# 24-70Mk2 fell off my 5DMk3 and smashed



## Jeremy (Mar 29, 2013)

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 Googled this issue and a lot of people have had this happen. I never gave it much though, but the zoom ring puts my thumb ON TOP OF the lens release button while shooting. 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 doing something different from every other photog out there? I am devastated.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 29, 2013)

Uh, the 24-105 also has teh zoom ring in the same spot. Never knew this was an issue. :-X


----------



## pierceography (Mar 29, 2013)

I'm also skeptical about this being an actual issue. I just pulled my 5Dm3 with the 24-70mm ii out of my bag and tried to reproduce the problem. I can't, for the life of me, see how anyone could accidentally release the lens while zooming. I have very large hands, and in order to push the lens release with my left hand, my thumb would be almost entirely off the zoom ring.

But regardless of whether or not this is a design flaw, losing a nearly brand new 24-70mm ii is pretty awful. My condolences to you, sir.


----------



## Jeremy (Mar 29, 2013)

@pierceography We must just hold the camera differently. Not that I've ever thought about it until last night, but in looking at it now, I brace my thumb left against the body of the camera to steady it and zoom with my middle and pointer fingers. My thumb doesn't move much. And it's right on the lens release. Testing it here at my desk, I'm having a hard time replicating it too. As we all know, though, shooting at a job is a lot different than testing at home.


----------



## EvilTed (Mar 29, 2013)

Jeremy said:


> 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 Googled this issue and a lot of people have had this happen. I never gave it much though, but the zoom ring puts my thumb ON TOP OF the lens release button while shooting. 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 doing something different from every other photog out there? I am devastated.



Ouch!

Let me check mine before I end up doing the same.
Thanks for the heads up!

ET


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 29, 2013)

If the mount is loose enough, it could easily happen. I'd complain to Canon about it and ask for a replacement. Tolerance buildup can cause lenses to be tight or loose on the mounting. Ideally, you should have to apply substantial force to remove it.

Mine is arriving next week, so I'll be sure to check for that.


----------



## Inspiron41 (Mar 29, 2013)

i never seen this happen with my gear (knock on wood). being a rightie, i rotate the zoom with my left hand, supporting the base of camera with the palm of my left hand. of all that time, i never hit the release button. 

i'm more afraid of not locking the lens in place properly whenever i change my lens quickly.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 29, 2013)

Jeremy said:


> 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 Googled this issue and a lot of people have had this happen. I never gave it much though, but the zoom ring puts my thumb ON TOP OF the lens release button while shooting. 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 doing something different from every other photog out there? I am devastated.


First my sympathies for the loss ... I can totally understand coz not too long ago my 24-70 L II was stolen from me. But coming to your question, I don't think it is the "design flaw", it must be something to do with your technique. Having said that my technique isn't all that good either, I manged to have the lens stolen :-[


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 29, 2013)

Jeremy said:


> 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 Googled this issue and a lot of people have had this happen. I never gave it much though, but the zoom ring puts my thumb ON TOP OF the lens release button while shooting. 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 doing something different from every other photog out there? I am devastated.



First off, you gotta relax. Go drink some beer tonight and cool off. Then back to business. Realize that these sorts of things happen to everyone time to time. There have been people who have broken 400L, 500L, 600L lenses too. Plan out what you can use in place of that lens and then also plan out financially how you can replace the lens and how soon. You will have to replace the lens eventually. Lastly, just learn what you did and how it happened and simply make sure you don't do that again. 

Things will come around. I would also call Canon and tell them what happened and/or where you bought it.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 29, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> broken 400L, 500L, 600L lenses.


OUCH, OUCH, OUCH!


----------



## tron (Mar 29, 2013)

This is unfortunate. I am really sorry.

You reminded my of my accidents. The last summer I had 3!

The second one was an almost had a fatal camera bag accident. Now that bag contained:

5DMkII, 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, 35mm 1.4L, TS-E 17mm f/4L, TS-E 24mm II L, EF1.4X !!!

