# 24-70 f/2.8 L II front coating peeling off?



## traveller (Feb 4, 2014)

I have a friend whose 24-70 f/2.8 L II is currently with Canon, as the front coating appears to be separating from the glass of the front element. Has anyone else experienced anything like this with any of their lenses and if so, how did Canon respond?


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 4, 2014)

traveller said:


> I have a friend whose 24-70 f/2.8 L II is currently with Canon, as the front coating appears to be separating from the glass of the front element. Has anyone else experienced anything like this with any of their lenses and if so, how did Canon respond?



Not if *that* would happen with Tamron, what would the community say  (remembering the s***storm over the Internet after a front element in one 24-70vc dropped off...). With Canon, I guess it's an hearsay isolated example of product failure, probably due to doubful user handling, that is to be expected with mass production and just has to be replaced under warranty :->


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 4, 2014)

It's certaily possible for the coatings to become damaged or to delaminate. If the outer protective layer(s) are damaged (by physical impact like an object hitting the front element or a scratch caused by larger particulates on the lens when it's rubbed with a cleaming cloth), moisture can penetrate the layers of coatings, and some of the antireflective layers are quite susceptible to moisture damage (not even water on the lens - humidity is enough). Use of inappropraite cleaning solution can damage coatings, even Scotch tape can cause microscopic lesions of the surface.




Marsu42 said:


> remembering the s***storm over the Internet after a front element in one 24-70vc dropped off...


It wasn't just one (and it was the second element), and Roger provided a good reason for its occurrence.

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/09/tamron-24-70-f2-8-vc-issue

Incidentally, he praised Tamron's handling of the issue.


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 4, 2014)

traveller said:


> I have a friend whose 24-70 f/2.8 L II is currently with Canon, as the front coating appears to be separating from the glass of the front element. Has anyone else experienced anything like this with any of their lenses and if so, how did Canon respond?


 
Many years ago I had that problem with a lens and the coatings disintegrated.. It was a 50F1.8 so it was not even worth the cost of shiping it to be looked at... The camera had been outside all day at -65C and when it warmed up the coatings fell apart. I think it was due to the severe cold.... Did your lens get excessively cold?


----------



## traveller (Feb 4, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> It's certaily possible for the coatings to become damaged or to delaminate. If the outer protective layer(s) are damaged (by physical impact like an object hitting the front element or a scratch caused by larger particulates on the lens when it's rubbed with a cleaming cloth), moisture can penetrate the layers of coatings, and some of the antireflective layers are quite susceptible to moisture damage (not even water on the lens - humidity is enough). Use of inappropraite cleaning solution can damage coatings, even Scotch tape can cause microscopic lesions of the surface.



Possible explanation, but it was quite widespread over the front element (sorry, I didn't think to take a photo at the time). At first, I thought it was just moisture, but it wouldn't rub off; it also didn't look like your usual scratches: they weren't thin lines, but fat and speckled. It's strange because it's his newest lens (less than a year old) and none of the others are in this sort of state, despite similar usage. 

UPDATE: I've just had a 'phone call from him (whilst typing this); Canon are blaming this on "excessive cleaning". The lens is just over 12 months old and apparently been cleaned with only a microfibre lens cloth... Time to buy UV filters for my lenses? Oh rats, the good ones are multi-coated too!!!


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 4, 2014)

I have a 100L Macro which I believe has the same nano coating, not long after I got it I noticed a "blemish" in the coating, it wasn't there when I got the lens. I tried to rub it off but it wouldn't budge, indeed it looked like a pocket of air, or bubble in the coating, certainly it looked to have the third dimension or depth to the blemish. I was disappointed but was determined to either clean it off or get a new front element. With that attitude I set about really laying into "cleaning" it, basically I rubbed the sh-t out of it and did nothing but make many rub marks around the blemish. I was resigned to a new element. However before I sent it off I had my cleaning fluid out and tried one last time, voila, not only did the blemish disappear completely but also the "cleaning" marks all went as well.

Now I recount this not to make myself look like the dufus I was, but to point out that even when we are "certain" the coating is damaged, it might well not be, and further, I find it practically impossible to believe you could rub those nano coatings hard enough by hand to damage them, I know how stupidly hard I "cleaned" mine with zero ill effects.


----------



## tron (Feb 4, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I have a 100L Macro which I believe has the same nano coating, not long after I got it I noticed a "blemish" in the coating, it wasn't there when I got the lens. I tried to rub it off but it wouldn't budge, indeed it looked like a pocket of air, or bubble in the coating, certainly it looked to have the third dimension or depth to the blemish. I was disappointed but was determined to either clean it off or get a new front element. With that attitude I set about really laying into "cleaning" it, basically I rubbed the sh-t out of it and did nothing but make many rub marks around the blemish. I was resigned to a new element. However before I sent it off I had my cleaning fluid out and tried one last time, voila, not only did the blemish disappear completely but also the "cleaning" marks all went as well.
> 
> Now I recount this not to make myself look like the dufus I was, but to point out that even when we are "certain" the coating is damaged, it might well not be, and further, I find it practically impossible to believe you could rub those nano coatings hard enough by hand to damage them, I know how stupidly hard I "cleaned" mine with zero ill effects.


Thanks for the info. This is reassuring. I remember my EF 14mm f/2.8L II which had (or has I am not 100% sure right now) a softness that could not be removed. Anyway it turned out that although it could not be removed it could be ... moved! So it looks like a similar case


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 4, 2014)

Some photos of what is happening would certainly help.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 5, 2014)

traveller said:


> I have a friend whose 24-70 f/2.8 L II is currently with Canon, as the front coating appears to be separating from the glass of the front element. Has anyone else experienced anything like this with any of their lenses and if so, how did Canon respond?


Are you saying that the nano coating on the glass is pealing? The process of applying the nano coating is pretty high tech, Is it possible that he used some sort of solvent to clean it?

http://www.canon.com/technology/s_labo/light/003/03.html


----------



## JustMeOregon (Feb 5, 2014)

Of course I have no idea if it's related, but I recently accidentally destroyed a pair of eyeglasses by washing them with 99% isopropyl alcohol. They peeled like 30-year paint on the sunny-side of a barn...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 5, 2014)

JustMeOregon said:


> Of course I have no idea if it's related, but I recently accidentally destroyed a pair of eyeglasses by washing them with 99% isopropyl alcohol. They peeled like 30-year paint on the sunny-side of a barn...


 
Yes, its common on eyeglasses, they are usually plastic, so the coating is not flame sprayed (Vapor Deposited) at extreme high temperatures like glass camera lenses. That process costs more than a high end pair of glasses, and has been extremely reliable, so its unusual to have this happen. There can be manufacturing defects, or issues using the wrong cleaner.


----------



## traveller (Feb 6, 2014)

UPDATE: I've just heard back from my friend, the technician at the service centre told him that it is very unusual for the lens coating to peel in this way after such a sort period of time. Usually they would expect to see signs of very heavy usage on the body of the lens in these cases. The service centre have been instructed to replace the front element under warranty and send the damaged front element back to Canon for further investigation. Meanwhile it looks like my friend will have his repaired lens back tomorrow. 
I'd say this might be a case of an isolated manufacturing defect. I don't think it's anything to worry about if you own this lens, but worth knowing in case it does happen to you.


----------



## tron (Feb 6, 2014)

Thanks for the warning. I always use filters so normally I do not watch what happens between the filter and the lens but I will give a look every few months.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 6, 2014)

traveller said:


> UPDATE: I've just heard back from my friend, the technician at the service centre told him that it is very unusual for the lens coating to peel in this way after such a sort period of time. Usually they would expect to see signs of very heavy usage on the body of the lens in these cases. The service centre have been instructed to replace the front element under warranty and send the damaged front element back to Canon for further investigation. Meanwhile it looks like my friend will have his repaired lens back tomorrow.
> I'd say this might be a case of an isolated manufacturing defect. I don't think it's anything to worry about if you own this lens, but worth knowing in case it does happen to you.


