Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Lens full of beads
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
Apr 10, 2018 07:03:02   #
Nikonman44
 
stage36 wrote:
I got a Canon EF 35-70mm, f3.5/4.5 lens at a yard sale, cheap. Got it home and everything seemed to work as it should--focus and zoom-- but them I happened to shake it and it sounds like a bunch of beads (bearings?) rattling around. Am I correct in thinking it will fit my waste basket better than a camera? I don't have a Canon to try it on.


Hey its a canon. I am the nikon man and am being funny.

Could be anything. depending on what you paid for it you might have a great deal that needs some minor repair.

Reply
Apr 10, 2018 08:21:58   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
Peterff wrote:
Canon DSLR lenses have IS in the lenses if they have IS, not in the camera.

Canon's mirrorless cameras have IS in the body, and can utilize both stabilization types.


Canon didn't start making lenses with IS until 1995. The OP'S lens predates that by at least 7 years.

Reply
Apr 10, 2018 08:42:58   #
Bloke Loc: Waynesboro, Pennsylvania
 
dennis2146 wrote:
That was incredibly helpful. I am sure the OP appreciates it.

Dennis


Perhaps, but I have to admit it was my first thought too! I wouldn't have actually posted it, but it did seem a little strange. I understand the possible reasoning suggested by some of the other posts, but on the face of it, it *did* seem like a strange situation.

I had a friend one time who was raving about some 'designer' shoes that she had found at an outlet for a steal of a price. Then, right at the end, she said "It's a shame that they are 3 sizes too small for me..."

Reply
 
 
Apr 10, 2018 09:08:28   #
Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.
 
rmorrison1116 wrote:
Canon didn't start making lenses with IS until 1995. The OP'S lens predates that by at least 7 years.


That may be true but I was answering DirtFarmer's question.

Reply
Apr 10, 2018 09:19:22   #
DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
 
Peterff wrote:
Canon DSLR lenses have IS in the lenses if they have IS, not in the camera.

Canon's mirrorless cameras have IS in the body, and can utilize both stabilization types.


Thanks for the clarification.
It's always good to be in danger of learning something.

Reply
Apr 10, 2018 09:29:46   #
amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
 
Many lenses have ball bearings or other "loose" parts in them that rattle a little when shaken. It's usually not any problem.

Reply
Apr 10, 2018 10:03:29   #
Elsiss Loc: Bayside, NY, Boynton Beach, Fl.
 
Maybe bring it to Best Buy and ask to mount it on one of their compatible Canons . Worth a try.

Reply
 
 
Apr 10, 2018 10:32:40   #
garygrafic Loc: South Florida
 
Me? I'd keep going to garage sales to find another lens with the same conditions, now paint them both white and voila! You've got some wonderful bookends.

Reply
Apr 10, 2018 10:47:10   #
Ron Dial Loc: Cuenca, Ecuador
 
Sounds like junk to me.

Reply
Apr 10, 2018 11:59:20   #
jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ
 
stage36 wrote:
I got a Canon EF 35-70mm, f3.5/4.5 lens at a yard sale, cheap. Got it home and everything seemed to work as it should--focus and zoom-- but them I happened to shake it and it sounds like a bunch of beads (bearings?) rattling around. Am I correct in thinking it will fit my waste basket better than a camera? I don't have a Canon to try it on.


Check youtube and see if you can find a video for disassembly of that lens and or see if you can google a parts diagram of that lens and see if you can fix it. I can tell you this. I have a 24-70 that I'm attempting to repair and I've got 3 full days into it and I'm still not done. I have no idea if I'll have success or not. But when you have more time than money it's sometimes worth a try. I also like to tinker with things. But if you don't have a nice set of jewelers screwdrivers and a lot of patients, toss it. Also, before attempting it, see what they go for on Craigslist and eBay. If they sell for $100 used, I wouldn't mess with it. A 35-70mm lens from Canon is not a current model I can tell you that.

In fact I just checked and they aren't worth much.

Reply
Apr 10, 2018 12:15:11   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
Peterff wrote:
That may be true but I was answering DirtFarmer's question.


My bad, well not really bad, more like misplaced.
I too was actually responding to a different part of the chain and at the time was using my very old galaxy 3 cell phone, complete with shattered screen held together with clear shipping tape. Point is, when posting with this phone, results may be unpredictable; and although I don't apologize for my response, I want you to know I was not trying in any way to be disrespectful to you.

Reply
 
 
Apr 10, 2018 13:12:39   #
Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.
 
rmorrison1116 wrote:
My bad, well not really bad, more like misplaced.
I too was actually responding to a different part of the chain and at the time was using my very old galaxy 3 cell phone, complete with shattered screen held together with clear shipping tape. Point is, when posting with this phone, results may be unpredictable; and although I don't apologize for my response, I want you to know I was not trying in any way to be disrespectful to you.


No worries, and your information was correct about the lens and the introduction of IS.

Reply
Apr 10, 2018 14:06:11   #
papakatz45 Loc: South Florida-West Palm Beach
 
DirtFarmer wrote:
First off, why did you buy a Canon lens if you don't have a Canon to try it on? What did you plan to do with it? If all the bearings are bouncing around does it matter?


Wow, what great advice.

Reply
Apr 10, 2018 17:17:32   #
aellman Loc: Boston MA
 
stage36 wrote:
I got a Canon EF 35-70mm, f3.5/4.5 lens at a yard sale, cheap. Got it home and everything seemed to work as it should--focus and zoom-- but them I happened to shake it and it sounds like a bunch of beads (bearings?) rattling around. Am I correct in thinking it will fit my waste basket better than a camera? I don't have a Canon to try it on.


The question is whether the mysterious objects can migrate into your camera. If there's any doubt, it's a paperweight.

Reply
Apr 11, 2018 03:09:54   #
lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA
 
stage36 wrote:
Well, you know, if you can buy a lens, Canon or otherwise, for $3----it's worth taking a chance that someone (with a Canon) might want to buy it!


Yes, I've done that, bought or even found photo stuff not Pentax or other items I might be able to use myself and given them free to friends with Nikon and Canon equipment.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.