p.1 #1 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
Canonrumors member Yuenglinger has been investigating the IS unit of the 100-500mm flopping around when it is not attached to a R body or when the camera is off or sleeping, and he is worried that it might break. It appears that Canon has removed the parking of these and other R lenses IS units when not in use, unlike in EF lenses where the unit is safely parked. Roger of Lensrentals has answered in dpr that 4 of his RF 100-500mm lenses have had IS lenses crack during transit. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4546469
This is clearly a worry.
p.1 #2 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
Seems a strange that Roger reports having (4) IS lenses cracked that they have shipped yet not a single report from any of the thousands of people that have purchased this lens new. I have rented from LR so I know they package things well. Although I don't recall seeing the lenses packed in Pelican cases.
Has anyone received a NEW RF 100-500 with a damaged IS lens? If this is something that can easily happen during shipment, it seems like there would be a flood of reports from new owners receiving damaged product. Does Canon have some special "parking" ability to invoke on the new lenses being shipped and it's suddenly not available once powered up by the user?
I think we know the answer to that.
Reading that thread, it sounds like the guy simply isn't happy with Canon not explaining it in great detail. Seems a bit silly to scream about the sky falling if there is no evidence to be concerned about. Surely by now someone has smacked their RF 100-500 hard enough during use to have caused a catastrophic failure as being alluded to. Has anyone heard any reports of such misfortunes/events?
p.1 #3 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
I find this whole thing about "parking" confusing. While I understand that the IS lenses are "parked" while the lens is attached to the camera and the IS is switched off, they cannot be "parked" when the lens is detached from the camera as there is no power supply. This has been true forever, so unless there was a mechanical "parking" device, nothing has changed. Perhaps the "wiggle-room" for the IS lenses is just greater in the 100-500?
p.1 #4 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
brad-man wrote:
I find this whole thing about "parking" confusing. While I understand that the IS lenses are "parked" while the lens is attached to the camera and the IS is switched off, they cannot be "parked" when the lens is detached from the camera as there is no power supply. This has been true forever, so unless there was a mechanical "parking" device, nothing has changed. Perhaps the "wiggle-room" for the IS lenses is just greater in the 100-500?
No, EF lenses have always "parked" when powered off and detached from the camera. It's basically a "normally closed" circuit design. Once power is supplied the brakes come off.
p.1 #5 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
lighthound wrote:
Seems a strange that Roger reports having (4) IS lenses cracked that they have shipped yet not a single report from any of the thousands of people that have purchased this lens new. I have rented from LR so I know they package things well. Although I don't recall seeing the lenses packed in Pelican cases.
Has anyone received a NEW RF 100-500 with a damaged IS lens? If this is something that can easily happen during shipment, it seems like there would be a flood of reports from new owners receiving damaged product. Does Canon have some special "parking" ability to invoke on the new lenses being shipped and it's suddenly not available once powered up by the user?
I think we know the answer to that.
Reading that thread, it sounds like the guy simply isn't happy with Canon not explaining it in great detail. Seems a bit silly to scream about the sky falling if there is no evidence to be concerned about. Surely by now someone has smacked their RF 100-500 hard enough during use to have caused a catastrophic failure as being alluded to. Has anyone heard any reports of such misfortunes/events?
...Show more →
I originally thought the same as you as he seemed to be someone with the bit between his teeth and Canon is usually very careful in its lens design. But, when Roger Cicala writes something, you take it seriously. I hadn't realised how much the movement is. Zoom out to 100mm and look through the front of the lens and you can see how much the unit moves when you wobble the lens. There are quite a few users on FM so feedback on peoples experience might be useful.
p.1 #6 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
This is becoming standard practice in many lenses. For example my Panasonic S 24-105 and 70-200 both have unrestrained IS units whenever unpowered. I’ve had my 70-200 replaced by Panasonic already after the IS unit became inexplicably misaligned at all times.
For those questioning Roger, you need to understand that your lens was likely shipped over ground 2 times to get to you. LensRentals lenses are shipped repeatedly, probably upwards of two ways 50 times a year. That gives them many more opportunities to break.
