Issue with RF 24-105 L

Started 7 months ago | Discussions
davel33 Senior Member • Posts: 2,498
Re: Issue with RF 24-105 L
3

Lets hope for the best

I had a similar thing happen  about 30 years ago with a Sony video camera. I used it for about 3 months and it stopped working.  Sent in for repair to the shop I bought it at.  It was returned about 3 months later.  It did not work , same problem so back it goes, they had no ideas, so off it goes back to Sony in Japan.  This time it takes 6 months to get it back and guess what it still does not work.  Sony would not refund, replace or fix because now it was out of warranty.  So to this day I have never used or bought a Sony  and never will

-- hide signature --

"Just one more Lens, I promise....."
Dave

 davel33's gear list:davel33's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R6 Canon RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 Canon RF 70-200 F4 L Canon RF 14-35mm F4L IS USM +27 more
QSMcDraw
QSMcDraw Regular Member • Posts: 282
Re: Issue with RF 24-105 L

A lot of negative energy anticipating disappointment.  Wish I had the time for that.

Higgins2002
Higgins2002 Contributing Member • Posts: 766
Re: Issue with RF 24-105 L

QSMcDraw wrote:

A lot of negative energy anticipating disappointment. Wish I had the time for that.

I recently gave up on waiting for a second copy and opted for money back.

In my country there is right now 25% discount  on the RF70-200f4 maybe I jump on that.

 Higgins2002's gear list:Higgins2002's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 35mm F1.8 IS STM Macro Canon RF 100-500mm F4.5-7.1L IS USM
davel33 Senior Member • Posts: 2,498
Re: Issue with RF 24-105 L
1

QSMcDraw wrote:

A lot of negative energy anticipating disappointment. Wish I had the time for that.

but you do have time post about it ?????

This is a REAL LOL.

-- hide signature --

"Just one more Lens, I promise....."
Dave

 davel33's gear list:davel33's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R6 Canon RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 Canon RF 70-200 F4 L Canon RF 14-35mm F4L IS USM +27 more
QSMcDraw
QSMcDraw Regular Member • Posts: 282
Re: Issue with RF 24-105 L
1

Yes, I can read quickly through a thread and sense when I'm being led down a rabbit hole. So I comment on it. Took moments.

What I don't have time for is wringing my hands and predicting online that my repair will be pointless--even before the item has been returned.

And we have two oddly similar threads on the same types of issues with the 24-105, and in each case nothing gets resolved (Yet!) We've gone from a poorly performing copy of a lens, to claiming CPS is incompetent, to even claiming the CPS website charged somebody six times for an annual membership payment.

I just think it's odd that things snowball like this. If you, davel33, think I'm completely wrong, fine, I hope you are right.

Now I do find it legitimately interesting that others have also had problems with the 24-105 and question its QC. That's fine. I got lucky with my copy, and I assume most people did. However, I'd also consider that the 24-105, as a kit lens, tends to get sold in a "white box," which could explain why it has a slightly higher problem rate (if it does, in fact) than non-kit lenses. Lenses that are not bought in pristine, original packaging are subject to more shipping and handling, thus exposed to more chances of being banged around.

Cheers!

OP f8f8f8 Regular Member • Posts: 197
Re: Issue with RF 24-105 L
1

I was contacted today by Canon both by phone and email.  They have refunded the six CPS membership charges to my respective credit cards that I used. I am sorry that you feel that you are entering a rabbit hole with these posts. They are simply an accurate depiction of what has occured and occasionaly my opinion based upon what I have been told and what I have learned. My camera and lens should arrive today. I may not have the time to immediately perform a thorough test in the next few days as I am helping babysit my grandson for a few days. However, the results. whether favorable to Canon or not, will be accurately posted here.

 f8f8f8's gear list:f8f8f8's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Tamron SP 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD +7 more
QSMcDraw
QSMcDraw Regular Member • Posts: 282
Re: Issue with RF 24-105 L

I do hope your lens is working properly and you can enjoy it and the camera.

I've had frustrating issues with everything from cars to cameras to computers to clothes dryers to landscapers, and on and on.  Sometimes I vent too.