Fortunately EVERYTHING survived 100%. (This is a long story...)

In the aftermath of what had happened, when I was at my room I wanted to put my 35mm 1.4L on its lens pouch.
Well, it slipped from my fingers and dropped a few centimeters on my ... TS-E 24mm II which was on the bed!!!!!!!!

Both lenses fortunately had their caps on.

The TS-E lens had no issues, not even an external mark on it!

The 35mm was equally scratch free everywhere!!!

When I tried though to put it back on my camera I had to apply extra pressure to hear the click.

So by accident this lens is hard to move and fall BUT... I have to pay attention to make sure the lens is
really attached to the camera because it can seem attached but is missing a final twist.

Mine were user errors. You however may try to ask Canon and see how they respond.

I do not believe they will replace the lens for free but there is a chance they will offer you a generous price reduction to get a new one.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2013)

This reminds me - I need to have my new 24-70 II added to my list of insured gear (so I don't have to worry about 'financially how I can replace the lens and how soon'). 

*Insure your gear, people!*

FWIW, I did accidentally drop my 5DII due to an inadvertent press of the lens release...twice.  I routinely carry body+lens from a BR strap, and with a heavy lens it's attached to the tripod collar. The first time I added a 2x TC behind the lens, it changed the balance point such that as it hung at my hip, the lens release button was able to contact my belt. The first time, I thought I just hadn't mounted the lens securely. The second time (slow learning curve) it became apparent that it was the lens release. Fortunately, the camera functioned fine after the drops, although when I redid the AFMA, all of the lens values had shifted by about 10 units.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 29, 2013)

Inspiron41 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Jeremy said:
> ...


How? ... hmmm, if I knew I'd have searched, caught and kicked the 5h!t out of that person.
Where? ... it was during one of my photo shoots at an oil and gas exhibition, my camera bag (with several lenses and a back-up body) was kept inside a small room in our company booth. At the end of the day when I check my bag, everything was in there except for the 24-70 L II
Normally Qatar is an extremely safe country, you almost never hear of people stealing anything in this country ... when they do it comes as a headline in the local newspapers ... during summer months (it goes to 55 degrees), most people keep our cars running with the AC on while we shop and come back after half hour or so, while relatively expensive stuff (laptops, cameras etc) are left in the car and no one ever steals it ... so getting my lens stolen was a big surprise.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 29, 2013)

If you used American express to purchase the lens, they have some additional warranty coverage, so if Canon won't fix it, Amex may. Other CC's also sometimes have similar coverages, so be sure to check.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 29, 2013)

Are you sure the lens was properly 'locked' in the first place? I can imagine it could fall off if the lens release mechanism wasn't engaged.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> This reminds me - I need to have my new 24-70 II added to my list of insured gear (so I don't have to worry about 'financially how I can replace the lens and how soon').
> 
> *Insure your gear, people!*
> 
> FWIW, I did accidentally drop my 5DII due to an inadvertent press of the lens release...twice.  I routinely carry body+lens from a BR strap, and with a heavy lens it's attached to the tripod collar. The first time I added a 2x TC behind the lens, it changed the balance point such that as it hung at my hip, the lens release button was able to contact my belt. The first time, I thought I just hadn't mounted the lens securely. The second time (slow learning curve) it became apparent that it was the lens release. Fortunately, the camera functioned fine after the drops, although when I redid the AFMA, all of the lens values had shifted by about 10 units.



I was going to comment that I hope his stuff was insured.

Just curious, how do you have your stuff insured? Is it covered under your home owners policy? Is there a separate type policy you have that covers damage to lenses/body/other photo equipment you buy?

cayenne


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2013)

cayenne said:


> Just curious, how do you have your stuff insured? Is it covered under your home owners policy? Is there a separate type policy you have that covers damage to lenses/body/other photo equipment you buy?