They do a large batch of them at once. It is a very critical process, but its hard to understand why it would not affect a whole production run, or at least a whole tray of them, unless someone happened to somehow get just one lens dirty, or the cleaning process missed one lens. 

You can get some info about the process here;

http://youtu.be/qzpt49qq6v4


----------



## Don Haines (Feb 6, 2014)

traveller said:


> UPDATE: I've just heard back from my friend, the technician at the service centre told him that it is very unusual for the lens coating to peel in this way after such a sort period of time. Usually they would expect to see signs of very heavy usage on the body of the lens in these cases. The service centre have been instructed to replace the front element under warranty and send the damaged front element back to Canon for further investigation. Meanwhile it looks like my friend will have his repaired lens back tomorrow.
> I'd say this might be a case of an isolated manufacturing defect. I don't think it's anything to worry about if you own this lens, but worth knowing in case it does happen to you.



That is a good, responsible reaction from the manufacturer.... Shit happens, they can either learn from it or deny it... looks like they chose to learn.


----------



## traveller (Feb 6, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > UPDATE: I've just heard back from my friend, the technician at the service centre told him that it is very unusual for the lens coating to peel in this way after such a sort period of time. Usually they would expect to see signs of very heavy usage on the body of the lens in these cases. The service centre have been instructed to replace the front element under warranty and send the damaged front element back to Canon for further investigation. Meanwhile it looks like my friend will have his repaired lens back tomorrow.
> ...



Even with the most thorough quality control, there is always variability which can mean that a defective unit slips through inspection. This is especially so when you are using statistical process control to ensure that correct standards are being achieved. This might be the case when there are a large number of units and it is uneconomic to inspect them all (although, as the video link clearly shows - Canon are claiming 100% sampling for lens element QC checks at the grinding stage), or when a particular check requires a unit to be destroyed (e.g. you wouldn't want to crash test every car you made!). This could possibly be the case (I'm speculating here) with lens coating resilience: you could test a statistically significant percentage, but if the testing process is damaging to the lens element or takes a long time (e.g. an accelerated ageing simulation), you couldn't test them all. Japanese companies tend to lead the way in process control and I'm sure that Canon has well developed procedures and tight tolerance limits for its processes, but even these cannot guarantee that no faulty unit will reach the customer. I'm guessing that given the opinion of the repair centre technician that it is not caused by misuse, is why Canon have expressed an interest in investigating the problem further: this is the sort of problem that technocratic Japanese managers like to deal with.


----------



## traveller (Feb 6, 2014)

Don Haines said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > UPDATE: I've just heard back from my friend, the technician at the service centre told him that it is very unusual for the lens coating to peel in this way after such a sort period of time. Usually they would expect to see signs of very heavy usage on the body of the lens in these cases. The service centre have been instructed to replace the front element under warranty and send the damaged front element back to Canon for further investigation. Meanwhile it looks like my friend will have his repaired lens back tomorrow.
> ...



+1 -which is why I wanted to update the thread when I heard of the outcome: credit where credit is due.


----------



## shhooter (Feb 9, 2014)

Seems i've run into the same issue with my 24-70L II (owned since October 2012). Noticed what looked like light scratches developing on the front element a few months ago but it was only visible in extreme off-angle lighting. Recently it's become much worse and clearly visible in normal light.

I've contacted CPS and will hopefully be sending the lens off this week. Glad to hear Canon replaced your friends under warranty, hopefully i'll have a similar result.

This is what my lens looks like:


----------



## JustMeOregon (Feb 9, 2014)

shhooter said:


> Seems i've run into the same issue with my 24-70L II (owned since October 2012). Noticed what looked like light scratches developing on the front element a few months ago but it was only visible in extreme off-angle lighting. Recently it's become much worse and clearly visible in normal light.
> 
> I've contacted CPS and will hopefully be sending the lens off this week. Glad to hear Canon replaced your friends under warranty, hopefully i'll have a similar result.
> 
> This is what my lens looks like:



Of course after reading this I immediately dropped everything & painstakingly examined my 24-70 from every conceivable angle... Happily it checks-out just fine.

Its impossible to tell just from the picture, but the front element on your 24-70 kind'a looks like the coating may be wearing-away due to overly aggressive cleaning. Any chance that's the cause?


----------



## shhooter (Feb 10, 2014)

Glad yours checks out okay.



JustMeOregon said:


> Its impossible to tell just from the picture, but the front element on your 24-70 kind'a looks like the coating may be wearing-away due to overly aggressive cleaning. Any chance that's the cause?



That's what it looks like to me too. Funny thing is, this lens has never been dirty enough to get an extensive cleaning. I've never rubbed it with anything or used cleaning liquids. I usually use a rocket blower to blow away dust and occasionally hit it with a lens pen. Never had a problem with other lenses and similar treatment.

Hopefully Canon can tell me more this week.


----------



## dgatwood (Feb 10, 2014)

Was yours one of the first off a new production line, by any chance? I ask because it looks like there are air bubbles between the lens and the coating, like perhaps they didn't allow the cleaning solution to fully evaporate from the glass before depositing the coating or something.


----------



## shhooter (Feb 10, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> Was yours one of the first off a new production line, by any chance? I ask because it looks like there are air bubbles between the lens and the coating, like perhaps they didn't allow the cleaning solution to fully evaporate from the glass before depositing the coating or something.



My serial number is 235, one of the first batches made probably. Just sent off to Canon Service in NJ.


----------



## TexPhoto (Feb 11, 2014)

shhooter said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > Was yours one of the first off a new production line, by any chance? I ask because it looks like there are air bubbles between the lens and the coating, like perhaps they didn't allow the cleaning solution to fully evaporate from the glass before depositing the coating or something.
> ...



Wow. I am getting more and paranoid about begin a Canon early adopter. My OMG I have to have that new lens/camera experience have been bad (mostly), and then to hear this...


----------



## tron (Feb 11, 2014)

I wonder if I have to worry. I just got this lens with no chance to use it yet.

Up to now users of this lens have reported the following:

1. Bubbles in the glass.
2. Clicking when zooming
3. Marks from filters that come in contact with lens (albeit Roger from Lens Rentals reported the problem happening only with no-name cheap filters but still...)
4. Damage in coating.

Mine does not have bubbles, and does not click when zooming. Plus, it seems that the Hoya HD2 does not come into contact with the front element.

So I will just have to worry for coating in a few months... ;D


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 11, 2014)

shhooter said:


> This is what my lens looks like:


Yikes  ... not a nice thing to happen to an expensive lens like that ... I can somewhat understand the pain, coz mine was stolen along time ago :'(


----------



## J.R. (Feb 11, 2014)

tron said:


> I wonder if I have to worry. I just got this lens with no chance to use it yet.
> 
> Up to now users of this lens have reported the following:
> 
> ...



I'm pretty much wondering the same as well. I hope using the lens at 40C+ temperatures won't have an effect on this lens which is almost always on one of my cameras :-\


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 11, 2014)

J.R. said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder if I have to worry. I just got this lens with no chance to use it yet.
> ...


