last time i mention this lens, i promise!

[jann1033]

ok now the irritating has turned into the absolute ridiculous...got 28-135 lens camera and "dear idiot read your manual there is nothing wrong with any of these " letter back this morning.. always one to second guess myself and assume maybe i am really losing it, i attach said lens to said camera and go out back to take some photos...put it to macro, bend down to take a photo and viola, can't depress the shutter, stand up, check all settings, bend over try again and same thing happens..go in check to see if maybe i am to close for macro to focus with that lens , nope. try again, same thing, no shutter depression. change to my cheapo phoenix macro, go out, try the same shot..."snap"( ok it doesn't go snap, it goes swequeek but whatever), try again, "snap", again "snap". hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, must not be user error huh?

take that you goof balls at canon. to bad i already sent the letter or they would be getting another earful since obviously they are idiots.

oh and they also left the camera on so i hope they were not so stupid to take the lens off before they disconnected what ever they were using for power and got gobs of dust bunnies on my sensor. guess they better read their manual

 

[SharonLowe]

Canon web site says closest focus for that lens is 0.5m or 1.6 feet - are you sure you aren't closer?? Have you put it in manual focus to see if you can depress the shutter? I haven't read all your stories but are you sure it is the lens and not the camera or battery? I had a problem with my old D60 and an IS lens. Sent both to Canon and they did some minor tweaks on both the lens and the camera, sent it back, and I still had the problems. I had a Mack warranty on the camera so this time, I sent them to Mack. They replaced something in the body and I never had the problem again.

 

[Groucho]

That's a good question. I know that when my camera is in AF mode, it won't fire the shutter unless it thinks it's in focus. If I'm too close to something, it tries then flashes the focus warning light at me. (I think there's a custom setting to take a picture anyway, but I don't have it set.) Occasionally I'll mount a manual focus lens and forget to flip the switch, then wonder why the camera is refusing to fire the shutter.

You may want to try switching to manual focus and seeing if that makes a difference.

 

[jann1033]

That's a good question. I know that when my camera is in AF mode, it won't fire the shutter unless it thinks it's in focus. If I'm too close to something, it tries then flashes the focus warning light at me. (I think there's a custom setting to take a picture anyway, but I don't have it set.) Occasionally I'll mount a manual focus lens and forget to flip the switch, then wonder why the camera is refusing to fire the shutter.

You may want to try switching to manual focus and seeing if that makes a difference.

they supposedly have checked the focus of the lens and camera hahahahahah
i was more than 1.5 ft away and it wouldn't work, no matter how far away i was, macro or not and the little dot that is supposed to confirm focus is lit like focus is confirmed..it acts like it is focusing but doesn't let you depress the button after that...anyway i talked to canon guy...he made the mistake of calling just when i was really irritated about this again and really low blood sugar to boot and i was less than friendly. after i bit his head off, spit it out and went back to start on his left arm, he was going to send me a new lens and camera, i let him talk me down to just the lens
and now due to my Dr Jekyll /Mr Hyde blood sugar screwed up/ willing to bite anyone's head off personality i just called back, talked to his secretary and said i want both again so now he probably call back but hopefully for him he waits till my lunch kicks in and i am more pleasant to be around this poor guy will wish he never went to work today

 

[SharonLowe]

I hope he comes through for you. After going back to read your draft letter, it looks like the connection between the contacts on the camera and the lens are getting separated. While they should have done it, you might try cleaning your contacts on both with a cotton swab and some alcohol (not beer however). It likely won't help - the lens weighs over a pound so the shooting downward has probably affected the rim that holds the lens in place. I've read a number of reviews of this lens that say it is "wobbly" which could contribute to the contacts not connecting right.

 

[Cricket2]

Tell him to throw in some free pizza coupons and a liter bottle of something you need an ID to buy and he has a deal

 

[YEKCIM]

Jan,

What Sharon suggests seems logical (apologies to Mr. Spock) and I wonder if you were to point the camera down, but put a little "upward" pressure on the lens, back toward the mount, if the electrical connection might be restored and the shutter release enabled.