A separate policy from my homeowner's insurer (depends on the company - some write a separate policy, some use a rider on the primary policy). I use State Farm, their Personal Articles policy is coverage for electronics, jewelry, art, etc., that exceeds the basic limits of a home policy. No deductible, full replacement coverage, applies worldwide, covers loss, theft, damage, etc.


----------



## RGF (Mar 29, 2013)

Jeremy said:


> 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 Googled this issue and a lot of people have had this happen. I never gave it much though, but the zoom ring puts my thumb ON TOP OF the lens release button while shooting. 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 doing something different from every other photog out there? I am devastated.



It hurts. Sorry for your lose

I had a TS-E fall of the ball head and hit the ground hard - split into two pieces. And this was the first day of my trip down the Dempster Highway in the Yukon. No repair shops in the Yukon. 

Luckily I have my gear insured on my home owners so when I got home they replaced the lens for me - not the trip. I think the rider costs around $1.25-1.50 per $100 of gear (not sure if this is correct). Good things is that they insure against any loose, downside is that I need to list every last item.


----------



## DCM1024 (Mar 29, 2013)

I just took out a policy with Hill & Usher. Covers all my gear plus liability and e&o for business.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2013)

DCM1024 said:


> I just took out a policy with Hill & Usher. Covers all my gear plus liability and e&o for business.



Good point. The homeowners type policies are generally cheaper, but cover only personal use. If you make money from your gear, and they find out, they will deny your claim.


----------



## EvilTed (Mar 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > Just curious, how do you have your stuff insured? Is it covered under your home owners policy? Is there a separate type policy you have that covers damage to lenses/body/other photo equipment you buy?
> ...



Neuro,
How much extra are you paying for this?

Cheers

ET


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2013)

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


----------



## Invertalon (Mar 29, 2013)

Sorry to hear that!

I almost had an accident with my 70-200 II once... Of course, after I mount a lens I always double check that it is locked. Just a habit. One time the 70-200 + extender was loose, and was quite close to letting go. A little heart attack there...

But my stuff is insured, so that is the only benefit if it did happen. Thankfully, it did not. Now I am even more careful. I even check routinely while shooting to make sure it is locked often. Just to be sure.


----------



## Jeremy (Mar 29, 2013)

I had been shooting for over an hour, so it wasn't a mounting error. If that was it, I'd just be mad at myself but I'd get over it. I believe this is a design flaw as much as human error...or more likely a bad combo of the 2. Even when I put my thumb solidly on the zoom ring, my thumb is only 1/2 inch from the release button.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> DCM1024 said:
> 
> 
> > I just took out a policy with Hill & Usher. Covers all my gear plus liability and e&o for business.
> ...



Oh...I was about to ask abou that, so if you have a 'home business'...they won't cover anything used for $$ generation eh?

C


----------



## pierceography (Mar 29, 2013)

Jeremy said:


> @pierceography We must just hold the camera differently. Not that I've ever thought about it until last night, but in looking at it now, I brace my thumb left against the body of the camera to steady it and zoom with my middle and pointer fingers. My thumb doesn't move much. And it's right on the lens release. Testing it here at my desk, I'm having a hard time replicating it too. As we all know, though, shooting at a job is a lot different than testing at home.



That must be a fairly unique way of holding your camera. I'd probably recommend you try something different. ;-)

I generally grip my camera with my thing and middle finger (left hand) around the zoom ring. With such large hands, they the tip of my thumb and middle finger are about an inch apart on my 24-70mm ii. I've never had a problem with accidentally hitting the lens release button, but after hearing your experience I'm probably going to be a little more conscious about it.

But we all have our quirks with how we hold our gear. Myself, for instance -- I have the regular Canon strap around my neck, and when I'm not holding the camera to my eyes, I'll hold it with my left hand by the lens with the strap still around my neck. Reason being that I'm overly paranoid about my lens bumping something, or even possibly detaching from the body. This way, if that were ever (no matter how unlikely) to happen, the camera would be secured by the neck strap and the lens by my hand. Yeah, I'm weird.