For about 8 months of the year, I routinely use my lenses (Canon, Nikon, Tamron & Sigma lenses) in temperatures ranging between 40°C to 55°C (104°F to 131°F) in very dusty desert conditions, and during 2 of those months, (August & September), extreme humidity is also added to the high temperatures ... but so far nothing like this has ever happened to any of my lenses ... of course, all my lenses (with the exception of EF 40mm pancake) have B+W filters on them for protection.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 11, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



That's comforting ... though 40C+ temperatures won't be. with all the problems cited for the 24-70II, I feel lucky I don't have one and I' sure hope it stays that way!~


----------



## Invertalon (Feb 13, 2014)

Terrible to hear so much wrong lately with this lens. I got mine right when released and has been fantastic all around. Perfectly sharp edge to edge at 24mm and 70mm, not the faintest sound of clicking or coating issues. I did exchange my first copy due to slight decentering, but after that no issues!

Canon really should start doing some better QC checks though, especially on the L glass we pay good money for.


----------



## traveller (Feb 13, 2014)

I'm sad to hear that this issue has raised its ugly head again; I sympathise with your situation shhooter. 

You'll notice from my earlier posts that Canon (like JustMeOregon) accused him of over cleaning. I would suggest sticking to your guns over this; whilst it is impossible to tell the condition of your lens from the photo you posted, unless it is a total knacker, I think that the onus is on Canon to prove misuse. Whilst I wouldn't want to be the one to have to issue a court summons against a global corporation, I think the law (in Britain, at least) would be sympathetic. In the UK, under the Sale of Goods Act 1979, "goods must be as described, of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose". Canon's UK website states: 

"The EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM is robust enough for daily professional use. Weather sealing protects against dust and moisture, while a fluorine-coated front and rear elements are easy to clean."

I would argue that the front coating peeling off a lens that is otherwise in good condition and under two years old (release date: February 2012), doesn't fit within that description.


----------



## shhooter (Feb 20, 2014)

I got a repair estimate of $555 today ($269 out of warranty labor charge, $254 for a new front element, $14 shipping, $18 tax). Ouch. Not what I was hoping for, especially since I don't believe it's something i've done to cause the coating to begin to disintegrate. The rest of the lens is in pristine condition and it's only 16 months old. The repair description says "front element scratched".

I called the repair center and asked to speak to the technician who inspected the lens and was told the techs don't speak directly to customers, but they can e-mail me a picture and detailed description of what they found in 1-2 business days, which I requested. We'll see what they have to say, but i'm not sure where to go from there since the lens is out of warranty. Disappointed in Canon right now, i'd at least like someone to tell me what it is they think happened to the thing before i'm into it for $2855...


----------



## JustMeOregon (Feb 20, 2014)

Ouch is right! I wish you the best of luck, but unfortunately "they" hold all the cards... You mentioned earlier that you sometimes used a LensPen on the front element. Do you think that it could be a contributing factor? I believe that LensPens contain an ultra-fine graphite abrasive don't they? I have never used one so I really don't know for sure...


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 20, 2014)

No don't try to speak to a tech, they have no say in anything. Speak to a manager, then go above them, keep getting names of people higher, even the basic telephone agent has a 10% discretionary discount, managers have more. 

But I would very heavily point out that they have sent it to Japan for evaluation, they would not do that unless they believed it was a serious issue, they deal with scratches every single day and none of them get sent anywhere.


----------



## shhooter (Feb 20, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> No don't try to speak to a tech, they have no say in anything. Speak to a manager, then go above them, keep getting names of people higher, even the basic telephone agent has a 10% discretionary discount, managers have more.



This will be my next step after I get the email from the tech with more information about what they believe is wrong with it. "front element scratched" is vague.

RE LensPens: i've used them on all my lenses for years without issue. It's possible to scratch a lens with anything (cloth, lenspen, lens tissue) while cleaning, but i honestly don't suspect this is what caused the problem with the coating on my lens.


----------



## Calypso Poet (Feb 21, 2014)

Had to register to say I've got the same problem with my 24-70 II lens. I first noticed it about a month ago and was completely puzzled. I've never had this happen with any other of the dozens of lenses I've had over the years, always cleaned them the same way (and most have been cleaned a lot more than this lens). I have not had the lens in extreme cold, though it has been in high heat/humidity. 

Now at least I know others have had the same issue with the 24-70 II. After reading this thread, I feel pretty confident this is not user error. It's likely a manufacturing defect, probably/hopefully limited to a small batch. 

My lens was ordered in March of 2013, so it's coming up on a year old. I hate to send it back now because I really need it over the next two months. But I may not have a choice. And if I get a $500+ bill, I'm not going to be happy. Will keep you updated.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 21, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > remembering the s***storm over the Internet after a front element in one 24-70vc dropped off...
> ...



Two and counting  ... though I wish the owner a speedy replacement, no doubt it won't be a problem via cps.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 22, 2014)

Without starting a holy war about "using or not using filters", I am glad that none of my lenses ever experienced anything like this, despite using them in very dusty and hot conditions ... but I always have a B+W filters for all of my lenses ... if I'm not wrong, many of the reviews I've read at TDP say that even the weather sealed lenses need a UV/clear to "complete" the weather sealing.


----------



## dgatwood (Feb 23, 2014)

So if I'm reading this correctly, there are three people on this board with this same lens failure, one of whom got a free in-warranty repair, one of whom didn't notice it until outside the warranty period and got bent over a barrel, and one of whom hasn't sent it off yet.

Almost every electronics manufacturer in the world would have done a silent recall for this sort of failure, and would have done the repair for free, even outside the warranty period. It's a bit scary that Canon doesn't do that. Not doing so significantly tarnishes my opinion of Canon as a brand.

I'll remember this thread next time I'm deciding whether to buy a Canon lens or a third-party lens. Just saying.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 23, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> It's a bit scary that Canon doesn't do that. Not doing so significantly tarnishes my opinion of Canon as a brand.



I guess Canon recons that people using such an expensive lens are either a) insured for damaged gear, b) rich and don't care anyway, c) pros with cps who will get it fixed for free no matter the warranty.

Indeed Canon (at least to my knowledge) isn't a "caring" company. They want to make profit and have a good service for cps/pros, but the rest is simply expected to pay a lot of $$$ for service or buy an upgrade once the warranty is over - see firmware policy for everything else than their flagship camera bodies... as the market leader there is no need for them to behave otherwise.


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 23, 2014)

"pros with cps who will get it fixed for free no matter the warranty."

What? A discount--but "free"?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 23, 2014)

Rienzphotoz said:


> Without starting a holy war about "using or not using filters", I am glad that none of my lenses ever experienced anything like this, despite using them in very dusty and hot conditions ... but I always have a B+W filters for all of my lenses ... if I'm not wrong, many of the reviews I've read at TDP say that even the weather sealed lenses need a UV/clear to "complete" the weather sealing.



If you don't want to start a holy war don't stand on a hill and proclaim things like, my god is the one god and he will look after my lens element. A coating delamination has got absolutely nothing to do with filter use or not.

As for weather sealing, you are wrong (mostly), only the 16-35 MkI and MkII, the 17-40 and the 50 f1.2 actually need a filter to complete the weather sealing (maybe another one or two), but none of the rest do. I have used my 16-35 in all weather for the past 9 years without one to no ill effects.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 23, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > It's a bit scary that Canon doesn't do that. Not doing so significantly tarnishes my opinion of Canon as a brand.
> ...



If you deduct the $500 annual "membership" costs then you could hardly consider it "free", besides, as YuengLinger points out, it just qualifies you for a discount most of the time, plus priority service and faster turnarounds. I no longer do the CPS thing as, for me, it isn't good value, free and discounted cost way too much.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 23, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > Without starting a holy war about "using or not using filters", I am glad that none of my lenses ever experienced anything like this, despite using them in very dusty and hot conditions ... but I always have a B+W filters for all of my lenses ... if I'm not wrong, many of the reviews I've read at TDP say that even the weather sealed lenses need a UV/clear to "complete" the weather sealing.
> ...