Since you are apparently getting a whole new camera and lens from the nice folks at Canon, it would not make much difference, but might help in understanding exactly why the phenomenon occurred in the first place. Might simply be a "fit" problem between the lens and camera body connection that has too much "play" in it.

~YEKCIM

 

[MICKEY88]

Jan,

What Sharon suggests seems logical (apologies to Mr. Spock) and I wonder if you were to point the camera down, but put a little "upward" pressure on the lens, back toward the mount, if the electrical connection might be restored and the shutter release enabled.

Since you are apparently getting a whole new camera and lens from the nice folks at Canon, it would not make much difference, but might help in understanding exactly why the phenomenon occurred in the first place. Might simply be a "fit" problem between the lens and camera body connection that has too much "play" in it.

~YEKCIM

hmm that theory sounds a lot like lens mount damage as per a discusion last week

 

[SharonLowe]

hmm that theory sounds a lot like lens mount damage as per a discusion last week

Sorry - didn't read that thread - not trying to steal anyone else's ideas.

 

[MICKEY88]

Sorry - didn't read that thread - not trying to steal anyone else's ideas.

oh no, that wasn't my point, there was a heated debate on here because I cautioned someone about carrying a 70-200 2.8 lens supported only by the body, the general consensus seemed to be that such damage was non existant...and that I was alarming people unneccessarilly

I'm glad to see that someone else knows of the possible problem..

 

[SharonLowe]

oh no, that wasn't my point, there was a heated debate on here because I cautioned someone about carrying a 70-200 2.8 lens supported only by the body, the general consensus seemed to be that such damage was non existant...and that I was alarming people unneccessarilly

I'm glad to see that someone else knows of the possible problem..

Definitely agree with you on the possibility. I've rented the 28-300 L for our trip to WDW and I will definitely be using the neck and hand strap on my 1DsMkII for that one! When I have a heavy lens on my camera, I tend to carry it a bit like someone would carry a baby!

 

[Anewman]

the general consensus seemed to be that such damage was non existant...

"non existant"???

I must have missed that thread.

 

[MICKEY88]

Definitely agree with you on the possibility. I've rented the 28-300 L for our trip to WDW and I will definitely be using the neck and hand strap on my 1DsMkII for that one! When I have a heavy lens on my camera, I tend to carry it a bit like someone would carry a baby!

using the neck and hand strap is still supporting the weight of the lens by supporting the body only, isn't it....

have you seen the lens cradle,,

I'm ordering one for my new 80-200 2.8 lens...

 

[MICKEY88]

"non existant"???

I must have missed that thread.

ok maybe non existant was the wrong term....

more like, so rare that it's not worth worrying about..

 

[jann1033]

that could be a thought although the lens in question isn't as heavy as my 70-200 which doesn't have the problem and i always carry my camera on my neck but supported by my hand under or around the lens ( more due to paranoia than anything else) so i don't think it is damage. i cleaned the mounts when it first happened and no go. although it could just be a quirk that maybe the mount is slightly off on the lens and or slightly off on the camera,but, like the guy said yesterday, it's not my job to figure it out
i think the wobbliness in the lens reviews is talking about the other end( at least mine seems to sit securely on the mount but sometimes extends/wobbles when i 'm walking etc due to no lock)

to bad i didn't think of the free pizza ...i'm afraid to call again since he isn't real thrilled about sending both but tuff tuggies, i've had it and don't want to find out in a month or 2 some other lens does the same thing.

oh and btw, i mentioned this thread about the mount and he kind of nicely blew his top about the irrational thinking on the internet..evidently i hit a nerve??????????

and humorously, he confused me with someone with the same lens who lost it at WDW..so who ever it is in New Orleans with a lost 28-135 lens, fess up! figuring what are the chances they don't post on here