Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 13 Jul 2007 (Friday) 21:26
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

17-55 IS Surgery

 
Ixon
Member
34 posts
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Wigan, England
     
Jan 08, 2008 02:57 |  #31

Basically if the lens was still under warranty then i wouldn't do it.


Canon 40D with Grip/ Canon 17-40mm F4L/Canon 28-135mm IS USM/Canon 50mm F1.8/Canon 70-200mm F4L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Rellik
Senior Member
Avatar
720 posts
Joined Sep 2006
Location: Vancouver, BC
     
Jan 08, 2008 03:18 |  #32

I agree with lxon. BUT if you are careful, you can reassemble it so that it seems untouched. The trickiest part is having the seal back in the same place. The seal receives an imprint on it's sticky side from where it sticks to. So, if it is put back differently, it will receive a new overlap pattern. So Canon MAY see that the seal has been lifted? Though this is very minor. Other than that, you can't really tell it has been opened.


-Derek 40D, 5D, 5D MK II, 1D Mark III
35L, 50L, 85L, 17-40L, 24-70L, 24-105L, 70-200 F2.8L IS
Vancouver Wedding Photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ixon
Member
34 posts
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Wigan, England
     
Jan 08, 2008 03:47 |  #33

totally off topic but just noticed something looking at those pics i took of the lens they were done on a Sony K800i they come out pretty dam good considering it a mobile phone. :)


Canon 40D with Grip/ Canon 17-40mm F4L/Canon 28-135mm IS USM/Canon 50mm F1.8/Canon 70-200mm F4L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SBWorking
Member
Avatar
42 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2007
Location: Northern Maine
     
Jan 09, 2008 21:18 |  #34

Thanks for posting this !! I don't have a real dust issue yet, but it was bothering me that I was eventually going to have to send mine away to have it removed. There were times when I was hesitant to use the lens because of potential dust in the air. You have made my day.


Is this the right room for an argument ?
400D | 17-55 f2.8 IS | 50 f1.8 | 85 f1.8 | 70-200 f4 L IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
seanq
Member
61 posts
Joined Dec 2006
Location: NorCal
     
Jan 09, 2008 23:29 |  #35

You guys are a bad influence ;-)a I have a 17-85 is that took a fall last year while wearing a uv filter. Fortunately the uv filter took most of the impact and the lens is still sharp but there a few bits of glass on the element that have been bugging me but don't impact the iq... hmmmmm... tempting project for a cold winter night. Oh yeah and it is out of warranty.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mizouse
Senior Member
888 posts
Gallery: 16 photos
Likes: 240
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Bay area, CA
     
Jan 10, 2008 00:55 |  #36

Ixon wrote in post #4656378 (external link)
totally off topic but just noticed something looking at those pics i took of the lens they were done on a Sony K800i they come out pretty dam good considering it a mobile phone. :)

i had a K750i, and that was pretty darn good for a cell phone. although not quite as good as the picture you posted.


Canon EOS-1D Mark II N | Sony Alpha NEX-6 | Canon EOS 5D | Canon EOS 6D | Canon EOS 6D Mark II | EF 70-200mm 1:2.8 L USM | EF 24-70mm 1:2.8 L USM | EF 17-40mm 1:4 L USM | EF 50mm 1:1.8 STM | EF 40mm 1:2.8 STM | EF 35mm 1:2 IS USM | EF 24-105mm 1:4 L IS USM | 580EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
heresysnowboarding
Hatchling
1 post
Joined Feb 2009
     
Feb 04, 2009 02:53 as a reply to  @ mizouse's post |  #37

HI all, first time posting.

Came across this as I dropped my very trusty 17-55 and the blades are screwed shut tighter than my eyes when I don't get out early on a powder day at Mt Hotham.

My 40D Af will not move the lense focus.
On MF, when I actuate, I get a "Comms Err 69" ("between lense and camera").

On my gf's 400D it actuates without error on MF and works on AF too!

Anyway, I found this useful, but not for me.
I also tried unscrewing the other end to see if I can remove the aperture unit from the body and see what was going on - has anyone ever tried that?

I probably will just send it to Canon and if no joy, either get another one (as they're a great lense), try insurance, or get a 24-70 for when I eventually get a FF 5dMkII or 1D.

Thanks!

tim




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,987 posts
Likes: 361
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Feb 04, 2009 03:12 |  #38

I've had one dropped 17-55 written off by Canon, and replaced under insurance. It's up in the cupboard, I should pull it apart some time, just for the hell of it.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ShrimpBurrito
Member
60 posts
Joined Dec 2008
     
Feb 11, 2009 00:13 |  #39

I opened my out-of-warranty EF-S 17-85 last night using the abovereferenced procedure to clean dust out, and had great success. Took about 10 minutes.