Impressive exaggerations or perhaps the mood swings are making you get carried away today! : 



privatebydesign said:


> As for weather sealing, you are wrong (mostly), only the 16-35 MkI and MkII, the 17-40 and the 50 f1.2 actually need a filter to complete the weather sealing (maybe another one or two), but none of the rest do. I have used my 16-35 in all weather for the past 9 years without one to no ill effects.


I am glad your 9 year old 16-35 has served you well. The kind of environments I work in, my lenses require a filter. If you don't require one, great, no one is insisting you use one : ... your lens - your choice, my lens - my choice!


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Feb 23, 2014)

I have some experience with anti-reflection coatings in the Ophthalmic (ie: eyeglasses) industry.

If anti-reflection coatings are not perfectly applied, they do indeed seem to peel off over time without the consumer doing anything wrong. The companies that make lenses for eyeglasses have had a lot of problems with this ever since AR coatings became popular about 20 years ago. I think this problem is pretty rare in cameras and other optical instruments, because I have never seen it, but it seems likely that a batch of front elements was not properly coated.

As far as I know, there is nothing the consumer can do to make the AR coat start peeling without doing something drastic that would damage other parts of the lens in some obvious way. It certainly is not due to any kind of cleaning and it is not caused by scratches. A defective coating is really easy for me to spot because I've seen hundreds, but a camera tech probably hasn't seen many.

My guess is that either the machine that applies the coating to a batch of lenses in a vacuum chamber was not operating properly or the lenses were not properly cleaned before the coating process. No way for us to know how big a batch is or how many batches were affected.

I don't think it would be appropriate to recall every one of these lenses, since the number of lenses affected is probably small. In my opinion, Canon should issue a warranty notice like they did for the improperly secured mirrors on the early 5D classic. If somebody sends a lens in with a defective coating, it gets fixed for free regardless of warranty status. This is clearly a manufacturing defect. Technicians should be told what a defective coating looks like so that they don't blame the customer. It is really easy to spot a defective coating, it's the one that looks like it is peeling off!

What Canon chooses to do about this will tell us a lot about their commitment to customer service. It will either make them look good or it will make them look bad.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 23, 2014)

It is my experience that when people start a comment with "I don't want to sound/start/hurt your feelings" that is exactly what they wanted to do.

Yes, the owner has the choice, your comments directly linked your belief in filter use with not having a delamination issue, I just pointed out that they are totally different issues. Kinda like saying "I forgot my SD card, that is why I ate breakfast".

Was I wrong to do that? But thanks for caring about my mood swings! WTF!


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 23, 2014)

drmikeinpdx said:


> I have some experience with anti-reflection coatings in the Ophthalmic (ie: eyeglasses) industry.
> 
> If anti-reflection coatings are not perfectly applied, they do indeed seem to peel off over time without the consumer doing anything wrong. The companies that make lenses for eyeglasses have had a lot of problems with this ever since AR coatings became popular about 20 years ago. I think this problem is pretty rare in cameras and other optical instruments, because I have never seen it, but it seems likely that a batch of front elements was not properly coated.
> 
> ...



Absolutely spot on. I would hope Canon do react like that once they recognise the actual reason for the damage.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 23, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> But thanks for caring about my mood swings! WTF!


Seems like your mood swings are leading you astray coz you are thanking me for nothing, FYI I really don't care a sh!t about your mood swings.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 23, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> So if I'm reading this correctly, there are three people on this board with this same lens failure, one of whom got a free in-warranty repair, one of whom didn't notice it until outside the warranty period and got bent over a barrel, and one of whom hasn't sent it off yet.
> 
> Almost every electronics manufacturer in the world would have done a silent recall for this sort of failure, and would have done the repair for free, even outside the warranty period. It's a bit scary that Canon doesn't do that. Not doing so significantly tarnishes my opinion of Canon as a brand.
> 
> I'll remember this thread next time I'm deciding whether to buy a Canon lens or a third-party lens. Just saying.



So if I'm reading this correctly, you're saying that almost every electronics manufacturer in the world would have done a recall based on two failures for which they have evidence? That's tarnished thinking, IMO. If a recall was initiated based on a minuscule fraction of failures, 'almost every electronics manufacturer in the world' would have gone bankrupt by now. 

Any manufacturer first has to determine the extent of the issue (number of affected units), identify the cause of the problem and a solution, then decide on a course of action. That takes time and data - how many production runs affected, what frequency of affected units in the run(s), etc., and two failures isn't enough data...even 200 verified failures may not provide enough data. 

Canon has a pretty good history of issuing service advisories for identified issues (everything from PowerShots to the 1-series bodies - S100 lens issue, rubber grips turning white on several bodies, 5DIII light leak, 1D X lubrication, 24-105 flare, etc.). Some other vendors are far worse. Nikon seems to release new models instead of fixing the problems (D610, SB910). How long did it take nvidia to acknowledge the 8600M GT chips overheating? Apple issued a recall for MB Pros with the chip while nvidia was still denying the problem, and when nvidia finally acknowledged the issue it cost them $3B in market cap and their CEO was sued for covering up the extent of the problem. I guess you should also remember this thread the next time you're deciding whether to buy a computer with an nvidia chip...


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 23, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> "pros with cps who will get it fixed for free no matter the warranty." What? A discount--but "free"?



I'm just a plain ol' silver cps member, and then only in the EU where cps is free if you happen to have enough camera bodies - so I don't have a lot of personal experience. But I have read some about cps and Canon service and have felt a strong difference when going to the counter with a cps card...

... I'd say that for expensive gear (= Canon already made a profit) and cases where the blame is uncertain like this 24-70L2 case a platinum cps membership could help a lot to get things fixed even after warranty - at least "free" in the sense you pay only for parts, but not for labor or vice versa. Ymmv.


----------



## dgatwood (Feb 23, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > Almost every electronics manufacturer in the world would have done a silent recall for this sort of failure, and would have done the repair for free, even outside the warranty period. It's a bit scary that Canon doesn't do that. Not doing so significantly tarnishes my opinion of Canon as a brand.
> ...



A silent recall != a recall. A silent recall is an internal notice that says, "If you see this problem, fix it, don't charge the customer, and don't tell them why." You'd be surprised how frequently these things happen. You'd also be surprised how frequently most manufacturer service reps silently authorize a warranty exception, even without a formal notice, particularly for products that are just a couple of months out of warranty, as these are. (Bear in mind that the 24-70 II didn't ship until September of 2012, so the *absolute oldest* lenses out there are only five months out of warranty.)

For the most part, the cost of a gratis repair is less than the cost of a lost customer. So unless something is obviously caused by neglect, most companies give their service reps a lot of leeway to extend one-time repair coverage to customers even if their product isn't quite under warranty. And there are certain types of failures that simply shouldn't happen anywhere near the end of the warranty period.

Catastrophic failure of a lens coating is one of those things that should never happen, even within a decade of the end of the warranty. If it is happening to a few people in the first few months out of warranty, unless there was a process change to fix it, it's going to start happening to a *lot* of people a few months later. And if there was a process change to fix this problem, then Canon knows about it, and it's gross negligence (bordering on willful fraud) to not have a silent recall for all lenses within the affected serial number range. Either way, sending a $555 bill is really, really *bad* customer service by industry standards.




neuroanatomist said:


> Apple issued a recall for MB Pros with the chip while nvidia was still denying the problem, and when nvidia finally acknowledged the issue it cost them $3B in market cap and their CEO was sued for covering up the extent of the problem. I guess you should also remember this thread the next time you're deciding whether to buy a computer with an nvidia chip...



