# Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II USM Noisy Focus Ring Issue Revealed



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 4, 2014)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/04/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-usm-noisy-focus-ring-issue-revealed/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2014/04/canon-ef-24-70-f2-8l-ii-usm-noisy-focus-ring-issue-revealed/">Tweet</a></div>
<div title="Page 1">
If you have a noisy focus ring on your Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II, below is the reason why. The report is dated February 2014, so all lenses manufactured prior to August 2013 are are potentially affected. I’ve had first hand experience with this issue from our rental inventory. I have no idea if Canon will charge you for this repair if the lens is out of warranty. We haven’t bothered to fix our inventory, as a few lenses have exhibited the issue, but functionality doesn’t seem to be affected.</p>
<p><strong>Repair Information</strong>

It has been confirmed at the factory that when turning the focus ring, in rare cases, an abnormal noise can be heard. If units are brought in due to complaints of this nature, please replace the part with the new part.</p>
<p><strong style="line-height: 1.5em;">Compatibility

</strong>Old and new types are compatible.</p>
<div id="attachment_16305" style="width: 517px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2470spring.jpg"><img class="size-full wp-image-16305" alt="Reason & remedy for a noisy focus ring on a Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II" src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/2470spring.jpg" width="507" height="202" /></a><p class="wp-caption-text">Reason & remedy for a noisy focus ring on a Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L II</p></div>
<p><strong>Time of Change

</strong>The new type has been incorporated into products from the August 2013 production.</p>
<p>When mounting the new SPRING, COIL (CB3-3809-010), there is no need to mount PLATE, SPRING HOLD. (There will not be problems even if the PLATE, SPRING HOLD is mounted.)</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
</div>
```


----------



## bornshooter (Apr 4, 2014)

On this it says the part will be deleted when stocks are depleted meaning they were continuing to use the part even after the discovered the issue.


----------



## infared (Apr 4, 2014)

Mine seems fine...so far :'(


----------



## Skywise (Apr 4, 2014)

I just picked one of these up from the sale a few weeks back - but I don't think I've heard any noise while focusing. Can anyone describe it? Is it like a grinding noise?


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 4, 2014)

This is the kind of adjustment to internal parts and service advice all companies that care about their customers give out to their service departments as a continual ongoing practice.

Releasing it like this, with no context, or the numbers or percentage of affected units, as Canon know very well, will just cause hysteria amongst a vocal few, many of whom won't actually own the lens, panic amongst many that do but don't have the "issue", inundation of service centers who will not replace anything just because "it made a noise once", and a host of other entirely negative outcomes.

Doing this like this is not a positive thing to do by any measure or rational. You are in a unique position to cause or limit any backlash, releasing confidential documents like this needs to be done with the greatest care, a huge amount of back story and lots of context. I'd suggest getting the opinion of a very good and expensive internationally savvy corporation lawyer too. 

I dearly hope this is not a page hits kind of deal.


----------



## R1-7D (Apr 4, 2014)

Yup! I now have the ammo I need to insist Canon look at this issue after they had previously dismissed me.


----------



## mtavel (Apr 4, 2014)

infared said:


> Mine seems fine...so far :'(



This is one of those things... now people will start hearing noises out of their perfectly functioning lenses :-\

[Editing to clarify]

It's a Catch 22 for Canon. Release the information and you will get a lot of false positive reports of the issue. Keep it private and people think you're hiding something.

Maybe the issue only happens when the spring rotates a certain way and there is a 5% chance the spring will be in just the wrong position, but unless the documentation explains these details in a way for non-lens engineers will understand it - it will cause more confusion that it helps.

But Canon definitely needs to treat it's customers better during warranty - especially considering how expensive the new series lenses are. Telling people they are hearing things when there is internal knowledge of a potential issue is inexcusable.


----------



## R1-7D (Apr 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> This is the kind of adjustment to internal parts and service advice all companies that care about their customers give out to their service departments as a continual ongoing practice.
> 
> Releasing it like this, with no context, or the numbers or percentage of affected units, as Canon know very well, will just cause hysteria amongst a vocal few, many of whom won't actually own the lens, panic amongst many that do but don't have the "issue", inundation of service centers who will not replace anything just because "it made a noise once", and a host of other entirely negative outcomes.
> 
> Doing this like this is not a positive thing to do by any measure or rational. You are in a unique position to cause or limit any backlash, releasing confidential documents like this needs to be done with the greatest care, a huge amount of back story and lots of context is needed to justify disclosure of this kind of information.



You have a rational point on this. However, as I stated in another thread, the lack of integrity Canon has shown its customers (me being one of them) makes me completely unsympathetic. Maybe if they were like Apple and went the extra step to help out and make sure the product becomes satisfactory, even with known issues that might not affect every unit, then I would support keeping this information confidential. However, Canon almost goes out of its way to insult its customers. I was personally told I was "hearing things"!


----------



## R1-7D (Apr 4, 2014)

My question is: now that they know the problem, do they also know if there is any long term effect or damage caused by the spring?