But seriously... A real bummer about your 24-70mm. :-(


----------



## Viggo (Mar 29, 2013)

I've always found it a little bit flawed logic that the Memory card slot is almost bolted shut on the 1-series at least, but the lens release is just a big button to easily push.

Sorry for your loss man..


----------



## unfocused (Mar 29, 2013)

pierceography said:


> 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!


----------



## wayno (Mar 29, 2013)

I dropped my cheapo Samyang 14 the other day - several feet onto brick pavers. Bulbous front element and all - not a dent or scratch. Still works perfectly. Sometimes small miracles happen. That however is no consolation to you. My condolences.


----------



## Viggo (Mar 29, 2013)

unfocused said:


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



LOL ;D


----------



## dstppy (Mar 29, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


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



So you're paying $800 a year? ;D ;D


----------



## Dylan777 (Mar 30, 2013)

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


----------



## Jeremy (Mar 30, 2013)

@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.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 30, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Tolerance buildup can cause lenses to be tight or loose on the mounting.



Hmm. I guess so, but it's really just two parts. The body assembly and lens assembly tolerances shouldn't come into play for that joint. They should be able to spec them out such that it's not loose even with worst-case tolerances. 

Could be a QC control. Maybe they aren't inspecting toleranced features.


----------



## archiea (Mar 30, 2013)

First, really sorry for your loss. Understand it is just property. I had my 20D stolen along with the $700 efs lens with it! I also slammed my trunk on my f1.4 50mm. Not so bad: $147 repair. It's gonna happen, you're gonna feel like crap and think of its replacement cost as just burning money.

You should check out the Professional photographers of America. They are a business and education centric trade org for photographers. Part of it's $100 annual membership is a $15,000 insurance policy for your gear...

Second: I've notice that with the new 24-70, if you don't lock the lens when mounting, you could accidently just be rotating the zoom dial instead of the lens itself. Without the lens fully mounted, it could still feel solidly on their until you move it just right and it can fall off.

Examine that in your lens swaps. Make sure it's locked and you hear a click!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 30, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


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


Why?


----------



## TotoEC (Mar 30, 2013)

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.


----------



## 7enderbender (Mar 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> This reminds me - I need to have my new 24-70 II added to my list of insured gear (so I don't have to worry about 'financially how I can replace the lens and how soon').
> 
> *Insure your gear, people!*



Neuro,
If I remember it correctly you are located in MA as well, right? Who do you use for insurance?

For non-MA residents: things here are a little complicated when it comes to insurance since a lot of the affordable big companies such as State Farm don't do business here. And tagging anything to my home insurance is not an option either do to the proximity to the ocean. So I'm still going uninsured for my camera gear since everything I've seen as an option here so far came in very expensive (unlike my musical instrument insurance which is really surprising).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2013)

7enderbender said:


> Neuro,
> If I remember it correctly you are located in MA as well, right? Who do you use for insurance?
> 
> For non-MA residents: things here are a little complicated when it comes to insurance since a lot of the affordable big companies such as State Farm don't do business here.



I am in MA, yes. State Farm certainly does business here - they're my insurer for cars, home, and camera gear (no agents, though - I go through the policy service office in Southborough). But they may not write policies for new customers in MA - we had them in CA originally, kept them when we moved here 9 years ago. Because getting gear coverage was as simple as a phone call and emailing a list of serial numbers, and the cost was very reasonable, I never investigated other options.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 30, 2013)

TotoEC said:


> 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.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 30, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> TotoEC said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (Mar 30, 2013)

unfocused said:


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



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 (Mar 30, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> TotoEC said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



I stand corrrected.


----------



## rumorzmonger (Mar 30, 2013)

Jeremy said:


> @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?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2013)

rumorzmonger said:


> Jeremy said:
> 
> 
> > @dylan777 Why would I make this up?
> ...



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 (Mar 30, 2013)

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

edit - re-read. Never mind.


----------



## jhanken (Mar 30, 2013)

Jeremy said:


> 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 (Mar 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> rumorzmonger said:
> 
> 
> > Jeremy said:
> ...