Actually, Apple issued a semi-silent recall—a repair extension program that AFAIK wasn't announced to customers (except for the notice on their website). Most people only heard about it when they took their machines in for repair and got them fixed for free outside of the normal warranty period. They didn't ask people to send in their hardware if it wasn't having problems. And yes, I'm wary of NVIDIA hardware as a direct result of that incident, but personally, I place most of the blame on Europe for the ROHS nonsense that has single-handedly lowered electronics reliability more than all the other environmental initiatives in the last hundred years combined.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 23, 2014)

dgatwood said:


> A silent recall != a recall. A silent recall is an internal notice...



Okay, now I understand. Your opinion of Canon is tarnished and you may not buy another OEM lens because they haven't issued a silent recall – one which, by your own definition, is internal so you _shouldn't expect_ to hear about it – based on a problem which affects an unknown but presumably very small number of units, and which was reported very recently. 

Whatever. Go buy a Sigma lens, and have fun playing the QC and AF lotteries... :


----------



## YuengLinger (Feb 23, 2014)

I got showered in bat pee last night. (No, I didn't pay for it.) I was taking pictures at sunset of a bat-house and should have brought an umbrella.

Anyway, I'm glad I didn't have my 24-70mm attached at the time, even with its UV filter attached as always, because now my Sigma smells like what rained on it!

Come to think of it, the photo in this thread of the front element looks like something did get sprayed on there. Not to be paranoid or suspicious (can't help myself), but from time to time, "friends" and angry significant others have been known to do nasty things to belongings, and what better place to wound a photographer than in the gear?

Just throwing in an extra variable to the mix!


----------



## dgatwood (Feb 24, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> dgatwood said:
> 
> 
> > A silent recall != a recall. A silent recall is an internal notice...
> ...



Expect to hear about it, no. Expect such a failure to be fixed without charge, even outside of warranty, yes. Which it wasn't. Hence my comment.




neuroanatomist said:


> Whatever. Go buy a Sigma lens, and have fun playing the QC and AF lotteries... :



The reason I made that comment is that I've been avoiding certain third-party lenses because of a similar failure of some of their lenses just outside of warranty that they would not stand behind. One of the major reasons to buy Canon lenses goes away if they don't take care of their customers any better than the third-party lens vendors.

Oh, and some of my Canon lenses have been a QC lottery, too. That's not specific to third-party lenses. It's common to most mass-manufactured products where high precision is required.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Feb 24, 2014)

YuengLinger said:


> I got showered in bat pee last night. (No, I didn't pay for it.) I was taking pictures at sunset of a bat-house and should have brought an umbrella.


Animal pee, that is some nasty stuff ... about 7 years ago, the JVC camcorder my wife was using got sprayed by a well timed Lion pee at our local ... that was quite a nasty odour ... when my wife turned off the camcorder (to clean it), the lens front element was covered with the auto lens cover, so she cleaned the whole camcorder exterior and not the lens front element ... and when she finally turned it on after several weeks (if not months), we noticed a small spot on the lens front element, which cannot be removed now. Since that camcorder is old and no one wants to buy it, we still have that it as a souvenir ;D 



YuengLinger said:


> from time to time, "friends" and angry significant others have been known to do nasty things to belongings, and what better place to wound a photographer than in the gear?


I hope you are not speaking from personal experience ;D


----------



## shhooter (Mar 5, 2014)

Update: After pushing back on the initial ($500+) repair estimate I requested a e-mail with a detailed description from the tech of what they believed caused of the coating to disintegrate. A week passed, I called twice to check the status and they assured me I would have the e-mail from the tech soon.

I never received the e-mail, but Friday they sent me a new repair estimate stating they would replace the front element at no cost and today the lens was FedEx'ed back to me. I'm glad Canon is handling the issue even out of warranty, I truly believe I had a defective coating and it seems they came to the same conclusion.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 5, 2014)

Sweet.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 5, 2014)

I wonder if there's a silent recall after all. : 

Quick, somebody get the tarnish remover, there's a reputation to be polished.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 5, 2014)

There is no way the doubters are going to eat any of that humble pie, it is way easier slinging mud without basis........


----------



## J.R. (Mar 5, 2014)

Exit, pursued by a bear ;D


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 5, 2014)

So far, we've had three failures, not by regular members, but those who came to the group asking for info. 

Considering the huge numbers of people who search google and see the posts of the group, there is no cause for alarm. If one of the batches out of 10's of thousands was bad, there is likely a miniscule number that actually failed. I would, as others noted, expect Canon to fix mine within two years of purchase. I used my Amex Card which doubles the warranty, so I'm good for quite a while longer.
I have heard that Canon USA is much better than Canon Europe at dealing with issues like this, so those with issues need to register a complaint, and hopefully, they used a cred card that extended their warranty.


----------



## wickidwombat (Mar 5, 2014)

personally I have had nothing but good experiences with both canon and sigma service 

85 f1.4 siggy went in for +13 afma came back perfect 5 days later and been good as gold ever since

had a brand new canon 5Dmk3 with faulty AF unit very first ones off the line, whole camera replaced immediately.

another 5Dmk3 with faulty lens mount would lose communication with heavy lenses and AF would intermittently stop working mostly happended using 70-200 lenses canon replaced the lens mount and associated electronics and camera was back in 4 days.

24-105 covered in iron ore slurry me and the 1D3 aswell, ended up getting iron ore in the focus ring, lens was out of warranty but it was stripped cleaned checked and came back like new 3 days later and cost $150.

70-200 f2.8L (wifes one) she tore the weather sealing gasket (i have no idea how) anyway they replaced it and lens was back in a couple of days (also out of warranty).

product support and service is something IMO that canon do extremely well


----------



## Calypso Poet (Mar 5, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> So far, we've had three failures, not by regular members, but those who came to the group asking for info.



I've been reading/lurking this forum for a while. When I saw others were having the same problem I had with the 24-70II, I figured it was time to register and post my story. I do feel this is a very limited problem, but people should know about just in case. 

So, an update. The lens shipped out today. Canon service assured me it would be taken care of because the lens was still under warranty (for another week). So, it looks like everything will be OK, and I'm not out much except shipping charges and loss of the lens for a week or two. Kudos to Canon service on that front. I wasn't as happy when they said in order to replace the 10 cent part which fell off the top of my 5d3 (ie the piece that says AV, TV, M, etc) I would have to send my camera in and the whole dial assembly would have to be replaced at fair cost. Yikes. Fortunately, I scoured my car and kayak and luckily found it and will re-glue it myself.

All in all, I've been generally pleased with Canon service, though there have been a few issues along the way.


----------



## johnmowry (Sep 18, 2014)

*24-70mm II front element damage from mist*

Has anyone had the coating come off of the front element after the lens got mist on it. I was shooting High School Football last Friday night and we had a mist. When I whipped the front element (no uv protection) the coating came off the glass. Canon is saying it it water damage. I am saying that the lens is advertised as Highly resistant to dust and water, enabling shooting even in harsh and rigorous conditions. Right now the estimated repair is 436 usd.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 18, 2014)

*Re: 24-70mm II front element damage from mist*

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19396.0


----------



## johnmowry (Sep 18, 2014)

So my 24-70 II did the same thing over the weekend. We has a slight mist while shooting Football. The nano coating came off when I wipe the excess moisture off. Canon is saying it is water damage because I was honest and stated it happened in a mist. This is very disappointing. The lens is advertised as "Highly dust and moisture resistant." I have been hung-up on, disconnected and chat and given the run around by Canon Repair center employees. I am not happy since canon wants 432 to replace what should have been covered under warranty.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 18, 2014)

*Re: 24-70mm II front element damage from mist*

John, is the lens in warranty? How old is it? That is a big factor in getting it repaired. I'd politely ask to appeal the case to a manager, based on the number of reported incidents like this. Canon seems to be tightening up on their warranty service and are not as easy going as when profits were high. I assume that they have the lens and perhaps found evidence of water damage??