OP f8f8f8 Regular Member • Posts: 197
Re: Issue with RF 24-105 L

Thank you. I have the camera and lens in-hand right now and I must say it is beyond clean. The viewfinder is better than I have been able to clean it and it wasn't bad when I sent it to Canon. I love the R5. I hope to be able to say the same about the lens. The weather here in NE Ohio is currently rainy so along with my babysitting duties and return to work on Monday from my staycation, I won't be able to test the lens properly as promptly as I would like. I will definitely post my results when available.

 f8f8f8's gear list:f8f8f8's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Tamron SP 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD +7 more
Steve Balcombe Forum Pro • Posts: 14,921
Re: Issue with RF 24-105 L
2

QSMcDraw wrote:

Yes, I can read quickly through a thread and sense when I'm being led down a rabbit hole. So I comment on it. Took moments.

What I don't have time for is wringing my hands and predicting online that my repair will be pointless--even before the item has been returned.

And in any case, "I don't have time for that" is just a figure of speech. Just as "hand wringing" doesn't literally mean making that movement with the hands, which is of course impossible while typing.

OP f8f8f8 Regular Member • Posts: 197
Re: Issue with RF 24-105 L

As I previously stated, my R5 and lens are both back from the Canon Service Center. This was the second attempt by the service center to correct the problem I am having with my RF 24-105L lens and the first that also included the camera (per their request).

Their repair record stated for the lens: "Your product has been examined and it was found that the product performed according to specifications. The unit was cleaned and checked. Product functions were confirmed. lens was calibrated with camera for best focus."

The repair record for the R5 (which had no problem but I sent it in anyways since they requested both) stated: " Your product has been examined and it was found that the product performed according to specifications. The unit was calibrated for best focus and then calibrated to the lens provided. The unit was cleaned and checked and product functions were confirmed. However if the issue still seems to persist we recommend to send the unit with the images for testing and examination."

Now for the moment I will ignore the issue of  Canon calibrating the camera for focus to match the lens as there are numerous threads discussing that a microfocus adjustment is or isn't required/possible for mirrorless cameras. I have now had a chance to test the lens, this time with resolution targets. In in each pic the camera was on single shot, EFCS, AV, 1/250th sec, tripod mounted, Canon flash on, and Image Stabilization off. Please examine the following pics shot at both 24mm and 70 mm at both f4 and f8. I still feel that the left side of the pics, especially the lower left is sub-par. Do you agree? As a point of reference, the overall target area was approx 40" x 60" and the line that was supposed to be printed at 100 mm length I actually printed at 194 mm (Bob Atkins target towards lower left in the images). I have included, at great risk of being told why this is inappropriate, one image under identical circumstances taken with my Tammy 70-300 at 70mm f8. This is NOT meant to be compared to the RF24-105L images (apples to oranges comparison) in terms of resolution (but you can), rather, it shows that under identical test setup conditions MUCH sharper images are possible and the lower left issue is not related to how I tested the lens or a camera issue. DPP4 was used for RAW conversion with similar settings (lens corrections not possible for the Tammy shot).

Tamron 70-300 at 70 mm f8 IS off tripod mounted as a test control image

I must also share that Canon CPS called me earlier this week to see if this second repair did the trick. I let them know that at that time I had not tested the lens. They asked if it would be ok to call me back in another week or so to follow up on the repair. That was very professional of them.

Oh, please don't critique the horrible on-camera flash lighting and the glare in the center of the frame. I know the center resolution is fine. I am concerned about the lower left portion of the frame being unacceptable. This appears to me to occur at multiple focal lengths with the wider the shot the worse. So, is the lower left corner softer and with less contrast than the lower right and is the lower left acceptable to you especially at 24mm? Spoiler: I think Canon again did not correct the lens problem.

RF24-105L at 24mm f4 IS off tripod mounted

RF 24-105L at 24mm f8 IS off tripod mounted

RF 24-105L  at 70 mm f4 IS off tripod mounted

RF 24-105L at 70 mm f8 IS off tripod mounted

 f8f8f8's gear list:f8f8f8's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Tamron SP 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD +7 more
QSMcDraw
QSMcDraw Regular Member • Posts: 282
Re: Issue with RF 24-105 L
1

As I predicted, the OP's prediction that nothing would be properly "resolved" regarding the lens in question has come true.  Sad case.

Happy Halloween!