As Roger mentioned in his post, the IS unit floating when off has become increasingly common, and has never been a problem until the 100-500.
p.1 #7 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
Another point is that the cracked IS glass might not necessarily disable the system, or be noticeable, or detected without tear-down, such as a "hair-line" crack that doesn't evolve to failure stage until after the Warranty period.
p.1 #8 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
My 70-200mm EF seems to only get "unparked" (something loose inside, flopping around) if I detach the lens without powering off the camera, eg interrupting power.
p.1 #9 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
tsangc wrote:
My 70-200mm EF seems to only get "unparked" (something loose inside, flopping around) if I detach the lens without powering off the camera, eg interrupting power.
Is this a similar problem?
No. These new lenses are unparked whenever they aren’t powered as a matter of design decision.
p.1 #12 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
Is there no elastomer ring around the IS group to reduce the shock of impacts to the glass? Typically products are tested for shock and vibrations as part of design and shipping tests.
p.1 #15 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
lighthound wrote:
No, EF lenses have always "parked" when powered off and detached from the camera. It's basically a "normally closed" circuit design. Once power is supplied the brakes come off.
OK, so there is a mechanical device that grips the IS when power is cut off? I know shamefully little considering how many lenses I own that have IS. Interesting that Canon would change their tried and true design.
p.1 #16 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
Jesse Evans wrote:
This is becoming standard practice in many lenses. For example my Panasonic S 24-105 and 70-200 both have unrestrained IS units whenever unpowered. I’ve had my 70-200 replaced by Panasonic already after the IS unit became inexplicably misaligned at all times.
For those questioning Roger, you need to understand that your lens was likely shipped over ground 2 times to get to you. LensRentals lenses are shipped repeatedly, probably upwards of two ways 50 times a year. That gives them many more opportunities to break.
As Roger mentioned in his post, the IS unit floating when off has become increasingly common, and has never been a problem until the 100-500. ...Show more →
If by "others" you are referring to my comment then I can assure you that I was not "questioning Roger" in any way. In fact I wish there were more honest and helpful people like him in the world.
What I was saying is that I find it strange that we are not hearing about one single owner/buyer of this lens or any other RF lens where this has happened.
By using your presumptive number of "50 times a year" let's look at how that boils down.
LR has had the RF 100-500 available to rent since what Oct 2020? So that's 3 months or 12 weeks.
Let's further guesstimate that they somehow were lucky enough to receive say 20 lenses.
So they have shipped 20 lenses once per week (by your number) times 2 for each rental.
That's a total of 12 weeks X 2 = 24 lens shipments.
24 X 20 lenses = 480 shipments.
That is a far cry from the total number of RF 100-500 lenses that have been sold. I'm not even going to guess how many Canon has sold to date but I'm certain it is far more than 480 lenses.
So again, where are all the very disappointed and upset customers that received an expensive damaged lens? I promise you that we would have heard a MASSIVE outcry about such a thing and then further blown out of proportion by the users of another brand.
Also keep in mind, as Roger has mentioned before, that people that rent lenses seem to be pretty rough on their gear. So there is a good chance these might have been damaged by the renter.
---------------------------------------------
brad-man wrote:
OK, so there is a mechanical device that grips the IS when power is cut off? I know shamefully little considering how many lenses I own that have IS. Interesting that Canon would change their tried and true design.
Yes, there is a mechanism that engages when power is removed. Trust me, I'm right there with you and don't know much more than that about the internal workings of these things. I do recall reading that if you are ever going to ship an EF lens then it is important to ensure the lens is properly "parked" by turning the power off on the body and wait for it to lock before removing the lens.
I don't know why they went away from the old design other than like someone mentions in that linked thread. Weight and cost savings?
p.1 #17 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
lighthound wrote:
If by "others" you are referring to my comment then I can assure you that I was not "questioning Roger" in any way. In fact I wish there were more honest and helpful people like him in the world.
What I was saying is that I find it strange that we are not hearing about one single owner/buyer of this lens or any other RF lens where this has happened.
By using your presumptive number of "50 times a year" let's look at how that boils down.
