10-22 lens. Is a loose focusing ring normal?

[steve_bright1]

I've just bought the 10-22 lens having put off the purchase for 2 years for

reasons that escape me now. It arrived today and I'm looking forward to using

it.

 

As an owner of 4 'L' lens and a couple of others, one thing that struck me

straight away is that the focus ring is kind of loose. If I just very lightly

touch it, with almost no pressure at all, the ring will rattle forwards and

backwards. It's only moving maybe 1/4 millimetre, but none of my other lenses

do anything like this.

 

If you own a 10-22, I'd value your experiences and opinion.

 

Many thanks

Steve

[brucecyr]

Mine is a little loose. In a year and a half of ownership, I never noticed that until I read your post. If I hold and move it, the sound approximates a rattle -- very un-"L"-ish. Now you know how it is with us unwashed hoi polloi down in steerage :-)

 

HTH

[bill_morrow1]

With regard to this lens, I have the usual vignetting problem with my thin Hoya circular polarizer at the wide end. Sky gets very UNEVENLY dark, depending on the adjustment. The question: would using a LINEAR

or non-circular polarizer, even this out. I'm aware of all the auto-focus problems associated, but my interest is in the condition I mentioned. Not just the 10-22 by the way. Evident in all wide view lenses I have used with polarization. Of course if I had an old style 77 I would just try it, but naturally I don't. Thanks....

[adam_gifford]

mine is movable in the most insignificant way front to back. Its really not an issue.

 

and about the polarizers being uneven. The sky isnt evenly polarized in every direction, and this lens is wide enough to actually show you that.

[mike_broderick]

I received my 10-22 just today. Similar to Adam Gifford, I can just barely move the ring forward and backwards slightly. No looseness or give at all in the directions it is designed to rotate, it just rotates smoothly.

[thomasmckown]

Yup, I own a 10-22 and the focus ring is slightly loose. This is normal. They are all like this. Still a great lens though! Not even an issue as far as Im concerned, it doesnt effect the image quality. Have fun with your extemely wide lens. ;)

[bobatkins]

"Sky gets very UNEVENLY dark, depending on the adjustment. The question: would using a LINEAR or non-circular polarizer, even this out. "

 

No. The problem isn't the polarizer or the lens, it's the sky!

 

The degree of polarization varies across the sky, reaching a maximum at a point 90 degrees from the sun. If you put a polarizer on a wide lens, you will always see a variation across the sky because there really is a variation in polarization.

[alan_green4]

mine is very smooth, dampened, and quiet. there is very slight play front to back -- it's only noticeable if you test it -- would not be noticed in practical use (i never noticed until i tried it after reading your post)

[mars c]

Mine is normally loose like all my non L lens, I guess they made it that way to give allowance for thermal expansion due to varying environmental temperatures.

 

The L lens have thight fitting focus ring, But they're also made of metal, which is more stable on higher temperature than plastic.

[bill_morrow1]

Thanks Bob. Answered by question.

[colin carron]

My 10-22 had a slight looseness in the focusing ring. Should not be a problem though. It is a great lens, I thought better than my 17-40 L for sharpness and flare resistance.

 

I heard a rumour that there is to be firmware update for the sky when the uneven polarisation issue will be fixed. The rain problem will remain though.

[brucecyr]

"metal, which is more stable on higher temperature than plastic"

 

Mars,

 

Really?! I would think metal would have much greater expansion coefficient than plastic, although obviously plastic has a much lower melting point.

 

To return to Steve's question: If yours rattles with so little stimulus, there could be something wrong that merits inspection by Canon.

[lester_wareham]

The ring should be smooth with minimal slack movement yet have enough resistance to resist accidental turning. You are not clear if you are finding too much backslash or slackness or if it moves with too little resistance. As others have noted there is some very small front back movement of 0.1 to 0.2mm.

 

Having said that it will not be quite up to L lens standards but not far off, at least this is my experience.

[steve_bright1]

Thanks for all your feedback everyone.

 

@Lester: The ring has no noticeable slack at all when rotating (no problem there) and it's firm and smooth too. But, I've only got to touch it with the absolute lightest of touches and the ring moves front/back slightly, making a clicking noise at it reaches the end of its movement in each direction. In that respect it's unlike any lens I've ever owned. When I say 'lightest of touches', I mean that it might even move if I blew hard on it.

 

@Colin. Looking forward to the sky firmware upgrade. Disappointed that the rain won't be fixed in the next version though. :)

[lester_wareham]

"... making a clicking noise at it reaches the end of its movement in each direction ..."

 

Steve that does not sound good, I am sure none of my USM lenses do that, they all just smoothly continue turning when they reach the end stop. I'll check my copy when I have a moment and post again if I detect anything.

[brucecyr]

"The ring has no noticeable slack at all when rotating (no problem there) and it's firm and smooth too. But, I've only got to touch it with the absolute lightest of touches and the ring moves front/back slightly, making a clicking noise at it reaches the end of its movement in each direction. In that respect it's unlike any lens I've ever owned. When I say 'lightest of touches', I mean that it might even move if I blew hard on it."

 

Mine does a dampened version of that, and I understand other posters are saying as much. It sounds to me that there is excessive tolerance in your ring, like they have buckets A, B, and C on the assembly line, and you got an A when you should have gotten a C.

 

I wouldn't think there would be the least problem about exchanging it for a new one through your dealer.

[mars c]

"Really?! I would think metal would have much greater expansion coefficient than plastic, although obviously plastic has a much lower melting point."

 

Ahhh , OK :D