Dave


30D | 6D | EF 24-70 | EF-S 17-85 IS | EF 70-300 IS | EF 70-200 f2.8 IS | EF 50 f1.4 | 2x Extender | 530EX | Gitzo 1541T + Markins Q3T + RRS B2 LR II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dimockd
Hatchling
2 posts
Joined Jun 2009
     
Jun 11, 2009 14:21 as a reply to  @ ShrimpBurrito's post |  #40

I just bought a used 17-55 the other day (basically mint cond), and literally as I was walking out the door after the transaction, I dropped the lens! The "protective" UV filter on the front shattered and there were tiny shards of filter glass all over the front element. As I was cleaning the front element, I noticed that a shocking amount of tiny shards made it inside the lens (it looked *horrible*), and I also noticed how poor the "seal" was -- the adhesive didn't really hold anything down except at three spots, and everywhere else it was basically loose (I think this is why this lens is a "dust magnet"). I thought about unscrewing the assembly to clean things out, but thought I'd better research more. I found this thread and it gave me the confidence to open it up, and everything went flawlessly. I was able to blow all the shards out, and now you would never know there was anything inside the lens. No focusing/sharpness problems either. A big THANK YOU, for posting this -- It saved me ~125 bucks for a Canon cleaning, and being as I'm naturally inclined to tinkering/hacking, it was extremely satisfying to do it on my own.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrkgoo
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Jun 11, 2009 14:32 |  #41

dimockd wrote in post #8091611 (external link)
I just bought a used 17-55 the other day (basically mint cond), and literally as I was walking out the door after the transaction, I dropped the lens! The "protective" UV filter on the front shattered and there were tiny shards of filter glass all over the front element. As I was cleaning the front element, I noticed that a shocking amount of tiny shards made it inside the lens (it looked *horrible*), and I also noticed how poor the "seal" was -- the adhesive didn't really hold anything down except at three spots, and everywhere else it was basically loose (I think this is why this lens is a "dust magnet"). I thought about unscrewing the assembly to clean things out, but thought I'd better research more. I found this thread and it gave me the confidence to open it up, and everything went flawlessly. I was able to blow all the shards out, and now you would never know there was anything inside the lens. No focusing/sharpness problems either. A big THANK YOU, for posting this -- It saved me ~125 bucks for a Canon cleaning, and being as I'm naturally inclined to tinkering/hacking, it was extremely satisfying to do it on my own.

I'd like to ask you what you think of a UV filter as protection against shock (not dust, as it obviously protects against that for this lens). Do you think your front element would have broken or got scratched had you not used a filter? That is, do you think the filter afforded some physical protection against impact?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dimockd
Hatchling
2 posts
Joined Jun 2009
     
Jun 11, 2009 15:35 |  #42

mrkgoo wrote in post #8091668 (external link)
I'd like to ask you what you think of a UV filter as protection against shock (not dust, as it obviously protects against that for this lens). Do you think your front element would have broken or got scratched had you not used a filter? That is, do you think the filter afforded some physical protection against impact?

Ah, the age old question... my opinion on the matter is that filters don't provide any real protection for impact-type damage. And in this case, all it did was create a huge mess when it shattered.

The lens cap was on, so there wouldn't have been anything directly hitting the front element. And I don't think the front element would have been damaged even w/o the cap, but you could make a case that the plastic housing may have been damaged had the metal ring of the filter not been there to absorb some impact. But then again, the metal on the filter got dented and it was a big pain to get the filter off (i had to fatigue it with pliers and pull it out, there was no chance of unscrewing it) and there was still some minor damage to the plastic threads.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mrkgoo
Goldmember
2,289 posts
Joined Aug 2006
     
Jun 11, 2009 18:38 |  #43

dimockd wrote in post #8092035 (external link)
Ah, the age old question... my opinion on the matter is that filters don't provide any real protection for impact-type damage. And in this case, all it did was create a huge mess when it shattered.

The lens cap was on, so there wouldn't have been anything directly hitting the front element. And I don't think the front element would have been damaged even w/o the cap, but you could make a case that the plastic housing may have been damaged had the metal ring of the filter not been there to absorb some impact. But then again, the metal on the filter got dented and it was a big pain to get the filter off (i had to fatigue it with pliers and pull it out, there was no chance of unscrewing it) and there was still some minor damage to the plastic threads.

I'm of the same camp, but I was just wondering what your impression was, since you had an impact and a destroyed filter. I'm guessing the filter for this was for dust exclusively. ( do the same.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dorkiedoode
Senior Member
Avatar
438 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2008
Location: SoCaL
     
Jun 11, 2009 19:08 |  #44

There should be a DIY page for all lens removal



Feedback:
1 2 3 4 5

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Reservoir_Dog
Member
Avatar
148 posts
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Belgium
     
Jun 12, 2009 10:10 as a reply to  @ dorkiedoode's post |  #45

What kind of adhesive to use when the seal isnt sticky anymore after a few lenscleanings?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

14,447 views & 0 likes for this thread
17-55 IS Surgery
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Overdoer
869 guests, 209 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.