Canon 600d lense not focusing making bad noises

[The Torrent]

Sounds like the motor inside for focus is turning and being super dodgy.

 

Was working fine 10 minutes ago but I fear a relative may have.done something to it.

 

It's not focusing at all unless I move the focusing part manually and it moves in like notches.

 

But then it's only at that focus. I've moved it around everywhere to no avail.

[Skykiller]

There could be some Sand or Dust in your Focusmotor. I would try cleaning it with a Lens clealing brush.

[The Torrent]

5 hours ago, Skykiller said:

There could be some Sand or Dust in your Focusmotor. I would try cleaning it with a Lens clealing brush.

 think hes broke the gears in the autofocus module, might have to buy a new lense. Any recommendations?

[Skykiller]

8 hours ago, The Torrent said:

 think hes broke the gears in the autofocus module, might have to buy a new lense. Any recommendations?

Oh okay, 
EF Lens is a very good mount. You could pick up a used for very cheap or you could pick a new one. When you pick a new one I would recommend getting one with Lens IBS. 

[GDRRiley]

On 1/27/2021 at 11:55 PM, Skykiller said:

Oh okay, 
EF Lens is a very good mount. You could pick up a used for very cheap or you could pick a new one. When you pick a new one I would recommend getting one with Lens IBS. 

EF is a common not good mount.

IBS isn't a thing on lenses, IBIS means in body image stabilization. you can have OIS/IS image stabilization

 

On 1/27/2021 at 3:21 PM, The Torrent said:

 think hes broke the gears in the autofocus module, might have to buy a new lense. Any recommendations?

budget? use case? location?

[Distinctly Average]

1 hour ago, GDRRiley said:

EF is a common not good mount.

IBS isn't a thing on lenses, IBIS means in body image stabilization. you can have OIS/IS image stabilization

 

budget? use case? location?

EF is a great mount, not sure why you say it isn’t. It was very forward thinking at the design stage. Had Nikon done similar and created a larger orifice they may not have been held back in lens designs. They have rectified that with Z mount. The new Canon RF mount is basically EF with some extra contacts. Surely that shows how good a design it is.

[Distinctly Average]

On 1/21/2021 at 7:22 PM, The Torrent said:

Sounds like the motor inside for focus is turning and being super dodgy.

 

Was working fine 10 minutes ago but I fear a relative may have.done something to it.

 

It's not focusing at all unless I move the focusing part manually and it moves in like notches.

 

But then it's only at that focus. I've moved it around everywhere to no avail.

You don’t state what lens you have. Some of the cheap end lenses have nylon gears which can fail especially with harsh treatment. Take a look at lensrentals blog where they detail this in tear downs of such lenses with some nice slide up images of the problem. Could be repaired but you are probably better off getter Nina new one.

[GDRRiley]

12 minutes ago, Distinctly Average said:

EF is a great mount, not sure why you say it isn’t. It was very forward thinking at the design stage. Had Nikon done similar and created a larger orifice they may not have been held back in lens designs. They have rectified that with Z mount. The new Canon RF mount is basically EF with some extra contacts. Surely that shows how good a design it is.

its got a lot of lenses on it but design wise its okay at best. nothing about it is forward thinking.
it is backwards, canon built it to not work with FD and gave it one of the longest flange distances in the industry. The bigger issues is now with mirrorless mounts out EF limited optically what you can do. there are lenses on E, RF, L and X that couldn't exist on EF

[Distinctly Average]

2 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

its got a lot of lenses on it but design wise its okay at best. nothing about it is forward thinking.
it is backwards, canon built it to not work with FD and gave it one of the longest flange distances in the industry. The bigger issues is now with mirrorless mounts out EF limited optically what you can do. there are lenses on E, RF, L and X that couldn't exist on EF

Of course is didn’t work with FD. Nikon tried to keep backwards compatible but it also meant a smaller hole and reduced their options substantially design wise. That is why Z mount is so different.

 

EF may have a long flange distance which yes, means it needs a spacer to work with RF. that is all the basic adapter is, a spacer. They work perfectly on RF bodies as a result. Over 30 years of EF lenses and now with mirror less they can be adapted with a simple spacer, that is good design. It has meant the mount has had a greater variety of lenses that any other system. That is down to a good design. Failure rate is low too compared to some other mounts, especially as the contacts are flat and not placed on a

protrusion easily knocked.

 

 

[GDRRiley]

16 minutes ago, Distinctly Average said:

Of course is didn’t work with FD. Nikon tried to keep backwards compatible but it also meant a smaller hole and reduced their options substantially design wise. That is why Z mount is so different.