Greg23D Regular Member • Posts: 135
Re: Issue with RF 24-105 L

Hi f8

i feel your pain!  I really do. But please consider it may be time to part company with the 24-105mm and get something different especially if canon have said twice there’s nothing wrong with it. you’ll be able to sell it or try and get your money back from where you bought it

I went through this when my d780 used to fail to open the lens aparture when I zoomed in in burst shooting at f4 with my 24-85mm. And I felt none of my lenses focused properly and looking at my crisp and sharp R6 photos, I see why. 
from what I’ve read from other sites, mirrorless cameras don’t need focus adjustments as they use the sensor itself to focus.  
and as I write this I remember my viewfinder in my d7500 never seemed square on and another pro reviewer also found this. 
get the 24-70 f4 I hear it’s a knock out lens. 
all the best Greg

 Greg23D's gear list:Greg23D's gear list
Canon EOS R6 Canon RF 24-105mm F4.0-7.1 IS STM
OP f8f8f8 Regular Member • Posts: 197
Re: Issue with RF 24-105 L

Greg,

Thank you for some constuctive advice. I feel that Canon may be considering my repeated request to either properly repair my lens or replace it with a sharp copy. The CPS phone guys have been great. They listen, take plenty of notes and pass the information to the repair center. Unfortunately, the repair center doesn't seem to get it. The repair technicians (by policy?) will not call the customer to discuss the repair no matter how often it is requested. They also will not share any test data. That is why they fixed the nonexistent "focus" problem with my lens, twice, in spite of my elaboration that the problem was uneven/low resolution and possible decentering.

If this ends poorly, a possibility, then I will likely consider a different lens. Thank you for the recommendation of the EF 24-70mm lens. I imagine that sometime in the future an RF version will exist. I also wonder if the Sigma EF mount 24-105 has a better reputation for lens to lens consistency and sharpness.

f8f8f8

 f8f8f8's gear list:f8f8f8's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Tamron SP 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD +7 more
Larawanista
Larawanista Veteran Member • Posts: 4,736
Re: Issue with RF 24-105 L

I suggest you rent the Tamron 35-150mm. Good to know you're already using a Tamron lens anyway.

As I previously posted, I gave up on the RF24-105mm long ago. Simply not worth it for me.

-- hide signature --

"Photography is therapeutic."
https://www.pbase.com/joshcruzphotos

 Larawanista's gear list:Larawanista's gear list
Canon EOS M3 Canon EOS R Canon EOS RP Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +10 more
davel33 Senior Member • Posts: 2,498
Re: Issue with RF 24-105 L
2

Larawanista wrote:

I suggest you rent the Tamron 35-150mm. Good to know you're already using a Tamron lens anyway.

As I previously posted, I gave up on the RF24-105mm long ago. Simply not worth it for me.

Some of us have very good rf 24-105's, I do.  Its very good from 24-105 wide open.

-- hide signature --

"Just one more Lens, I promise....."
Dave

 davel33's gear list:davel33's gear list
Canon EOS R Canon EOS R6 Canon RF 24-240mm F4-6.3 Canon RF 70-200 F4 L Canon RF 14-35mm F4L IS USM +27 more
QSMcDraw
QSMcDraw Regular Member • Posts: 282
Re: Issue with RF 24-105 L
2

davel33 wrote:

Some of us have very good rf 24-105's, I do. Its very good from 24-105 wide open.

I agree completely. Unfortunately, things get banged around during shipping, and, more rarely, come off the assembly line imperfect. Canon repair has a standard that doesn't match all expectations.

The important message I get from this thread is to thoroughly test all new lenses immediately, using good, consistent light and methods. If it isn't up to the standards of the photographer, it's inconvenient, but the lens can be exchanged.

Otherwise we end up frustrated and going in circles.

Great lesson learned for all of us. Thank you, OP, for sharing so much about this.

Larawanista
Larawanista Veteran Member • Posts: 4,736
Re: Issue with RF 24-105 L

davel33 wrote:

Larawanista wrote:

I suggest you rent the Tamron 35-150mm. Good to know you're already using a Tamron lens anyway.

As I previously posted, I gave up on the RF24-105mm long ago. Simply not worth it for me.

Some of us have very good rf 24-105's, I do. Its very good from 24-105 wide open.