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> This is the kind of adjustment to internal parts and service advice all companies that care about their customers give out to their service departments as a continual ongoing practice.
> 
> Releasing it like this, with no context, or the numbers or percentage of affected units, as Canon know very well, will just cause hysteria amongst a vocal few, many of whom won't actually own the lens, panic amongst many that do but don't have the "issue", inundation of service centers who will not replace anything just because "it made a noise once", and a host of other entirely negative outcomes.
> 
> ...



I don't think it'll bring a spike in page hits and I understand your points.

My issue is the same as the person that sent me the documents, Canon charging for repairs on a defective design. I am trying to get proof that is actually happening and going over our repairs at Lens Rentals Canada and asking others if they have any data on the matter.

I have no problem with silent recalls and just putting "optical adjustment" on the receipt and charging someone $50 to cover shipping and any other incidental costs and being done with it. However, to charge someone $450 to repair something you know is faulty by design just doesn't seem right to me.


----------



## R1-7D (Apr 4, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > This is the kind of adjustment to internal parts and service advice all companies that care about their customers give out to their service departments as a continual ongoing practice.
> ...



Quite right, CR!


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 4, 2014)

R1-7D said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > This is the kind of adjustment to internal parts and service advice all companies that care about their customers give out to their service departments as a continual ongoing practice.
> ...



I have had far worse dealings with Apple than Canon, and I have had several "issues" with both.

Dealing with any corporations service arms can be an exercise in futility, I have been asked to send in example images with a lens only to have the unopened CD sent back. Getting to the bottom of issues, particularly intermittent issues, can be very frustrating for everybody, the service centers included. I have found Canon have an excellent hierarchy though, if you don't get what you need from one person you can keep going up, once you get above simple service managers any issues seem to be taken very seriously. I have also noticed a difference in satisfaction from people who use the different area service centers. Were I in your situation I would send it to a different service center.


----------



## privatebydesign (Apr 4, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > This is the kind of adjustment to internal parts and service advice all companies that care about their customers give out to their service departments as a continual ongoing practice.
> ...



I agree that the charging for mechanical failures is unjust and should not be practiced, even after official warranty periods have expired. If Canon are doing that they deserve to get a slap.

I wonder if contact via official routes couldn't be more persuasive? Certainly in the USA talk of class action suits, as has already been mentioned on the other post, is never taken lightly. But they do have huge chequebooks, so I'd tread very lightly. I don't think any of us want to be CR less!


----------



## R1-7D (Apr 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> R1-7D said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...



Apple isn't perfect either, but in my experience they are still the best. As far as service centers go in Canada I am unaware if there is more than one main one. CPS told me to send my lens in but that chances were nothing would be done to it.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 4, 2014)

R1-7D said:


> Apple isn't perfect either, but in my experience they are still the best.



Yeah, don't we wish! Mind you, I almost exclusively use Apple computers and phones so I am not a PC fanboy, I've had far worse experience than you state.
Whenever I had an issue, and found out several users online complaining about it- I ask Apple and they said they have never heard of it. Of course, they will fix it (only because I have warranty coverage) but no public information is given out whatsoever.
Examples:
1. Volume button greyed out and becomes inoperable (required a logic board replacement).
2. Mouse cursor becomes stuck to Windows (required a system reset).
3. Early 2011 MBP GPU issues (required a logic board replacement).
Feel free to Google the above issues and you will find numerous posts, many on Apple's own user fora.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 4, 2014)

For those claiming this as 'ammo'... The complaints I've seen (and heard, including video) have all been about a clicking sound from the *ZOOM* ring, this post is about the *FOCUS* ring. I trust that Canon knows the difference.


----------



## Dylan777 (Apr 5, 2014)

I placed my pre-order a day after the announcement. I'm assuming my copy must came from 1st patch of production. 

What focus noise?


----------



## Sabaki (Apr 5, 2014)

Personally I feel that countries should protect consumers more. Certainly if a company sells a product with a faulty design, all costs in correcting the fault should default back to the company?

I do have a history with a faulty Canon product, the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8. 

So the AF motor burns out 5 months after purchase. I send into Canon's repair agents, which in South Africa is a third party with repair accreditation. I get a long email from Canon's customer liaison who states that they are 100% sure that I used the lens correctly and that there are no signs of misuse. Their agents could not pinpoint the reason for the malfunction. 

But even though I insisted I wanted a new lens, they would were only prepared to repair it. 

I was pissed off. R5000.00 is about a full month's salary for me. 

So I contacted a lawyer who said I don't have a legal case. 

Kinda crazy when logic totally contradicts a legal opinion


----------



## lastcoyote (Apr 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> For those claiming this as 'ammo'... The complaints I've seen (and heard, including video) have all been about a clicking sound from the *ZOOM* ring, this post is about the *FOCUS* ring. I trust that Canon knows the difference.



Exactly my thoughts as soon as I read this article. All the noise issues people have had is with the ticking zoom action and not the focus ring...which is virtually silent.