LR has had the RF 100-500 available to rent since what Oct 2020? So that's 3 months or 12 weeks.
Let's further guesstimate that they somehow were lucky enough to receive say 20 lenses.
So they have shipped 20 lenses once per week (by your number) times 2 for each rental.
That's a total of 12 weeks X 2 = 24 lens shipments.
24 X 20 lenses = 480 shipments.
That is a far cry from the total number of RF 100-500 lenses that have been sold. I'm not even going to guess how many Canon has sold to date but I'm certain it is far more than 480 lenses.
So again, where are all the very disappointed and upset customers that received an expensive damaged lens? I promise you that we would have heard a MASSIVE outcry about such a thing and then further blown out of proportion by the users of another brand.
Also keep in mind, as Roger has mentioned before, that people that rent lenses seem to be pretty rough on their gear. So there is a good chance these might have been damaged by the renter.
---------------------------------------------
Yes, there is a mechanism that engages when power is removed. Trust me, I'm right there with you and don't know much more than that about the internal workings of these things. I do recall reading that if you are ever going to ship an EF lens then it is important to ensure the lens is properly "parked" by turning the power off on the body and wait for it to lock before removing the lens.
I don't know why they went away from the old design other than like someone mentions in that linked thread. Weight and cost savings? ...Show more →
Well, first let me say that I re-read your post, and now realize you were talking about the original posters unhappiness with Canon and not Roger Cicala's post.
Regarding your math, the problem is you are talking about distinct lenses that have been shipped 2 times each (Manufacturer -> Retailer and Retailer -> Consumer) as a comparison point for lenses that have been shipped dozens of times each. Stresses accumulate over repeated abuse, and they are not equivalent.
But I do agree with what your basic point is, that it likely isn't an issue for the average person. However, given that this is, in Roger's own words, the first time they are seeing this happen, it indicates there likely is a real design or manufacturing defect at play here:
Roger Cicala on Dpreview:
There have been other lenses in the past that have been this way. As a repair-centric person I don't like it on the basis of 'no good can come of it'. But we haven't seen astronomically higher damage or anything UNTIL the RF 100-500.
With those, we have no seen the IS glass crack in 4 cases. In all my years I've never seen IS glass crack before. I've seen IS units break, usually from the case or electromagnets coming loose; it's rare but it happens. But never cracked glass in the IS unit.
p.1 #18 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
Jesse Evans wrote:
For those questioning Roger, you need to understand that your lens was likely shipped over ground 2 times to get to you. LensRentals lenses are shipped repeatedly, probably upwards of two ways 50 times a year. That gives them many more opportunities to break.
I have a lot of respect and admiration of Roger, but what's missing is the "denominator." 4 failures out of how many lenses? Or as you remind us, how many lens shipping cycles?
If he has 100 lenses and they have been shipped 40 times each, then this is a 0.1% failure rate (pick your own plausible numbers - I'd suggest Roger reveal these). Notable and worthy of discussion, but consistent with crickets on sites like this from actual owners.
Not to mention that rentals might have been abused or dropped, yet blamed on return shipping (surely none of the customers complained when they got the lens or Roger would have mentioned that).
Of course, if an expensive lens has a fragility to dropping because of this one omission, it's meaningful to me.
p.1 #19 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
Before you all get your undies in a bunch, Roger responded to my question about this issue as well and it would appear their FedX guys are rather rough on shipped gear in the first place. I for one am rather gentle on my gear so I'm not losing sleep over all this stuff. It's a superb sharp and well built lens. Here was his response:
No way to park it that I know of. We're going to do some disassembly tomorrow and Wednesday, see if we find anything out.
All of ours happened during FedEx shipping and that's routinely going to get dropped 2-4 feet at various times, so I think a much harsher ride than in the back of your car. We used to put accelerometers in packages and 2-3 Gs was not uncommon.
p.1 #20 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
I'm sure some day my 100-500 will be added to my ongoing list of Canon 100-XXX lenses that have needed IS replacements. Both my 100-400 and 100-400II had them replaced and those ones at least parked