I'd be very unhappy if it happened to me on such a expensive lens.


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 19, 2014)

johnmowry said:


> So my 24-70 II did the same thing over the weekend. We has a slight mist while shooting Football. The nano coating came off when I wipe the excess moisture off. Canon is saying it is water damage because I was honest and stated it happened in a mist. This is very disappointing. The lens is advertised as "Highly dust and moisture resistant." I have been hung-up on, disconnected and chat and given the run around by Canon Repair center employees. I am not happy since canon wants 432 to replace what should have been covered under warranty.



But it is highly moisture resistant. As in, you'd have to be high to think it was moisture resistant. That's what they meant, right? 

But seriously, any lens coating that can't tolerate water also *cannot be safely cleaned*, which by definition makes it a fundamentally defective lens coating whose very existence does far more harm than good. If Canon refuses to cover such an obvious manufacturing flaw under warranty, it is highly likely that Canon is breaking the law.

I'd like you to try contacting them again, this time by certified mail with a return receipt. Point them to this forum thread, where a number of people have reported having the same failure with that specific lens. When you do, be sure to mention the magic words "Magnuson Moss", "fraud", and "class action". I think you may have better luck with that approach.

If that doesn't convince them to honor their warranty, I would strongly encourage you to contact a lawyer. Ask for punitive damages, and treble damages. After all, if they've been presented with evidence that this is a fairly common failure that is not caused by customer abuse, and they still refuse to cover it, that constitutes a *willful violation* of the law, which is much, much worse than just breaking the law.

Caveat emptor: IANAL.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Sep 19, 2014)

*Re: 24-70mm II front element damage from mist*



johnmowry said:


> Canon is saying it it water damage. I am saying that the lens is advertised as Highly resistant to dust and water



And what exactly does that mean? It means that the lens will resist dust and water to the point it will no longer resist dust and water.

There are measurable standards for water resistance. I don't think any of the major camera manufacturers would even agree to submit their bodies/lenses for this type of certification. 

I ignore any marketing verbage about weathersealing (what does that term mean anyway?). I treat my bodies and lenses as if they were vunerable to water/dust and I try to protect them as much as I can. 

Good luck with it. Don't be surprised if Canon tries to weasle out of it. All they have to do is claim that it is damage in excess and how can you, the consumer, prove otherwise?


----------



## dgatwood (Sep 19, 2014)

*Re: 24-70mm II front element damage from mist*



AcutancePhotography said:


> Good luck with it. Don't be surprised if Canon tries to weasle out of it. All they have to do is claim that it is damage in excess and how can you, the consumer, prove otherwise?



You don't have to. You can insist that they repair *only* the problem you sent it in for—the failed coating—which cannot possibly be caused by water unless the coating was fundamentally flawed to begin with. At that point, the burden of proof falls on Canon.

To legitimately disclaim the warranty on the coating, Canon would have to claim that it is reasonable for a lens coating on a roughly $2,000 camera lens to flake off when exposed to water. If Canon made such a claim on the record, *no one in their right minds would ever buy a Canon lens again*.

Obviously if (many years from now) something else fails because of water damage, that's your problem... but realistically, it probably won't.


----------



## johnmowry (Sep 19, 2014)

I was getting no where with phone calls to the service center yesterday. Hung up on and and given a run around about the lens specs. I would be the first to admit if I had water damage. I gave Canon a description of a light mist so they could document an issue if one exists. From this forum there seems to be a few cases. Mist became water damage, I did not agree. I finally was feed up and tweeted canon on poor customer service and not treating CPS members as valued customers. I received a tweet in minutes asking for the contact and case info. I was contacted via phone within an hour. The Rep spoke to a floor supervisor to prove water damage. The only damage the could prove was my description of a mist getting on the front element. The Rep that contacted me had the Floor supervisor wave all charges. This is all with the Warranty expiring on last Saturday. On a side note the calls I placed to the service center were reviewed and are being reviewed with the employees that I spoke with. I should have my lens back early next week. Thanks Canon.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 19, 2014)

johnmowry said:


> I was getting no where with phone calls to the service center yesterday. Hung up on and and given a run around about the lens specs. I would be the first to admit if I had water damage. I gave Canon a description of a light mist so they could document an issue if one exists. From this forum there seems to be a few cases. Mist became water damage, I did not agree. I finally was feed up and tweeted canon on poor customer service and not treating CPS members as valued customers. I received a tweet in minutes asking for the contact and case info. I was contacted via phone within an hour. The Rep spoke to a floor supervisor to prove water damage. The only damage the could prove was my description of a mist getting on the front element. The Rep that contacted me had the Floor supervisor wave all charges. This is all with the Warranty expiring on last Saturday. On a side note the calls I placed to the service center were reviewed and are being reviewed with the employees that I spoke with. I should have my lens back early next week. Thanks Canon.



I've learned that Amex doubles your factory warranty (One year additional Max) when you buy a product with the card. If the manufacturer will not fix it, they will. They do not cover abuse, but you were not abusing the lens.


----------



## mwh1964 (Sep 25, 2014)

Newer had any issue with my canon gear. However purchased a new fuji x100s and when I opened the box the lens coating was cracked. Back to BH it went. Now awaiting the X100T


----------



## Mitch.Conner (Sep 27, 2014)

How widespread is this issue, honestly?

I've been gearing up to sell my 24-105 to be replaced with a 24-70 f/2.8 to complement my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II.

Weather resistance is important though. I don't shoot in the rain, but humidity and condensation are issues I constantly have to deal with because I live in two extreme weather environments.

I've also not yet seen photos of this problem. Is the lens not usable after the coating peels off?


----------



## basu (Feb 6, 2015)

I bought this lens 11/11/2013, never had any problems till last week when I wiped some rain of the lens and the coating started peeling. Did anyone find more about this issue yet?


----------



## DanCarr (Apr 15, 2015)

Well, you can add me to this growing list for this issue.

I've owned 15+ Canon L-Series lenses over my career and this is the first time this has happened. I'm not sure how or when it happened, I haven't studied the front element for some time but I noticed some pretty severe damage to the coating today. 

Frustrating. I'll contact Canon and be sure to keep you guys posted on the current way that this issue is being handled. 

My lens is well out of warranty, but it's clear to me that there are some defective coatings out there.


----------



## DanCarr (Apr 15, 2015)

basu said:


> I bought this lens 11/11/2013, never had any problems till last week when I wiped some rain of the lens and the coating started peeling. Did anyone find more about this issue yet?



How did you get on with your issue? What did Canon do about it?


----------



## Ozarker (Apr 15, 2015)

Sorry to hear about the problems people are having.

I use a lens pen to clean with and never spray any solvents or cleaners on my lenses. I assume the lens pens are okay to use.


----------



## bholliman (Apr 15, 2015)

I have owned my lens for nearly 2 years and no problems. I normally clean with a lens pen, but occasionally solvents or water with a lint free cloth.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Apr 15, 2015)

Post a picture of it please...I've NEVER seen this happen to any lens, Canon, Sigma, Tamron....


----------



## dorianiribarren (Oct 29, 2015)

I wanted to let everyone know that I am also experiencing a Defective Coating on the front element of my Canon 24-70 version ii lens that was purchased in March of 2014 from B&H. I talked to canon CPS today and they told me they have never heard of this happening, but obviously this is a defect. I have cleaned this lens the exact same way as I treat all my other L glass and this is the only one I have ever had a problem with. It seems like the lend coating is rubbing off and scratching very easily. 

Canon definitely needs to address this Defect. I will be sending the lens to them and will let you know the results. 