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 (Mar 30, 2013)

archiea said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > rumorzmonger said:
> ...



"_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


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> "_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 (Mar 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > "_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
> ...



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


----------



## RGF (Mar 30, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> mrsfotografie said:
> 
> 
> > "_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
> ...



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 (Mar 30, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Dylan777 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry...but I found this is hard to believe :-\
> ...



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 (Mar 30, 2013)

Jeremy said:


> @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.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2013)

RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...



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 (Mar 31, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> archiea said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



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?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 31, 2013)

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 (Mar 31, 2013)

mrsfotografie said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > mrsfotografie said:
> ...




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 (Mar 31, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Dylan777 said:
> ...


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 (Mar 31, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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).


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 31, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> 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.



If you want design flaw, try the Kenko extenders - the removal/unlock button is pronounced, very large and you just have to brush it an unfortunate way when moving back the hand from the zoom/focus ring on the lens to the camera. I always forget to mention this flaw when I recommend the extender ...

... but while I also think there might be more foolproof mechanics/positions for the Canon unlock button to be designed, I would never have the idea it's not my own clumsiness, even though I also managed to unlock the lens by accident before :-o


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 31, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> ...no where did he blame Canon for design flaw.



Seriously? "Design flaw." How is that not blaming Canon, since they designed the lens? Unless you're suggesting he's blaming millions of years of evolution for a design flaw of his hands?


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 31, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > ...no where did he blame Canon for design flaw.
> ...


NO! ... the OP did not blame it on design flaw, but some people were too quick to accuse him of that ... that is my point ... all he did was ask a simple question.
It is not necessary that it can only happen due to the "flaw of hands" ... what if the release button developed a problem ... my point is give him the benefit of doubt, not just jump on him for a simple question.


----------



## Jeremy (Mar 31, 2013)

Wow. I didn't realize my question would bring out so many haters.

I was mid-shoot when this happened. So it wasn't a mounting error. In testing, if the lens is not COMPLETELY CLICKED IN, it reads F00 and MF (manual focus). I suppose it's possible that the release spring didn't engage properly. But I've tested that 100 times and it seems to be in order.

I was not blaming Canon....yet. After Googling the issue and hearing other people's horror stories, I supposed that I accidentally hit the release button and rotated the lens off the camera while zooming. The purpose of asking this question IN A CANON FORUM was to see if any other CANON USERS experienced this issue. If a ton of other people did, then yes, it would be a design flaw and we would hold Canon accountable. But it looks like only a few people have had it happen, so perhaps it's just how we shoot or carry our cameras.

On that note, after more Googling, I think I have an explanation....it happened to a few other people as well. I use a Black Rapid strap over my left shoulder, so the camera hangs on my right hip. I'm guessing that the release got pushed (perhaps by the top of my belt) as it "bounced" around on my hip during the evening. After that, all it took was one good zoom to the right and I twisted the lens right off. I actually feel a little better now that I have a more-plausible explanation than hitting it with my thumb. I can now look at how I carry my camera so this doesn't happen again.

As for the embarrassment comment. I don't get it. I HAVE dropped a lens before...my 70-200L2.8....and I can assure you, embarrassment is not one of the feelings that rises to the top. It's mostly panic and fear (that you won't get your job done, and that it'll cost you a fortune to fix) and then rage...at yourself for being so stupid.


----------



## Marsu42 (Mar 31, 2013)

Jeremy said:


> The purpose of asking this question IN A CANON FORUM was to see if any other CANON USERS experienced this issue. If a ton of other people did, then yes, it would be a design flaw and we would hold Canon accountable. But it looks like only a few people have had it happen, so perhaps it's just how we shoot or carry our cameras.



Well, Dr. Neuro and I also experienced it, and I would guess that many, many people also had it happen but with less fatal consequences - so I'm happy you wrote the thread...