----------



## R1-7D (Apr 5, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> For those claiming this as 'ammo'... The complaints I've seen (and heard, including video) have all been about a clicking sound from the *ZOOM* ring, this post is about the *FOCUS* ring. I trust that Canon knows the difference.



Or maybe that's the exact reason we aren't getting any help - they got the two rings mixed up in the memo! ;D


----------



## lastcoyote (Apr 5, 2014)

R1-7D said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > For those claiming this as 'ammo'... The complaints I've seen (and heard, including video) have all been about a clicking sound from the *ZOOM* ring, this post is about the *FOCUS* ring. I trust that Canon knows the difference.
> ...



That would be alarming to say the least!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Apr 5, 2014)

Is this the earth shattering Canon screwing the customer leak? ... just curious, how many EF 24-70 f/2.8 L II lenses did Canon sell? and how many of those had this noise issue? and how many times did Canon charge $450 for each of those noise issue cases? and how many millions did Canon make by charging the $450 for those lenses?


----------



## candyman (Apr 5, 2014)

Canon Rumors said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > This is the kind of adjustment to internal parts and service advice all companies that care about their customers give out to their service departments as a continual ongoing practice.
> ...



You are right. I had a problem with the 24-70 of Tamron. It was a faulty design (wrong circuit board that caused a battery drain while the lens was mounted to the camera). Tamron charged 0 euro. It was fully covered by the warranty (incl. free shipping). That is what you should expect from a company in such a situation.


----------



## Grumbaki (Apr 5, 2014)

dilbert said:


> If the image for this thread came from a document sourced from Canon, does Canon own the copyright to it and does this website have permission to reproduce it? I'm all for leaking information a la Snowden, but you need to be intelligent about how it is done. Another aspect of the Snowden issue is that all documents produced by the government are not covered by copyright as they're "owned" by the people - they're just subject to official secrets acts, etc - and can thus be reproduced freely without limit. That doesn't apply to documents produced and owned by corporations.



Sorry but that's a very poor legal argument and analogy.
Snowden docs were protected by defense statuses, something far more serious than copyright.
In most western country, the right to inform, even just for consumers rights, is superior to copyright.
Just to make a ludicrous point, if I patent murder, do I prevent you to blow the whistle as a witness? 

Go on leaking as long as there is a point about it, you'll be fine.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Apr 5, 2014)

Grumbaki said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > If the image for this thread came from a document sourced from Canon, does Canon own the copyright to it and does this website have permission to reproduce it? I'm all for leaking information a la Snowden, but you need to be intelligent about how it is done. Another aspect of the Snowden issue is that all documents produced by the government are not covered by copyright as they're "owned" by the people - they're just subject to official secrets acts, etc - and can thus be reproduced freely without limit. That doesn't apply to documents produced and owned by corporations.
> ...


 
The documents are stolen property, first, there would likely to be a cease and desist notice from Canon.

I don't see this as a big deal, its a design improvement, nothing is failing, but some people have very good hearing and can hear stuff that many can't.


----------



## traingineer (Apr 5, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> R1-7D said:
> 
> 
> > Apple isn't perfect either, but in my experience they are still the best.
> ...



Just sayin, your Mac is a PC, so a PC fanboy would also count in mac users.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Apr 6, 2014)

traingineer said:


> sagittariansrock said:
> 
> 
> > R1-7D said:
> ...



I think Apple started it when they started the "Mac vs PC" videos, LOL!


----------



## traingineer (Apr 6, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> traingineer said:
> 
> 
> > sagittariansrock said:
> ...



Or maybe because apple called their computers Macs. But that could also be a possibility.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 6, 2014)

sagittariansrock said:


> I think Apple started it when they started the "Mac vs PC" videos, LOL!


----------



## R1-7D (Apr 6, 2014)

So if this is about the focus ring and not the zoom ring, my question is: Is there any leaked documentation about the zoom ring clicking sound then?


----------



## R1-7D (Apr 9, 2014)

I like how all the concern for this has died off. I still think finding out about which products are affected is extremely important.


----------



## Invertalon (Apr 9, 2014)

My spring was replaced in my 24-70 II long ago, under warranty. Got the lens back from a repair and when the focus ring was turned, it would make a "spring" noise... Like boiiiiing! 

Sent it in and they spoke with the engineers in Japan as they had no idea... And they wanted to be sure before they tore the lens apart... A month later or so, they got the part from Japan, replaced it (still the "old" spring, according to the repair... but this was probably before the fix) and the lens is fine. Interesting to see what it was though now!


----------



## 1400700226 (Nov 22, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> For those claiming this as 'ammo'... The complaints I've seen (and heard, including video) have all been about a clicking sound from the *ZOOM* ring, this post is about the *FOCUS* ring. I trust that Canon knows the difference.


Mine makes clicking sound when zooming too... Wtf, mine is made in 10/2015


----------



## 1400700226 (Nov 22, 2016)

R1-7D said:


> So if this is about the focus ring and not the zoom ring, my question is: Is there any leaked documentation about the zoom ring clicking sound then?


Hope to see too.


----------

