Canon 70-200/2.8 IS Error 00 & 99 and whatnot

OK, one of my friends is planning on buying the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS

and he asked me what I think about the lens. I told him what I think:

it is a superb lens, but a number of people report errors (locking up

the camera) when the IS is ON.

 

While a number of reports concerning the issue is rather significant,

does anyone know how widespread the problem is ? At this price - I

think that it is rather not amusing to shell out a wad of cash for a

feature that may cause heaps of trouble when actually used.

 

I know that I would be royally pissed off. So, does anyone know if

this is a quality problem, a random problem, a design error etc. ?

And how likely it is to hit ?

 

I know it is a loaded question so please stay calm ;)

I get error 99 with non-IS lenses.

Never had a problem with the 70-200IS, no matter what camera body I used, including the 300d, 10d, EOS3, EOS30.

 

However, I did get the error 99 when I used the 16-35/2.8L on the 300d, only when the images were being written on the CF card, I was changing apertures, etc........somehow the 300d can't handle being used hard and fast.

 

Get the 70-200IS, it is a flawless beast !

I have the 70-200f2.8L IS and the first several months I had no problems, about a month ago I started having wierd happenings. I would mount the lens turn the camera on and get a "00" aperture, once I got an Error 99. Both of these problems have only occured abot 6 times but I do not use this equipment often, so I guess the rate of occurance to amount of usage is not that great. I thought I was in the clear as I had no problems for the first couple of months, usually people who have the usual problems get them as soon as they take the first few shots. The lens has caused no problems in the past couple of weeks in about 3 hours of use, I can live with the problem if it stays this sporadic as I never have a problem clearing the error and it never happens back to back.

I have the 70-200 on a 20D with battery pack and have never had a problem. I've heard a theory that the lens IS sucks to much power at times causing the problem. Who knows... but it makes sense to me.

I've never had a problem with the lens on a 20D or a 300D.

I've owned the lens for 2 years and have used it on EOS 3 and Elan IIe bodies. No problems. Best zoom I've ever used.

I had the 00 error a few times on my 10D on one day only, while using the 2X only. Otherwise no issues w/out the 2X. I'd still buy it.

No problem here, and I have used several (probably 12) different 70-200mm USM IS lenses that I borrowed from others and never heard of any problems from them either. I now have one that has been on my 300D, 1D and 1D MKII N and no problems... but mine is new.

 

I wonder too if it may be a problem on the generation 1 or two IS lenses, and they fixed it on the generation 3?

<p>I have the 70-200/2.8 IS, and with my second such lens I had frequent Err99 - Err01 - Focal Ratio 00 conditions (all with camera lockups) with it on at least three bodies. By frequent I mean about a 1 in 25 chance of having the lockup on any given shutter actuation.

 

<p>This lens was sent to Canon's Irvine repair center on October 13, 2005 on the instructions of one of Canon's phone service people, who seemed familiar with the problem. The lens was returned to me (in Alaska) early today (local time), on October 19. The documentation with the repair indicates that they "Replaced Lens Assembly EMD/IS FPC Zoom."

 

<p>According to the <a href="http://www.micro-tools.com/pdf/Canon/EF%2070-200%202.8%20L%20IS%20USM.PDF">70-200 /2.8 IS parts list</a>, the EMD/IS is a largish package of lenses, mounting hardware, and probably encoders and actuators, i.e., a fairly significant and probably expensive component of the lens. Canon made the repair at no cost to me. The IS now makes a much different noise than before, its warblings being considerably quieter and lower in pitch, so it is apparent they did something significant to the lens. I've been testing the lens all day today and have had none of the previously experienced error conditions, and would have expected to encounter them by now if I were going to have them, as I've gone through about 500 frames under typical conditions.

 

<p>This repair experience, specifically the EMD/IS replacement, was consistent with what a Canon rep told me, which was to the effect that some of the 70-200/2.8 IS had (past tense) problems with their Image Stabilizer units, and that replacement of the IS module would solve the problem. I acquired this lens from a local dealer in Alaska where it had probably been sitting in inventory since summer of 2004, judging from the paperwork that came with the lens.

 

<p>My personal experience does not support the power consumption hypothesis; my lens would lock up whether I was using the grip with a 10D or 20D or not, and would lock up on 1 series bodies with fully charged batteries as well. Nor did cleaning the contacts do anything. Remember, though, I wasn't getting a few lockups over the course of thousands of frames; I was getting about one lockup every 25 shots.

 

<p>My conclusion is that this isn't an issue to get "royally pissed off" over. I doubt it is profitable for Canon to be making these repairs, so I'd expect they've solved the problem and lenses currently being sold should be fine. If you get unlucky, it is obvious that Canon stands behind the product, and if they can repair it in six days, including shipping time from Alaska, they can probably do a fast repair from just about anywhere. It is a great lens, the premier telephoto zoom of all time as far as I'm concerned. I wouldn't pass it up just because of the very small risk it might require a warranty repair of the IS module. Just exercise vigilance for proper operation, as you would with any new piece of gear.

Thanks :)

 

This is rather similiar to what I hoped for. In which case maybe I will too get the 70-200/2.8 IS as a replacement for my Sigma 70-200: I am reluctant to get rid of the Sigma, though, it is very very nice...

I think there is some evidence in the long running thread on Robgalbraith (Will there ever be a fix for the 70-200 IS?) that Canon have a new design of IS unit for the lens that solves the problems. So long as you are able to purchase a very recent production lens, hopefully there should be no problem. However, Canon's general reluctance to admit to the very real problem has left a number of Canon sales subsidiaries and their repair operations out of the loop. I recently had to advise a Canadian purchaser who had sent his lens in to be fixed only to have it returned without any repair having been attempted that he would need to get the Canon Canada repair outfit to talk to Canon Irvine, Ca., who are very familiar with the issues and regularly replace affected IS and electromagnetic diaphragm units and the lens mount.

I just received my first (and only, so far) "ERROR-01" message on my 20D/BGE-2 with my (brand new) EF 70-200 2.8-IS. I was shooting a hockey game, so I thought it had something to do with the cooler temp inside the rink. I removed the lens and used my Q-ball to blow out any dust that may have accumilated, then re-attached the lens...after that everything was fine. I didn't know it was an image stabilization problem with this particular lens until I researched "ERROR-1" on the web. I have two other IS lenses (the 17-55 and the 10-22), and neither one have given me ANY trouble...however, they are both EF-S models, so I dont know if that makes a difference or not.

 

I had taken about 350 consecutive shots in RAW mode (in 3 to 5-shot bursts) within a 15-minute time frame, so I don't know if that contributed to the error...but this is only my SECOND shoot with the lens, so I'm extremely concerned that I may have a bad copy. After reading the multiple reports about ERROR-1 messages associated with the 70-200 2.8-IS, I decided to file an official report with Canon while the lens is still under warranty. The tech support rep suggested that, even though the lens is new, I clean the contacts on both the lens and body just to make sure there isn't any oily debris on either.

 

I will post any further developments.