Jeremy said:


> As for the embarrassment comment. I don't get it. I HAVE dropped a lens before...my 70-200L2.8....and I can assure you, embarrassment is not one of the feelings that rises to the top. It's mostly panic and fear (that you won't get your job done, and that it'll cost you a fortune to fix) and then rage...at yourself for being so stupid.



... which imho still really might be the reason why so few people said "me too" (rage/self-hate is usually also followed by embarrassment). If people truthfully wrote what went wrong with products and what they attributed to their own stupidity a lot of redesigns would be in order (hello, Kenko!).

While I wouldn't call the Canon release "design flaw", I wouldn't hinder Canon from adding a lock that needs some optional unscrewing instead of just pushing. _But maybe they aren't that hurt about selling a replacement lens, which is also the explanation why cars are so easy to steal_ :->


----------



## Chris Burch (Apr 1, 2013)

I've had a particularly accident prone year so far...hope it's not a trend. I first dropped my 5D3 with an 85 f/1.2 off my tripod when I didn't screw down the ball tension tightly enough. The camera dropped down on the ball head hard enough to break it free from the mount and the camera went hurling towards the hard wooden floor below. The 85mm was destroyed...cracked open...metal mount broken off and still on the 5D3. Miraculously, the 5D3 seems to have survived without issue. I sent both into CPS for repair...nothing wrong with the camera but the lens cost me $1,100 to repair. The repair has been problematic since it came back with lots of dust and cleaning residue swirl marks inside the lens. I sent it back for cleaning and it came back exactly as bad if not worse. Now I am about to send it back yet again. So far every lens I have sent in that needed to be opened up has come back with cleaning issues -- last one had a very visible greasy fingerprint on the inside.

So the next (and hopefully last accident) was dropping my 1DX with 24-70 f/2.8II off of my BlackRapid strap. I have just started using the Kirk QRC-1 on my BR and I guess I didn't lie it up properly when attaching. Fortunately the fall was just from below my waist onto hard-ish carpet, but the impact on the lens broke it -- zoom ring wouldn't move the lens at all. Since this was the very beginning of a long night of shooting I decided to get a little rough with the lens and managed to jam it back into alignment. It snapped in and seems to be working fine now. I need to AFMA all of my lenses now, but so far problems in site. Any thoughts on sending the 24-70 into CPS for alignment if I don't see any problems with it? Kind of worried about getting the lens back worse than when I sent it in.


----------



## tron (Apr 1, 2013)

Chris Burch said:


> Since this was the very beginning of a long night of shooting I decided to get a little rough with the lens and managed to jam it back into alignment. It snapped in and seems to be working fine now. I need to AFMA all of my lenses now, but so far problems in site. Any thoughts on sending the 24-70 into CPS for alignment if I don't see any problems with it? Kind of worried about getting the lens back worse than when I sent it in.


I cannot imagine how you fixed it but if it seems OK (left part = right part = very good) and focusing is 100% OK
in all focal lengths then my opinion is: DO NOT SEND it. Enjoy using it!


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 1, 2013)

Chris Burch said:


> Miraculously, the 5D3 seems to have survived without issue.



I'd really like to see some statistics on this because imho and in my experience the body "sturdiness" is overrated: If the gear drops the first - and most likely only - thing to break is the lens, and then probably some part of the body like back or top lcd that isn't protected by metal anyway. That's why I'm now much more relaxed about my "plastic" 60d.


----------



## vmk (Apr 1, 2013)

If we buy protection plan like "geek squad/Square trade" doesn't it cover the damage of the camera/lens
If it doesn't cover the damage, what is the point of buying that coverage then?


----------



## Jeremy (Apr 1, 2013)

@Chris Burch That IS some crap luck...and with gear WAY more expensive than I just lost. Sorry man.

@Marsu42 Thanks for what you wrote. While I'm not happy it happened to other people, I'm glad I'm not alone (if that makes any sense).