 

EF may have a long flange distance which yes, means it needs a spacer to work with RF. that is all the basic adapter is, a spacer. They work perfectly on RF bodies as a result. Over 30 years of EF lenses and now with mirror less they can be adapted with a simple spacer, that is good design. It has meant the mount has had a greater variety of lenses that any other system. That is down to a good design. Failure rate is low too compared to some other mounts, especially as the contacts are flat and not placed on a

protrusion easily knocked.

they didn't have to make it work with FD actively but say moving to 35-25mm flange while keeping it above 50mm would have been easy given that for 35m FF other companies had or were going to to move to that range

Nothing about it is good. its a meh mount tech and design wise

[The Torrent]

9 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

EF is a common not good mount.

IBS isn't a thing on lenses, IBIS means in body image stabilization. you can have OIS/IS image stabilization

 

budget? use case? location?

Budget call it 100 quid including used market. Use case family photos birthdays parties etc. Location uk.

[Distinctly Average]

5 hours ago, The Torrent said:

Budget call it 100 quid including used market. Use case family photos birthdays parties etc. Location uk.

Plenty in that bracket. Try Park Cameras https://www.parkcameras.com/used/lenses/canon

 

The cheap 18-55 is only £39 for instance although there are various versions of that and I wou,d spend the extra for the STM version at about £59. Have a chat with them as they are very helpful.

[GDRRiley]

8 hours ago, The Torrent said:

Budget call it 100 quid including used market. Use case family photos birthdays parties etc. Location uk.

18-135 f3.5-5.6 there are 3 versions of it  IS<IS STM < IS USM the only real change between them is the autofocus motor speed but even the original is fast enough
looking at park this is another good option Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4

3 hours ago, Distinctly Average said:

The cheap 18-55 is only £39 for instance although there are various versions of that and I wou,d spend the extra for the STM version at about £59. Have a chat with them as they are very helpful.

if an 18-55 dies replace it with something better. the 2 options listed above are much better

[Distinctly Average]

6 hours ago, GDRRiley said:

18-135 f3.5-5.6 there are 3 versions of it  IS<IS STM < IS USM the only real change between them is the autofocus motor speed but even the original is fast enough
looking at park this is another good option Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4

if an 18-55 dies replace it with something better. the 2 options listed above are much better

I would agree those are better lenses, but hard to find inside the £100 budget requested. Add another £50 or so and they are achievable, at least for one in decent condition.

 

I’m a firm believer in spending on decent glass though. If it was me I would spend more and get something a couple of levels up. I say this as a good used lens uses little when you sell it on later. Of course that may change as EF migrates to RF.

[GDRRiley]

3 minutes ago, Distinctly Average said:

I would agree those are better lenses, but hard to find inside the £100 budget requested. Add another £50 or so and they are achievable, at least for one in decent condition.

its a case where the extra cost is well worth it

[Distinctly Average]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

its a case where the extra cost is well worth it

I agree, I added that above. If it was me I would splash on a level up from that. Selling it on in the future if needed is usually possible with very little difference in price, especially with L lenses which are way out of the budget. I once sold a 70-200 f2.8 IS for £90 more than I paid for it two years earlier. It can be a weird market at times. To be fair, I rarely sell lenses and usually just pass them on to friends, same with camera bodies as they get to high shutter counts. I’ve given on a couple of 7Ds and a 7D2 in the past few years when they reached silly high shutter counts. My current 7D2 will probably go that way soon as it is now on over 500K clicks. Still works well. Hopefully an R7 will drop from Canon this year to replace it with.

[GDRRiley]

4 minutes ago, Distinctly Average said:

I agree, I added that above. If it was me I would splash on a level up from that. Selling it on in the future if needed is usually possible with very little difference in price, especially with L lenses which are way out of the budget. I once sold a 70-200 f2.8 IS for £90 more than I paid for it two years earlier. It can be a weird market at times. To be fair, I rarely sell lenses and usually just pass them on to friends, same with camera bodies as they get to high shutter counts. I’ve given on a couple of 7Ds and a 7D2 in the past few years when they reached silly high shutter counts. My current 7D2 will probably go that way soon as it is now on over 500K clicks. Still works well. Hopefully an R7 will drop from Canon this year to replace it with.

thing is there isn't man good options for cropped glass if you want something to cover the wide end.

crazy how long those bodies have lasted. I think I've put almost 20k on my old T and coming up on that for my canon SL2

[Distinctly Average]

3 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

thing is there isn't man good options for cropped glass if you want something to cover the wide end.

crazy how long those bodies have lasted. I think I've put almost 20k on my old T and coming up on that for my canon SL2

I suppose it depends on needs for the wide end. When using my FF bodies I have 16-35 and 24-70 available. Just not so much in crop as you say. I am lucky to have a 10-22 and 17-55 too which I won in a photography competition a few years back. Mostly though I shoot wildlife and macro so all of the above rarely get used these days. My 100-400Ii and EF-S 60 and MPE65 ad my main lenses. The long one gets used at least twice a week while my wide lenses I am lucky to use twice a year. 
 