Here is a Pic of the coating. 
http://s14.postimg.org/ijuob2npd/IMG_7611.jpg


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 29, 2015)

dorianiribarren said:


> I wanted to let everyone know that I am also experiencing a Defective Coating on the front element of my Canon 24-70 version ii lens that was purchased in March of 2014 from B&H. I talked to canon CPS today and they told me they have never heard of this happening, but obviously this is a defect. I have cleaned this lens the exact same way as I treat all my other L glass and this is the only one I have ever had a problem with. It seems like the lend coating is rubbing off and scratching very easily.
> 
> Canon definitely needs to address this Defect. I will be sending the lens to them and will let you know the results.
> 
> ...



They will fix it, send it in. A very few have seen this happen, and they almost always post in many places on the internet which makes it seem a big issue. A large number of long time CR members have the lens and few have seen the issue.


----------



## dorianiribarren (Nov 5, 2015)

After sending in my 24-70 mk ii to Canon CPS because the lens coating is rubbing off, they state that since the lens is out of warranty it is going to cost me $428 to replace the front glass. I strongly feel that the defective lens coating should be their responsibility. The lens is only 18mo old. Each day I am one step closer to switching to Nikon. Below I have included an image link to the repair estimate from CPS. 

http://postimg.org/image/jkac999vh/


----------



## hvnguyen13 (Nov 9, 2015)

The front coating on my 24-70L 2.8 II also came off. Lens was purchased in 4/2015 from B&H Photo. Used the lens to shoot the northern lights over Godafoss in Iceland. With the blowing mist I had to wipe the lens dry for each shot. Next day I noticed the rubbed off coating. Lens was brought to Canon today for repair. They wanted to charge me, stating I wiped the lens too harshly. I said, sorry the lens needed to be clean and I used the softest cloth available. Also, my other Canon lens do not exhibit this issue. The advisor took the lens back and came back to say Canon will repair under the warranty this one time. I mentioned other users experiencing the same issue. Of course, Canon proclaimed ignorance, claiming no advisory has been issued.

My Zeiss 15mm did not experience such issue even after all the cleaning. I'm leery about cleaning the 24-70 ii the next time. Here's the shot taken.


----------



## bmwzimmer (Nov 10, 2015)

Amazing Photo. Looks like its from a different planet almost...


----------



## Click (Nov 10, 2015)

Awesome picture, hvnguyen13....And welcome to CR.


----------



## tron (Nov 10, 2015)

hello hvnguyen13,

the photo is fantastic (and may I say worth the trouble?). But, have you considered putting a high quality filter in front?

I have the same lens with a Hoya HD2 in front.


----------



## peterzuehlke (Nov 10, 2015)

Dorian,

If you purchased the lens with a credit card, you may have an extended warranty. Some of the cards will extend your warranty to two years. (same coverage as factory warranty) So long as Canon CPS doesn't determine it was accidental damage that neither they nor the card companies will cover. 

Unfortunately that was my experience with a failed Canon 6D a couple of months out of warranty. error 20. CPS said it was accidental damage due to water exposure. The camera had been exposed to high humidity but never had a drop of water on it. So CPS misdiagnosing it saved the credit card company some money. CPS estimated over $650 of repair, replacing a lot of major assemblies. I took it to a local shop and they found one of the ribbon cables had a plating failure on one contact. about $15 part. They said the camera was perfect inside. It's been working for over 6 months now.


----------



## hvnguyen13 (Nov 10, 2015)

tron said:


> hello hvnguyen13,
> 
> the photo is fantastic (and may I say worth the trouble?). But, have you considered putting a high quality filter in front?
> 
> I have the same lens with a Hoya HD2 in front.



Thanks for the advice although I'm not much of a filter guy. Also, my other Canon lenses did not exhibit such an issue before so I was rather taken with the coating problem. 

My trip to Iceland was spectacular and surely worth the hassle. Here's a shot taken with the Zeiss 15mm using the hard stop infinity since I arrived very late, couldn't see anything due to complete darkness, and was unfamiliar with the territory (didn't want to fall into the ice lagoon at Jokulsarlon).

Thanks for the kind comments.


----------



## hvnguyen13 (Nov 10, 2015)

Thank you everyone for the kind words. I'm waiting for the Canon 1DX II, having liquidated my version I. I intend to sell my 24-70mm II once Canon is done repairing the front element. I'm not confident the coating won't come off again. I do shoot in inclement conditions frequently so I can't afford to have defective lens coating. Anyway, I'm looking forward to the Nikon D5 or Canon 1DX II and go from there. I'm not vested heavily in either so can switch at a whim.

Have to say from a newbie this forum is great.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Nov 10, 2015)

*A peeling front coating is a manufacturing defect!*

It's sad that Canon still isn't giving better treatment to customers who experience this obvious manufacturing defect. A peeling or cracking coating has nothing to do with exposure to water or incorrect cleaning methods. You can scratch or abrade a coating, but nothing you can do will make it peel or crack without destroying the rest of the lens.

Batches of lenses are placed inside a coating machine where the various layers are applied under very tightly controlled conditions. It's a tricky process. I would bet a lot of money that a machine was not functioning properly while some of these lens elements were being coated. That's why coatings break down like this. I speak with four decades of experience in the ophthalmic industry.

It would be good if everyone who experiences a defective coating could post the serial number of their lenses. 
I think there is a good chance that they would be in a small range. But if not, then Canon has a continuing problem in their coating department.

(I've had my 24-70 II for several months and so far no signs of coating issues.)

Dr. Mike


----------



## tron (Nov 11, 2015)

hvnguyen13 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > hello hvnguyen13,
> ...


Can I ask you your opinion regarding coma at 2.8 for Zeiss 15mm

According to 

http://www.trichardsen.com/blog/zeiss-15mm-f28-distagon-review

there is somewhat strange coma that cannot be removed when closing down.

To observe this though one has to expose for just a few seconds to make sure it is coma and not star trails (the author of the review exposed for 2 seconds).


----------



## hvnguyen13 (Nov 11, 2015)

tron said:


> hvnguyen13 said:
> 
> 
> > tron said:
> ...



I have noticed the coma on the edges as well but I don't mind it as much since I don't have to fiddle with focusing in complete darkness. Focusing in the cold and dark is no fun and live view is nearly impossible during new moon nights. I had the Nikon 12-24mm but returned it for the Zeiss because in the end the easy focusing was more important.


----------



## kaihp (Nov 12, 2015)

*Re: A peeling front coating is a manufacturing defect!*



drmikeinpdx said:


> It would be good if everyone who experiences a defective coating could post the serial number of their lenses.
> I think there is a good chance that they would be in a small range. But if not, then Canon has a continuing problem in their coating department.
> 
> (I've had my 24-70 II for several months and so far no signs of coating issues.)



+1 on Dr.Mike's analysis.

I bought mine in October 2012 and haven't seen this issue.


----------



## Bondiphoto (Feb 16, 2016)

I have the same problem.

Canon 24-70 f2.8 II front element has deterioration of the lens coating 13 months of use. I bought this in Switzerland and as i live in Australia i called the Australia / NZ warranty which gives 2 years warranty on lens but Europe give 1 year. Unfortunate i have to go via Europe warranty and i contacted them, they replied with as it is out of warranty i have to pay for the new parts and to use Australia repairer.

I am also glad their are other cases and i suggest if you have the same problem to post as well it may help canon listen.

Really this is not fair, after paying for a top lens and getting a dud with no responsibility taken from canon this is not the quality i am use to having...

i will try to elevate the problem with Canon but i suspect ill be paying for for a fix...


