# New 70-200mm MKII DUST!



## tomscott (Jun 2, 2014)

Hi guys just wanted to know your opinions.

After getting some money together I bought the EF 70-200mm F2.8 IS L MKII.

Upon arrival the lens seems great but upon further inspection there is a rather large piece of dust, I say dust it is reflective. It is in the back of the lens looks between the 1st and second element.

It doesn't effect the IQ nor does it show up at all by shooting a longer exposure as a dust mark.

Im just a little disappointed after spending so much for it to arrive like this. I have a 70-20mm L 2.8 and is 20 years old and has no dust inside it so how does a brand new one have it?

Am I being over the top? Or should I be sending it back. Kind of taken the shine off the new purchase.

Here is the pic comments and opinions welcome.



Untitled by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr



TSP_1346-2 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr



TSP_1346_crop by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr


----------



## kaihp (Jun 2, 2014)

tomscott said:


> After getting some money together I bought the EF 70-200mm F2.8 IS L MKII.
> 
> Upon arrival the lens seems great but upon further inspection there is a rather large piece of dust, I say dust it is reflective. It is in the back of the lens looks between the 1st and second element.
> 
> ...



Tom,

Paying that kind of money for a lens and having it showing up with dust in it is just ..... damn annoying to say the least 

The good news is that the dust probably doesn't matter at all for the IQ. Our good fellow Roger Cicala over at lensrentals.com wrote this blog back in 2011, which hopefully reassure you about your new toy:

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/the-apocalypse-of-lens-dust

Hope This Helps,


----------



## tomscott (Jun 2, 2014)

Thanks for your reply.

Would you return it?

I was thinking it would affect retail if I wanted to sell it on in the future.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2014)

tomscott said:


> Would you return it?
> 
> I was thinking it would affect retail if I wanted to sell it on in the future.



I would, for that reason.


----------



## kaihp (Jun 2, 2014)

neuroanatomist said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > Would you return it?
> ...



I would too. But I would consider giving the Canon service center a shot at undusting it, before going postal and demaning a return.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 2, 2014)

tomscott said:


> Hi guys just wanted to know your opinions.
> 
> After getting some money together I bought the EF 70-200mm F2.8 IS L MKII.
> 
> ...


The piece of dust does not look all that large to me. Make sure its not just on the rear outside of the lens.

Dust in the front part of a lens is common, and usually no issue. But, when it is significant on the rear, it can affect a image by varying amounts.

Microscopic dust is always there, but the speck you see should not be there. I'd ask for a replacement. 

I've never seen dust like that in a new lens, but have been fooled by dust on the rear. I once bought a used lens which the seller was almost giving away due to dust you could see from the rear. I figured I'd send it in for cleaning, but it just blew off with a rocket blower.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 2, 2014)

If you don't return it. ...that dust will remain in your mind for long time. You will not enjoy this baby even though it won't affect the iq.


----------



## tomscott (Jun 2, 2014)

Its hard to get a good pic of it through the lens. But here is another, this is from the rear of the lens.



TSP_1069 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

It is certainly big and right at the back of the lens like I said between the 1st-2nd element, right in there. It also looks like it could be a flaw in the lens almost like a chip, very reflective or could be a shard of metal?

Anyway I certainly don't think this is acceptable when the lens was £1825 the equivalent to $3060

Ive been in touch with the vendor and Il see where to go from there.


----------



## BL (Jun 3, 2014)

yeah, try and exchange if possible. but if it doesn't work out, don't sweat the small stuff (says Roger)

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/08/the-apocalypse-of-lens-dust


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 3, 2014)

You can always have Canon clean it under Warranty, if a exchange does not work. Credit card companies in the USA generally warranty your satisfaction, but there is a limit to value.


----------



## SoullessPolack (Jun 3, 2014)

tomscott said:


> It doesn't effect the IQ nor does it show up at all by shooting a longer exposure as a dust mark.



You pretty much answered yourself right there bro. To continue to worry about it is ludicrous.

Although, I suppose, it also depends on what you're using the lens for. Did you pay $2500 to use the lens to photograph stuff? If so, shutup and go shoot since it doesn't affect quality. Did you pay $2500 to look at the internal mechanisms and expect perfection? If so, then you have a problem, and should return it.