People often say you need time and effort for wildlife shooting. I also shoot a lot of windsurfing as that is my other big hobby. But I have most respect for landscape shooters. So much has to come together for good landscape shots and it seems to me a lot more time and travel can be involved. As for people, they scare me so I tend to not photograph them. Horrible creatures.

[GDRRiley]

2 minutes ago, Distinctly Average said:

I suppose it depends on needs for the wide end. When using my FF bodies I have 16-35 and 24-70 available. Just not so much in crop as you say. I am lucky to have a 10-22 and 17-55 too which I won in a photography competition a few years back. Mostly though I shoot wildlife and macro so all of the above rarely get used these days. My 100-400Ii and EF-S 60 and MPE65 ad my main lenses. The long one gets used at least twice a week while my wide lenses I am lucky to use twice a year.

canons never made like a 24-105 F4 like sony has for cropped body
you got the 17-55 or 18-35 for your nicer wide angle lenses

[Distinctly Average]

8 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

canons never made like a 24-105 F4 like sony has for cropped body
you got the 17-55 or 18-35 for your nicer wide angle lenses

I can see this year as the end of M and EF-S. will be interesting to see what crop users will have available. M was an odd one from Canon, after all these years still only 8 lenses and a TC in the lineup. It looks like that will go the way of the dodo.

 

As you say, Canon do a 24-105 in EF and now RF. I think they expect those that want wider to used the 10-18, 10-22 or 17-55.

 

If you are really bored my Flickr link is below. Don’t use it much and only for wildlife and macro. Flickr seems to be going Dodo too at the moment.

 

How do you find your rokinon? I am considering one for Astro landscape this coming year.

[GDRRiley]

7 minutes ago, Distinctly Average said:

I can see this year as the end of M and EF-S. will be interesting to see what crop users will have available. M was an odd one from Canon, after all these years still only 8 lenses and a TC in the lineup. It looks like that will go the way of the dodo.

 

As you say, Canon do a 24-105 in EF and now RF. I think they expect those that want wider to used the 10-18, 10-22 or 17-55.

 

If you are really bored my Flickr link is below. Don’t use it much and only for wildlife and macro. Flickr seems to be going Dodo too at the moment.

 

How do you find your rokinon? I am considering one for Astro landscape this coming year.

will be interesting if they use RF for crop body
right but on a crop body thats 35-160
I've used it like once.
I wouldn't go rokinon for wide stuff its all soft till T4 or T5.6. their 85-135 is good though

[Distinctly Average]

3 minutes ago, GDRRiley said:

will be interesting if they use RF for crop body
right but on a crop body thats 35-160
I've used it like once.
I wouldn't go rokinon for wide stuff its all soft till T4 or T5.6. their 85-135 is good though

Cheers. For Astro I would need to be shooting wide open so if Rokinon is soft I will need to keep my options open. 
 

I think they will have to use RF for crop. I cannot see them wanting to have so many lens systems in the current climate. I think M will be left to slowly die, EF-S already is. 

[The Torrent]

10 hours ago, Distinctly Average said:

I would agree those are better lenses, but hard to find inside the £100 budget requested. Add another £50 or so and they are achievable, at least for one in decent condition.

 

I’m a firm believer in spending on decent glass though. If it was me I would spend more and get something a couple of levels up. I say this as a good used lens uses little when you sell it on later. Of course that may change as EF migrates to RF.

What do you recommend for £150 then? The thing is the camera isn't worth much more so i dont wanna be wasting money its a really old camera.

[Distinctly Average]

33 minutes ago, The Torrent said:

What do you recommend for £150 then? The thing is the camera isn't worth much more so i dont wanna be wasting money its a really old camera.

The 18-135 or sigma 17-70 as mentioned above would be good. Remember though, if you sell them on later you will not loose much, or if you go for a new Canon camera in the future you can use the, on that. Glass tends to be something that outlives many cameras. For many it is the primary thing to choose and the camera is the add on for the lens.

[GDRRiley]

16 hours ago, The Torrent said:

What do you recommend for £150 then? The thing is the camera isn't worth much more so i dont wanna be wasting money its a really old camera.

you can move the lenses to a newer body. if you sell the camera