another local camera store and sampled tow they had and found that one was smooth as silk the other hadvariabledragacrossthe zooming range. I promptly sent my copy back to Amazon for a no questions refund and kept the one from the local vendor. In my opinion, for the money it better be right or I'm sending it back. I didn't want to find myself in a position down the road with a defective piece of hardware...post warranty.