The operative word is "some" which means as far as this lens is concerned, it can be a matter of luck. At this time and age, for an L lens, it's simply sloppy on the part of Canon. But for me, it's ok. Taught me to veer away from the 24-105mm focal range which encouraged me to improve my shooting style.

-- hide signature --

"Photography is therapeutic."
https://www.pbase.com/joshcruzphotos

 Larawanista's gear list:Larawanista's gear list
Canon EOS M3 Canon EOS R Canon EOS RP Canon EOS R6 Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM +10 more
higheronymous
higheronymous Regular Member • Posts: 271
Canon service has been great to me!
1

f8f8f8 wrote:

Greg,

Thank you for some constuctive advice. I feel that Canon may be considering my repeated request to either properly repair my lens or replace it with a sharp copy. The CPS phone guys have been great. They listen, take plenty of notes and pass the information to the repair center. Unfortunately, the repair center doesn't seem to get it. The repair technicians (by policy?) will not call the customer to discuss the repair no matter how often it is requested. They also will not share any test data. That is why they fixed the nonexistent "focus" problem with my lens, twice, in spite of my elaboration that the problem was uneven/low resolution and possible decentering.

If this ends poorly, a possibility, then I will likely consider a different lens. Thank you for the recommendation of the EF 24-70mm lens. I imagine that sometime in the future an RF version will exist. I also wonder if the Sigma EF mount 24-105 has a better reputation for lens to lens consistency and sharpness.

f8f8f8

The repair process is a little mysterious, I agree. I asked them to indicate to me how many shutter firings my EOS R had on it before the shutter went bad (I had to send it in for shutter replacement), and they did not do so. I also followed up with the customer service guy and he was informed that the information was not available. Oh well. I suspect that it was quite a bit less than the 150,000 it was rated for... The good news is the camera was repaired and is working great (I had to pay as I had no CarePak). But I do tend to agree that the process is a little mysterious.

I actually went through a similar process as you with a lens except mine was the RF 28-70mm f/2 and I had the Canon CarePak on it. My issue was that as I stopped down to f/8 at 28mm the left third of the frame started to show astigmatism which showed up in landscapes. I didn't notice it for months because I typically used the lens for portraits.

I decided that for $3k it should be better than that at f/8 so I sent it in. It was not a flawless process, some oddities occurred, but in the end they sent me a new lens. Then about a year later I unfortunately scratched the front element and they also repaired that free of charge (under CarePak). Ultimately, I have to give major kudos to Canon service for handling the repairs and working through the issues to get the job done.

OP f8f8f8 Regular Member • Posts: 197
Re: Issue with RF 24-105 L UPDATE WITH CANON SECRETS
11

Several things have happened since my last post. Since this is a VERY long story I will try to get to the main items which will reveal a couple of secrets in terms of how Canon Repair technicians work and what department can go beyond even CPS at Canon.

Brief recap for those who don't want to reread this long thread: my RF 24 - 105 L lens from day one was soft on the left side of the frame at the wider focal lengths and especially in the lower left corner. I sent my lens to Canon with pics for repair and they found that it was in spec but they adjusted the focus which was already perfect and sent the lens back to me. Problem not fixed.

I sent the lens in a second time and after they  received it they also then requested my R5 which I sent to them. They again said that both were in spec but the "lens was calibrated with camera for best focus". They also said concerning the R5: "The unit was calibrated for best focus and then calbrated to the lens provided". How this can occur with on sensor focusing is beyond me. They returned my lens and camera to me. Problem not fixed.

I spoke to Canon again (CPS) and they wanted me to send the lens in for a third time. I said that I didn't want to send it in only to be told that the lens is in spec for a third time and still have the problem. So, after a Canon CPS supervisor couldn't do anything else I asked who else I could discuss this problem with and I got to THE department that can actually get things done properly. That Canon department is called "customer relations". After explaining the problem and how the Canon repair technicians do not listen to the customer, do not follow what CPS writes down, and will not call the customer (me) to discuss what the actual problem is, customer relations asked me to send the lens in for a third time but with a difference. Eric, who is not a bench lab repair technician...he is the guy who works with Canon Japan... would personally test my lens.

