canon 100mm usm macro lens

[cathrine_sasek]

Shortly after the warranty expired on my Canon 100mm macro USM lens,

the auto focus stopped working. I don't use the auto focus much since

I shoot a lot of macro, but I do need it occasionally for moving

subjects. I had the lens repaired, but found the Canon service

facility to be very difficult to deal with. The problem turned out to

be a stripped focusing gear. Even though I still do not use the auto

focus very often, the auto focus again stopped working this summer.

Since it is acting the same way as it did the first time, I'm assuming

that it is once again a stripped gear. I have shot only about 40-50

rolls of film since the repair and fewer than 200 rolls of film over

the life of this lens, with most on manual focus, so I should not be

having any problems with the lens. I am extremely careful with my

equipment and do not think it is normal for a lens to break twice when

it is treated properly and not used extensively. It appears that

there is a defect in the lens that has caused the premature failure of

the auto focus twice. Although I don't use the auto focus very much,

I do find it extremely useful when photographing moving subjects such

as butterflies, so I do not want to be without it. But I don't think

it makes sense to again pay for a repair that is likely to last for

only a short time. I have corresponded back and forth with Canon on

this matter and have found them to be unhelpful and unwilling to stand

behind their products.

 

Has anyone else had similar problems with their Canon 100mm macro

lens? Any suggestions on what to do about this or how to deal with

Canon? Does anyone have any experience with Tamron's 90mm macro lens?

[isaac sibson]

You're SURE this is the USM version? First off, I would be surprised for the need for a focusing gear in a USM lens (but could be wrong on this), but if it's not a USM, then it could be explained if you left the switch in AF mode and turned the ring to MF consistently...

 

Just suggestions. If it is the USM version, then this shouldn't have happened, and the first I've heard of anything like that with any USM lens. An email or letter to canon head office would not go amiss I should think.

[carl smith]

To the best of my knowledge (and a visit to the diagram of a USM motor would confirm) there are no actual gears connecting the focusing motor to anything. It's a completely different design and is absent of gears. It's possible Canon said the wrong thing.

 

Regardless, if you've had this problem twice it might be something other than the motor itself that is causing the resistance. I would be inclined to think you have the older 100mm 2.8 Macro as this had the AFD drive and you had to disengage AF to use MF on the lens. If you failed to do so it would be quite easy for you to tear up the lens.

[vincent_j_m]

I used to own the older 100/2.8 macro lens (non-USM). The AF motor would start producing loud noises like a rock crusher and try focusing past infinity. This happened several times and I sent it in for repairs. After this happened twice again, I sold it and got the USM version. Absolutely no problems since it was bought.

 

However, your questions seems strange. The USM lens does not have any motor / gears which can wear out the way you describe it, which leads me to suspect you have the older non-USM lens. Tell me, does it move in and out while focusing? Does it have a 52mm filter thread?

[ken_itoh]

The RING USM system (not USM Motor) do have the gears which enable us FTM focus. So Cathrine's problem on EF100mm F2.8 Macro USM is not impossible.

[ken_itoh]

Sorry, I might be wrong. The RING USM system is a kind of differential gear system, but small RING USM has rollers instead of gears.

[brian_tao]

I have not used the Canon 100mm macro, but I do have the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro, and also the Sigma 105mm f/2.8 macro before that. I much prefer the mechanics and ergonomics of the Tamron to the Sigma, and both are less expensive than the Canon, but with very comparable image quality (e.g., excellent sharpness).

 

Two differences I can immediately note: the Tamron does not have a USM equivalent, and it is not an internal focus design. This means you need to engage/disengage the manual focus clutch as needed, and it isn't as quiet as a USM lens. Not a big deal for me. As I understand, the Canon lens does not change physical length when focus distance changes. Both the Tamron and Sigma extend when focusing closer.

[cathrine_sasek]

In response to Isaac's comment, I too would have thought a letter or e-mail to Canon would have helped to resolve this, but sadly that was not the case. I sent letters to both Canon headquarters and Canon customer service and was very disappointed in the response. In fact I was so disappointed in how Canon has dealt with this that I have decided not to buy a Canon 90mm T/S lens that I was planning to get. I don't want to do business with a company that places little value on its loyal long-time customers.

[willie_ju1]

You said the Canon service facility was "difficult to deal with." What were you asking of them?

 

"...the autofocus stopped working this summer." How long after the repair did this happen?

 

"I...have found them to be unhelpful and unwilling to stand behind their products." What does it mean to "stand behind their products?"

 

"Any suggestions on what to do about this or how to deal with Canon?" Again, what is it exactly that you want Canon to do?

 

In your follow-up post, again you don't mention what you want Canon to do.

 

I makes no difference whether the lens has gears, USM, or FTM. You need two things to figure out what you're entitled to: the warranty agreement and a calendar.

[cjtower]

I bought two of these (non USM) a while back. One for myself, one as a gift for a friend, a nature writer. The autofocus on her lens died after about 25 hours of total use, though this took place over 14 months of so (not even 1600 frames were shot with it). It was fixed, then dies again, then was stolen, so we stopped caring that it didn't work. Ours didn't last a year. Canon fixed ours, though the same thing happened again less than 4 months later (they would not fix it again, less we paid the full charge for a repair). Since they appear to be replacing defective parts with newer nicer looking defective parts, I bought a Sigma 105, have used it for more than 35,000 frames, and it is like the day it was made. It is nice to know more than calendars and warranties; if the fix isn't done right, I don't care about the the rest - especially if I am paying for the fix!