p.6 #1 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
bobbytan wrote:
Most photojournalists do not own the equipment they use at work. Speed of operation is of the essence and being careful with their gear is the furthest thing on their minds.
Unless you you are in a situation where the loss of 4 or 5 seconds can cost you an amazing capture, I would make a habit of turning the camera off when changing lenses to minimize the risk of sticky dust settling on the sensor.
Zenon Char wrote:
It is not about dust for me. The IS assembly does not stop operating after you release the shutter or BBF using an R body. This is not the same as a my SLR and DSLRs. When I swapped the lenses with DSLR's the IS assemble stopped operating by the time I got to it. I know about the electronics part and the EF manuals say to power down but others did and no reports. The new IS system is only a few years old.
What happens if you switch lenses normally and don't remove the battery pack or power it down?
p.6 #2 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
EB-1 wrote:
What happens if you switch lenses normally and don't remove the battery pack or power it down?
EBH
I don’t know what it going on with an RF lens. Not enough information about what happens to the IS assembly in a charged and non charged state. I don’t know what happens to an RF lens when it shuts off. Does it go into some type of parked position or not? We know it does not lock. Until I get more information I’ll power down first using RF lenses. Also the R5 has the close shutter at power down option which I enabled so even more reason for me.
p.6 #3 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
Also there is a 1-2 second delay when you power it down. RF IS does not power down immediately, it shuts off at the end of this cycle, not at the beginning. Is the assembly making changes before it goes into shut down mode? I don’t know. Maybe it doesn’t do anything. Maybe it does.
p.6 #5 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
Personally I'm willing to respect Canon's engineers design intention and that it works just fine. At least it certainly does for ME and my copy. I have NO issues. It's a remarkable technological innovation.
p.6 #6 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
The post two above mine is a link to the article that found that the wobbling IS unit was not the one with the broken lens. Nothing to do with that, and it gives great confidence in the IS design.
p.6 #7 · 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?
p.6 #8 · IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?
Alex53 wrote:
Did you watch the video where they dismantle a lens? I think it is hard to watch the video and come out of it thinking what you allude to above.
I wasn't aware there was a video 16 days ago when I made my comment. But since then, Roger did publish his tear-down article that I enjoyed reading and found extremely interesting.
I'm not sure what you think I'm "alluding to". I thought I was pretty clear, but I'll try to spell it out in more detail for you.
This thread started with a linked thread about someone complaining and whining and all upset about Canon not answering his/her specific questions about the new RF lenses not parking. Comments such as...
"I believe that Canon should explain why, " blablabla
and
" As things stand, we are not told why" blablabla
I find it a bit repulsive to hear people whine and cry about corporations such as Canon, Sony, Nikon, Ford, Boeing, Tesla, ect. being expected to explain their design decisions. Give me a friggin break.
You either buy a product and get out there and enjoy using it or you buy a different product and enjoy using it. If it breaks you get it fixed. You don't sit around in your living room shaking it to listen to a rattling sound wondering if it might break.
And in the case of the (4) cracked lenses from LR, it's now well documented that there are some faulty front element group lenses out there, at least in the first shipments, that could become cracked during shipments. Should this happen to a private owner it will likely be covered by Canon.
Now, if you plan on shipping you RF 100-500 multiple times and having the living shit beat out of the package during shipment like Lens Rental and other companies have to deal with, then you might have cause for concern. But as of today I still have not heard of a single other lens purchased by individuals that has had this failure occur.
From what we've seen so far, this is a non-issue for most of us. It's good that we are all aware of a potential issue though and we can keep our ears and eyes open to see if this becomes more wide spread.