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 1, 2013)

privatebydesign said:


> Oh, I have dropped my 300 f2.8 IS twice because when I mount it on my 2X TC it sometimes doesn't lock properly, a bit like Neuro, it took me two goes to realise there was a problem. It is funny because none of my other lenses has an issue mounting on the TC, just the 300. It is quite depressing to see your 300 sitting on the floor and a camera and TC in your hand!


I like your signature ;D


----------



## J.R. (Apr 1, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Thanks ... I pulled the plug on my plans to get the Kenko after reading the above.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 1, 2013)

Jeremy said:


> @Marsu42 Thanks for what you wrote. While I'm not happy it happened to other people, I'm glad I'm not alone (if that makes any sense).



In my usually ******* tries to translate German proverbs: "Shared pain is half pain"  ... not true, but the human psyche seems to work that way.



privatebydesign said:


> Polycarbonate bodies are virtually indestructible, just watch the video on DigitalRev TV where he tries to kill two cheap bodies. Their other advantage is they are light so store less potential energy, drop them and they bounce.



Interesting information, thanks - thinking back that's exactly what happened whenever I dropped my 60d (well, I try not to do it to often, but over the years ... you know ).

Newer mid-range alleged "metal" bodies aren't entirely mag-alloy anyway, I though it was purely marketing (esp. Nikon d7000-type, the metal is only on the top/back where the usual diagrams show it), but maybe it makes sense after all to reduce weight while having a sturdy frame against splits.



J.R. said:


> Thanks ... I pulled the plug on my plans to get the Kenko after reading the above.



I don't think it's a show-stopper, the extender is excellent and good value otherwise - but as it seems other users have also issues with the Canon extender, it seems you have to be extra-careful with these. As for the Kenko release button: Maybe you have a chance for a hands-on in a shop (or order one and then send it back for free), now you know what to look out for and figure out if it's a problem for your handling style.


----------



## J.R. (Apr 1, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks ... I pulled the plug on my plans to get the Kenko after reading the above.
> ...



Thanks! I don't have the option to have a feel for it before I buy it as the only option is to order online without any recourse of returning it if I don't like it. 

I've used the Canon extenders before and was comfortable with them but the main reason for leaning towards the Kenko was the cost - but now, as it is said, better be safe than sorry


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 1, 2013)

J.R. said:


> I've used the Canon extenders before and was comfortable with them but the main reason for leaning towards the Kenko was the cost - but now, as it is said, better be safe than sorry



Ok, if it's "only" about cost I'd definitely buy the Canon even if for future/new body compatibility alone - I've got the Kenko because it fits all lenses (like 70-300L and 100L macro, esp. the latter is a stellar combination).


----------



## awinphoto (Apr 5, 2013)

RLPhoto said:


> Uh, the 24-105 also has teh zoom ring in the same spot. Never knew this was an issue. :-X



Never used the 24-70M2, but my 24-105, the zoom ring is a good inch away from the lens release (when mounted), so I almost have to TRY to hit it. Unless the 24-70m2 zoom sits RIGHT AT the edge of the lens, or if you just have monster hands, I cant see that being a problem...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 5, 2013)

awinphoto said:


> Never used the 24-70M2, but my 24-105, the zoom ring is a good inch away from the lens release (when mounted), so I almost have to TRY to hit it. Unless the 24-70m2 zoom sits RIGHT AT the edge of the lens, or if you just have monster hands, I cant see that being a problem...



Actually, the zoom ring on the 24-70 II does sit much closer to the mount. But having said that, I still don't find it to be problem...


----------



## pierceography (Apr 5, 2013)

So after doing a lot of swapping out my new 24-70mm II the other day when I was performing some lens testing, I can kind of see what the OP is talking about. When I was behind the camera (tripod mounted, not much room to stand in front of the camera) it was more difficult to mount than my original 24-70mm. Trying to grip and twist resulted in zooming if I wasn't careful.

Of course, I'm always VERY cautious when mounting a lens, and make sure I hear and feel the click of a secured lens.

I still don't see how someone could accidentally hit the lens release button once the lens is attached, but everyone holds their camera differently.


----------

