Already experienced this catastrophic design flaw. Didn’t realize it was a thing with lots of others until this thread. Mine resulted in a significant repair and permanent marks on the lens but optically it seems like they were able to get it back to expectation. Mine was the result of a strap issue as well. Very frustrating and disappointing. Bob
My failure was in an early version of the lens and occurred in March 2021. Just didn’t post about it at the time. Bob
EB-1 wrote:
I'm just wondering if something changed recently, such as Canon using a different supplier.
I don't recall all these complaints in late 2020/early 2021. I've used three 100-500s and not had a lens fall off, but I'm in the habit of locking the tripod collar before picking up the tripod, whether that is a 500/4, 600/4, 100-400, etc. The 100-400 II has such a smooth bearing that the camera can rotate when it is fully loose due to most weight being on the body grip side.
MicheleB wrote:
The tripod collar is designed to rotate so you can shoot portrait or landscape. You have to loosen the screw to rotate the lens in the collar.
No kidding. And you re-tighten the knob as soon as you rotate it to the new position.
When shooting wildlife I rotate the lens often and have never had to unlock, rotate, lock with other lenses. That is why I would unscrew the knob just enough to rotate the lens readily. When transporting I lock.
Imagemaster wrote:
No kidding. And you re-tighten the knob as soon as you rotate it to the new position.
MicheleB wrote:
The tripod collar is designed to rotate so you can shoot portrait or landscape. You have to loosen the screw to rotate the lens in the collar.
Imagemaster wrote:
No kidding. And you re-tighten the knob as soon as you rotate it to the new position.
Maybe you do, but typically I don't unless shooting landscapes.
The 100-400 II had superior build quality and a very smooth tripod collar that rivalled the big teles.
Unfortunately the 100-500 has the cheesy collar design to battle with on the gimbal head.
MicheleB wrote:
When shooting wildlife I rotate the lens often and have never had to unlock, rotate, lock with other lenses. That is why I would unscrew the knob just enough to rotate the lens readily. When transporting I lock.
No tripod collar system is designed for this type of use. Regardless of whether it's happened to you before with others or not, this type of use is merely asking for something bad to happen.
On the Sony 200-600mm the collar itself can not be removed, the tripod mount is fixed to a plate screwed onto the collar and can be removed. So loosening the collar for easy rotation without danger to drop the lens is possible, however it happened to some user that 4 screws holding the tripod mount to the collar get loose after some time. Nothing some Loctite on the screws can't fix.
Gandalf2401 wrote:
On the Sony 200-600mm the collar itself can not be removed, the tripod mount is fixed to a plate screwed onto the collar and can be removed. So loosening the collar for easy rotation without danger to drop the lens is possible, however it happened to some user that 4 screws holding the tripod mount to the collar get loose after some time. Nothing some Loctite on the screws can't fix.
That's the way previous Canon collars worked including all versions of the EF100-400L's; and that's why the change in design with the RF100-500l took some of us by surprise, as it was no longer a fail-safe design.
It would have been nice, if at the very least Canon had included a precautionary "warning" of the design change with the lens!
JRobertson wrote:
No tripod collar system is designed for this type of use. Regardless of whether it's happened to you before with others or not, this type of use is merely asking for something bad to happen.
Correct. Most sensible photographers re-tighten the knob when the collar gets rotated to a new position.
Sy Sez wrote:
That's the way previous Canon collars worked including all versions of the EF100-400L's; and that's why the change in design with the RF100-500l took some of us by surprise, as it was no longer a fail-safe design.
It would have been nice, if at the very least Canon had included a precautionary "warning" of the design change with the lens!
That is the way the 100-400 II works, but the original 100-400 has the slip on and rotate type of external collar. People complained about those since the lens had to be removed from the body to remove the ollar. The contact points were four screws with rotating rings about them and the screws could work loose and cause a jam.
JRobertson wrote:
No tripod collar system is designed for this type of use. Regardless of whether it's happened to you before with others or not, this type of use is merely asking for something bad to happen.
You might want to tell that to all the people using Wimberly monogimbals. Every video I've seen shows people leaving the ring loose to allow free rotation of the lens inside the collar. I used my 100-400 IS II like this without issue but on my second trip with the RF100-500, the collar released my lens and R5, severely damaging both.
mdees88 wrote:
You might want to tell that to all the people using Wimberly monogimbals. Every video I've seen shows people leaving the ring loose to allow free rotation of the lens inside the collar. I used my 100-400 IS II like this without issue but on my second trip with the RF100-500, the collar released my lens and R5, severely damaging both.
mdees88 wrote:
You might want to tell that to all the people using Wimberly monogimbals. Every video I've seen shows people leaving the ring loose to allow free rotation of the lens inside the collar. I used my 100-400 IS II like this without issue but on my second trip with the RF100-500, the collar released my lens and R5, severely damaging both.
So maybe you should educate them to have the knob tightened at all times except when the lens needs to be rotated.
Imagemaster wrote:
Not rocket science.
I didn't think designing a tripod collar that allows easy lens rotation without releasing $7000 worth of equipment to the ground was considered "rocket science" either but...........
I don’t know, I own both the the RF 600 f/4 and the EF 100-400 IS II USM Lens and never have had the lens fall out of the tripod collar when using a a Wimberly mononopod head.
Anthonymt wrote:
I don’t know, I own both the the RF 600 f/4 and the EF 100-400 IS II USM Lens and never have had the lens fall out of the tripod collar when using a a Wimberly mononopod head.
Of course, because the bearing is permanently on the better lenses. The whole 100-500 lens is designed flimsy so that it has lower weight and uses a cheesy 20th century clamp style mount.
You would think that Kirk or someone would make a relatively better collar with an A-S mount, but it has been like 2 years already.
Imagemaster wrote:
And it ain’t ‘rocket science’ to figure that out before you buy the lens
Oh really? Because it has been so well documented and covered in the majority of lens reviews? I watched over 90% of all videos on youtube about the RF 100-500 before purchasing (like I do with anything I buy), and I don't remember people saying "this $3,000 lens can not be used on side mount gimbals due to the poor design of the tripod collar," or " if you leave this knob loosened enough for easy lens rotation it will pop open and drop your lens to the ground."
The only practical way to use a lens on a monopod with a monogimbal or other side mount gimbal is to leave the collar unlocked. Which is why in every video you see of someone using a side mount gimbal on a monopod, they have the collar loosened up.
Of course I have learned to adapt to it's shortcomings, now that I realize it has them. I have no intention of ever putting the collar back on the lens, but if I do it will stay locked down. Any work on a monogimbal will be done with my 100-400 II.