----------



## Charlie_N (Mar 8, 2016)

I've shot the lens for a while, but first time at the beach the other day...... FML, $300 samyang no issues, $60 OM no issues, $1500 24-70mm coatings are a mess after cleanup. Is this really happening smh....


----------



## Charlie_N (Mar 14, 2016)

welps, repair for the lens $631

I'll just use it the way it is for the time being, then get the repair down the line through a local guy. They offered a discount, but F that, it's 230 for the front element alone, and I really dont feel like paying anything to fix this. I'll probably sell it down the line and take the loss.


----------



## Bondiphoto (Mar 21, 2016)

I also had the same problem(Re: 24-70 f/2.8 L II front coating peeling off?), i found this forum indicating this has happened to others and you guys helped me make my case.

My lens i bought in Europe it had expired its 1 year warranty, I live in Australia we have 2 year warranty but since i purchased this in Europe i was stuck with this lens that is 13 months old.

My first contact to Canon was not very helpful, it was quite blunt, making out it was my fault, after reading this forum it's obvious that this is a manufacture flaw or fault. 

i started with face book messages and emails to canon to get real support and answers, after a week i had some help from Canon UK liaising with Canon Australia.

i was told to send my lens in for inspection and it was returned fixed with no charge and no explanation. - Bonus..

I called to find out what it was, and they said it was a faulty part.

- advice, If this is the case with your lens, insist on them fixing the problem, i'm sure they are well aware of the problem seems to happen a lot. 

Good luck.


----------



## lay85 (Mar 21, 2016)

Yes, I have the same problem. Bought in Australia and noticed peeling off 1 month out of warranty so not happy, lens is worthless for resale now. I originally thought I had been knocking it but then found this topic.


----------



## Laktibrada (Jan 3, 2017)

last time i wrote on this forum i was seeking advice on which lens to buy - and most people recommended the 24-70 II. I bought it and enjoyed it for the last 2,5 years - it really is awesome and i had no regrets concerning the deal... untill a couple of days ago

I had a CPL on it all the time and as such had no reason to clean the front element (cleaned it exactly 3x with rocket blowers and lens paper). With the spare holiday time coming, i thought id give all my lenses a thorough cleaning and for the first time ever the glass coating on my 24-70 II came into contact with a liquid - my regular lens solution which i use on all other lenses. I went on doing exactly what i did with other lenses - nice slow wipes from the center towards the edges... let the solution evaporate... and check under silly angles for any signs of irregularity looking towards light.

At first i though i left a partial fingerprint near the edge, but no wiping nor more solution helped. The surface wasnt really scratched - there was no noticable height difference... but the edges of the smudge had weird purple colour to it. A quick google search lead me here and it looked exactly like the pic provided by somebody before me in this thread - only on a much smaller scale and fortunately on the edge.

With great luck i managed to pass the lens on with an awesome resell value lossing roughly 200 EUR in the process (which is a great rent price for 2,5 years  ). But i still cannot get my head around the fact, that i paid a ridiculous amount of money for a product, that despite babying the crap out of it, gets damaged in spots that make it loose value and usefulness.

The test pics i took with it were ok, unless i shot close-ups or against the sun. But anyone buying a 1000+ EUR lens (second-hand or new) would either stay away completely or haggle the price down by 2-300 easily.

As somebody previously mentioned - i guess the best thing i imagine a company the size of Canon do is getting the data (read serial numbers) from its repair-services on front element damaged lenses, analyze it, and offer a free exchange of the front element? Or at least notify repair-services that they shouldnt ask for money if something like this pops up? Dont get me wrong, the lens was everything i hoped for it to be - but you have to be able to clean your gear regulary without the fear that you will ruin your lens and spend 400 each 2 years on a new front element.

I was going to buy the 35 II with the money, but there is this worm of doubt frolicking around in my head now - is it worth the risk?


----------



## tron (Jan 3, 2017)

hvnguyen13 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > hvnguyen13 said:
> ...


I understand what you say about focusing since I have the Zeiss 21 2.8 lens. However when take astro photos the sky is full of stars and I find that I can focus manually (in Live view) with my 14 2.8L II. So this is my go to lens for astrophotography.


----------



## kevinpax (Jan 6, 2018)

Hi everyone,
I started noticing that the same issue a few months ago, as my pics started becoming blurry, but I thought it was just me being too impatient, or not getting the manual settings right. 
Then after finding these posts, I see that its the lens! The entire coating had become spidery / flaky. I wish I had taken pics before I started cleaning it. Attaching whats left of it. 
I am just LIVID! I paid $2000 for this allegedly professional "L" lens, and how does this happen in barely 3 years of usage by an amateur photographer?!?!
Now, after some cleaning, the entire coating has come off, showing the bare glass underneath. Focusing has improved, but I am still annoyed. I dont want to pay to ship it to them, and then be charged another $500-600 to fix their problem.
The only solution thats going to work is to shame Canon via social media. I am composing a post on their USA Facebook page now. Please comment, share, like, etc. if you have had the same problem. Thanks!
https://www.facebook.com/CanonUSA/


----------



## kevinpax (Jan 6, 2018)

TexPhoto said:


> Some photos of what is happening would certainly help.


----------



## tron (Jan 6, 2018)

Bondiphoto said:


> I also had the same problem(Re: 24-70 f/2.8 L II front coating peeling off?), i found this forum indicating this has happened to others and you guys helped me make my case.
> 
> My lens i bought in Europe it had expired its 1 year warranty, I live in Australia we have 2 year warranty but since i purchased this in Europe i was stuck with this lens that is 13 months old.
> 
> ...


I believe EU laws enforce 2 year warranty in many electronic items.


----------



## kaihp (Jan 6, 2018)

tron said:


> I believe EU laws enforce 2 year warranty in many electronic items.


2 years in general.


----------



## lay85 (Jan 7, 2018)

I have the same problem and had started another thread a while back but have since been back to the shop I purchased from and got an independent report from a camera repairer. The camera repair shop couldnt believe it and knew straight away what it was and the shop knew it was lens coating peeling off as well but then they changed attitude and asked me if I flew much. When I told them I travel several times a year they told me it was the chemicals in the sky the caused it and to avoid flying! 
Canon did tell me they will fix at no cost even though out of warranty if it's a manufacturing fault but I'll have to buy another lens first as it will take 2 months to send it over and get it back.


----------



## mukul (Jan 7, 2018)

kevinpax said:


> Now, after some cleaning, the entire coating has come off, showing the bare glass underneath.



what is the solution and method you used for cleaning?

Previously I started a separate thread for correct lens cleaning solution 
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=34166.msg700702#msg700702


----------



## BeenThere (Jan 7, 2018)

Chemicals in the sky? That sounds like BS! If they would eat your lens coating, think of what they would do to your lungs. . Seriously, radiation is a little higher at flight altitudes, but air constituents are essentially the same, albeit at slightly lower pressures.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2018)

BeenThere said:


> Chemicals in the sky? That sounds like BS!



I heard Lucy is up there, with Diamonds. Maybe the person who suggested that used a little too much LDS in the 60s. ???


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 7, 2018)

Ozone could indeed cause a problem, but I doubt that the higher concentrations in a aircraft would hurt it. Lens cleaning, on the other hand with a wet solution can work its way into the coating and loosen it. I avoid cleaning mine except with a blower.

A Canon patent with a different method of applying the coating just appeared. It did not mention and problems with the old method, but it applies a sealant that saturates the nano bubble coating which is probably added to keep solvents out.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 7, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> BeenThere said:
> 
> 
> > Chemicals in the sky? That sounds like BS!
> ...



LDS? An acid head with dyslexia?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 7, 2018)

YuengLinger said:


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


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 7, 2018)

My goodness. ST:IV. Completely forgot that line! You just made my 2018.


----------