My final words in closing: be logical about this.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Jun 3, 2014)

tomscott said:


> Hi guys just wanted to know your opinions.
> 
> After getting some money together I bought the EF 70-200mm F2.8 IS L MKII.
> 
> ...



I would simply return it if you bought it from a reputable seller. Don't touch it as some seller do not accept any item being previously serviced by others.


----------



## ejenner (Jun 3, 2014)

The problem here is shining a light down the lens and looking for dust. I dare not do it with my lenses, especially when I can see specks without even trying on some of my lenses (100L is the worst).

Single or several 'large' pieces are not a problem, a 'film' of fine dust is much more of an issue.

FYI it wouldn't affect me buying a used lens, but I guess I'm not 'normal'.


----------



## tomscott (Jun 3, 2014)

SoullessPolack said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't effect the IQ nor does it show up at all by shooting a longer exposure as a dust mark.
> ...



I dont think there is any need for your tone tbh.

Ive had a 70-200mm L F2.8 for 5 years and its had a few owners before me, its nearly 20 years old and had nothing in it not a spec. To spend nearly £2k and its not $2500 its $3000 equivalent here in the UK and have a rather large piece of what looks like dust but like said looks like a spec of metal. If that is acceptable to you then…

I am being logical about it. Which is why I asked the forum opinion. I am a professional photographer and have never had an issue with any of my L lenses coming from the factory with any sort of large particles already present, after years of use you do expect it then you have them serviced, but not straight out of the box

The reason for asking is I think it may have had a bit of a bang in transport and don't really want to be a year or so down the line out of warranty and have issues with it. I don't think that is unreasonable. If it is serviced and they still can't sort it the likelihood is that they won't take it back with it being tampered with.

If I come to sell it and being honest in my description I say there is a large particle toward the rear of the lens, (with Zoom lenses particles are accentuated toward the rear) most people would browse over it or want it at a good deal less than if it was in better condition. To start off with a good version I don't think is unreasonable, especially with how much the lens retails.

Thank you everyone for your opinions and help


----------



## YuengLinger (Jun 3, 2014)

I think you got the lens I returned! The replacement had no visible dust. 

But I will tell you that when I called CPS to ask about the dust in the first one, I heard a long, heavy sigh coming from the tech.

I can also tell you that Amazon will count such a return against your threshold, which is the amount of total dollar value of all returns. From what I've been able to discern, Amazon does not care about how long you've been a member, or the number of returns vs "keeps," but only the total dollar amount of returns. At some point, you hit a trigger, and your account goes to a probationary status.

With the price of the 5DIII and some L lenses, it's easy to get a warning letter from Amazon.

Yes, this is a tangent, but I really can't see any other negative to returning an expensive lens that has visible dust specks of the size you have shown us. Hopefully whoever you bought from is easy to deal with.


----------



## tomscott (Jun 6, 2014)

Updated the original post.

Here are some much better images now I have had time to evaluate the problem and to help my send back procedure.



TSP_1346_crop by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr



TSP_1346-2 by TomScottPhoto, on Flickr

As you can see I don't think I'm being over the top, there is a rather big, strange shaped object in-between the 1st and second element of the lens, its not a second hand lens it is brand new straight from the factory!


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 6, 2014)

tomscott said:


> Updated the original post.
> 
> Here are some much better images now I have had time to evaluate the problem and to help my send back procedure.
> 
> ...



You paid for brand new lens, you should get nice clean brand new lens.


----------



## tomscott (Jun 12, 2014)

Just a quick update the lens was sent back and found to have a manufactures fault so a new one is being sent out!

Relieved


----------



## winglet (Jun 12, 2014)

Glad to hear it. And it was the right thing to do, both for Canon and for you. I know that something like that would always slightly diminish the pleasure of using a really beautiful piece of kit, even if the issue was mostly in my own mind. Plus I feel for the Brits, paying in GBP what a lens costs in USD - you deserve to get a flawless copy!

Enjoy the new one! And to the guy saying to "be logical"...umm, yeah. Thanks for that. Really helpful. :


----------



## tomscott (Jun 18, 2014)

Just a quick update, lens replacement arrived today and its perfect


----------



## kaihp (Jun 19, 2014)

tomscott said:


> Just a quick update, lens replacement arrived today and its perfect



That's a happy (photo) ending


----------