Eric found the following: "After checking the resolving power of the lens on the lens resolution tester, it appeared that the lens would be within Canon factory specifications. The lens resolution tester is a tool used by the Canon factory service centers that gives a detailed result of resolving power from the customers lens. But the lens resolution tester is not the only way the factory service center confirms resolving power, in addition the lens projection tester is another test that is used to confirm resolving power. On the lens projection tester the lens was not within specification and on the bottom left hand corner the image quality was softer".  Finally they agreed with me! After some discussion with customer service that wanted to issue me a refurbished lens which I refused, management approved a new lens for me which I now have.

I hope that the above helps others in dealing with Canon when their standard methods fall short of fixing a problem. It also begs several questions such as why Canon doesn't use the projection test both in the factory and in the service center on every lens to ensure performance, why there is so much lens-to-lens variability with the 24-105L series, why their service technicians will not talk to their customers, and why CPS wasn't able to resolve the problem vs. the customer relations department. These questions are perhaps rhetorical as I understand SPC (statistical process control), profitablity, and so on. Perhaps as Sony continues to gain market share Canon with revisit their positions on these issues.

 f8f8f8's gear list:f8f8f8's gear list
Sony Alpha DSLR-A700 Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L USM Tamron SP 70-300mm F4-5.6 Di VC USD +7 more
MasterWayne Regular Member • Posts: 148
Re: Issue with RF 24-105 L UPDATE WITH CANON SECRETS

f8f8f8 wrote:

Several things have happened since my last post. Since this is a VERY long story I will try to get to the main items which will reveal a couple of secrets in terms of how Canon Repair technicians work and what department can go beyond even CPS at Canon.

Brief recap for those who don't want to reread this long thread: my RF 24 - 105 L lens from day one was soft on the left side of the frame at the wider focal lengths and especially in the lower left corner. I sent my lens to Canon with pics for repair and they found that it was in spec but they adjusted the focus which was already perfect and sent the lens back to me. Problem not fixed.

I sent the lens in a second time and after they received it they also then requested my R5 which I sent to them. They again said that both were in spec but the "lens was calibrated with camera for best focus". They also said concerning the R5: "The unit was calibrated for best focus and then calbrated to the lens provided". How this can occur with on sensor focusing is beyond me. They returned my lens and camera to me. Problem not fixed.

I spoke to Canon again (CPS) and they wanted me to send the lens in for a third time. I said that I didn't want to send it in only to be told that the lens is in spec for a third time and still have the problem. So, after a Canon CPS supervisor couldn't do anything else I asked who else I could discuss this problem with and I got to THE department that can actually get things done properly. That Canon department is called "customer relations". After explaining the problem and how the Canon repair technicians do not listen to the customer, do not follow what CPS writes down, and will not call the customer (me) to discuss what the actual problem is, customer relations asked me to send the lens in for a third time but with a difference. Eric, who is not a bench lab repair technician...he is the guy who works with Canon Japan... would personally test my lens.

Eric found the following: "After checking the resolving power of the lens on the lens resolution tester, it appeared that the lens would be within Canon factory specifications. The lens resolution tester is a tool used by the Canon factory service centers that gives a detailed result of resolving power from the customers lens. But the lens resolution tester is not the only way the factory service center confirms resolving power, in addition the lens projection tester is another test that is used to confirm resolving power. On the lens projection tester the lens was not within specification and on the bottom left hand corner the image quality was softer". Finally they agreed with me! After some discussion with customer service that wanted to issue me a refurbished lens which I refused, management approved a new lens for me which I now have.

I hope that the above helps others in dealing with Canon when their standard methods fall short of fixing a problem. It also begs several questions such as why Canon doesn't use the projection test both in the factory and in the service center on every lens to ensure performance, why there is so much lens-to-lens variability with the 24-105L series, why their service technicians will not talk to their customers, and why CPS wasn't able to resolve the problem vs. the customer relations department. These questions are perhaps rhetorical as I understand SPC (statistical process control), profitablity, and so on. Perhaps as Sony continues to gain market share Canon with revisit their positions on these issues.

Interesting, thanks for sharing. May I ask if your new copy comes with uniform sharpness over the whole picture?

My 24-105 f4 struggles with the left side as well, but I'm afraid I might end up in a similar effort you had, plus not actually gaining any improvements picture quality wise..

 MasterWayne's gear list:MasterWayne's gear list
Canon EOS 80D Canon EOS M50 Canon EOS R5 Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +4 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads