Imagemaster wrote:
And it ain’t ‘rocket science’ to figure that out before you buy the lens, or to return the lens, or to adapt to using it with its shortcomings.
How are people supposed to identify the defect before buying the lens? After it falls and breaks that is too late. In the past consumers expected Canon to make quality products. Now they are run by a bunch of jokers.
mdees88 wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Yeah, really. Just like most any other gear you could have rented or demoed it before buying it. And if you could not do that, you could have returned it once you found it unsuitable. Why are you not also complaining that you can't put a TC on it unless it is extended to 300mm or more?
You could also complain to Canon. Or switch to Sony and get their 200-600.
Imagemaster wrote:
Yeah, really. Just like most any other gear you could have rented or demoed it before buying it.
Are you not aware of how outlandish your argument is? How am I supposed to know what issue I'm going to have with a lens before buying it? I literally watched almost every single video review that existed on YouTube at the time and none of them (to my memory) warned against using this lens on a monogimbal.
What am I supposed to do? Rent every single lens I'm interested in buying and use each lens in every humanely imaginable way possible before making a purchase to see if it breaks? How unreasonable does that sound? Do you really think I should have brought my monopod into a store (without even knowing there's a problem with the tripod collar), pick up a demo lens, attach it to a monogimbal, loosen the knob, then shake it vigorously to see if it pops out?
I use a monopod less than 1% of the time. All I needed to know was.... (unlike every other Canon lens I have ever owned with a tripod collar) this lens is not suitable for use on a monogimbal. Then I would have never used it on a monogimbal, but I still would have purchased the lens.
Imagemaster wrote:
And if you could not do that, you could have returned it once you found it unsuitable.
I found the tripod collar design unsuitable the first time the collar released my lens. That drop severely damaged my lens and camera. How am I supposed to return a 5 day old lens that has been damaged? If I knew I couldn't use this lens like every other Canon lens (with a tripod collar) I own, I would have never put it on the monopod in the first place and it never would have been damaged.
Imagemaster wrote:
Why are you not also complaining that you can't put a TC on it unless it is extended to 300mm or more?
What are you trying to get at with this question? Why am I not complaining about something that I haven't complained about? What does that even mean? Do you want me to complain about it? I mean, yes, it's design limits the versatility of the lens when using teleconverters. We all know this and that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Perhaps you were trying to imply that I hate this lens and I'm just looking for reasons to bash it? In that case you would be wrong. I like the lens a lot. I think it is a little over priced but it is a sharp, compact, lightweight lens that I really enjoy using. I rarely use my 100-400 II any more. It just has a horrible tripod collar design.
Imagemaster wrote:
You could also complain to Canon.
I did complain to Canon when I sent my gear in for repair. I informed them of my issue and sent them videos of me replicating the problem with the collar.
Imagemaster wrote:
Or switch to Sony and get their 200-600.
Why would I switch to Sony? I don't hate the lens, I hate the tripod collar. I would love to have a Canon equivalent 200-600 f6.3 lens though....
Methodical wrote:
Does any of you'll who damaged your gear and others insure your gear?
I had never damaged a piece of camera equipment before and I have never insured my gear before. I got started in photography about 6ish years ago but a little more seriously for the last 2 years. To me insurance is risk/reward. I'm purely a hobbyist and I probably spend less than 20 half days a year photographing things. I also go out of my way to protect my gear as best I can. If I was clumsy, overly reckless, or spent a lot more time doing photography (increased chance of an accident happening) I might would consider some kind of insurance. Up until last year my gear was very modest and easily replaceable with my budget so I never considered it then. I just bought a used R5 and a new rf 100-500 several months ago which is a good bit of money to me. Since my lens was 5 days old Canon repaired it for free. I had to pay for the R5 repair which cost me around $700 including shipping I think. I still am not considering getting insurance based on my risk analysis and very limited use but I do not use my gear near as much as many people here...
On a more interesting note, I just looked through several Canon lens manuals to see what they say about operating the tripod collars. I looked at the EF 70-200's, the EF 100-400's, the EF 400 500 and 600mm primes, the RF 400 and 600mm primes, and none of them say anything about needing to keep the tripod collar adjustment knobs tightened down. Which would lead me to believe that there is not an issue in keeping them loose. If it was an issue (causing damage to the lenses and repairs), they would likely advise against it in the manual.
So then I checked the RF 70-200, and the RF 100-500, and each of their manuals have a warning stating "make sure the lock knob on the tripod mount is firmly tightened." Also in the "Tripod Mount" section it states "By loosening the lock knob on the tripod mount you can rotate the camera and the lens to switch the image in any orientation (vertical, horizontal, etc.). Make sure that the lock knob is tightened after setting the camera in place."
Coming from the EF 100-400 IS II, I just assumed I could use this (upgraded) lens the same way I was using my old one. Unfortunately I cannot. Canon obviously put those statements in the owners manual to cover themselves. I really wish more reviewers would cover the dangers of misusing the tripod collars on these lenses in their reviews. It's my own fault for not reading the owners manual, but let's be honest, how many people read their owners manuals....
I have no sympathy for anyone who has no insurance on their car, home, or photo gear and suffers a financial loss due to accidents to any of those. Want to take the risk, then pay the consequences.
Even with many EF-mount telephoto lenses there are those who have a safety tether from the lens to camera. Why? Because there have been cases, for whatever reasons, that the lens disconnected from the body. Another type of insurance. That even works for the 100-500. Should not be required?
EB-1 wrote:
No. That does nothing when your lens is dead thousands of miles from your home country.
EBH
I have insurance mainly for theft purposes. I've never damaged any gear in 50 years. However, it's those trips overseas where I think the insurance is needed. Nairobi, J'burg, etc. Lost a cam many years ago when a guy on a moped grabbed it as he went by in Panama. (nearly broke my hip trying to hang on to the cam. Won't do that again)
Imagemaster wrote:
Yeah, really. Just like most any other gear you could have rented or demoed it before buying it. And if you could not do that, you could have returned it once you found it unsuitable. Why are you not also complaining that you can't put a TC on it unless it is extended to 300mm or more?
You could also complain to Canon. Or switch to Sony and get their 200-600.
Clearly reviewers are responsible! How dare reviewers not consider every single possible farfetched remote use case out there in their testing! It's not like Canon didn't warn owners in the len's manual...oh wait, they did. That whole personal responsibility thing really bites sometimes!
The tripod collar on the RF 100-500 (which I own) and apparently the RF 70-200 f/2.8 (which I do not own) are very similar in operation to the collars on several EF lenses, including the EF 400 f/5.6, the original non-IS EF 300 f/4 and the original EF 70-200 f/4 IS, all of which I own or owned.
With all these EF lenses it was my custom to tightly close the knob after loosening and rotating the lens. I never had a failure with any of these EF lenses, which I customarily carried while attached to my tripod, which in turn was carried over my shoulder.
I always lock the tripod collar when using a collared lens on tripod. I don't need to rotate the camera during shooting a sequence; I align the gimbal or fluid head using a leveling base so that every shot has the horizon level. I leave the panning and up/down movement unlocked and this allows me to pan and follow the subject. Every shot will have horizon level which is one of the reasons I would use a tripod in the first place, the other is to hold the camera setup while I am waiting for the action to begin.
I'm a Nikon user and there are several Nikon lenses that have tripod mounts which can lead to lens and camera to fall from a black rapid or similar strap, and plenty of people have reported such mishaps. In my opinion the flaw is typically not in the collar or foot, but simply incorrect usage. It's meant to hold the lens on a tripod or monopod with the foot (in case of a removeable foot) and collar tightened during shooting and the tripod foot is not a carrying handle. That said, there are third-party solutions for some lenses which can lead to increased safety when (mis)using the collar / foot in this way.
JRobertson wrote:
Clearly reviewers are responsible! How dare reviewers not consider every single possible farfetched remote use case out there in their testing! It's not like Canon didn't warn owners in the len's manual...oh wait, they did. That whole personal responsibility thing really bites sometimes!
davidl11 wrote:
The tripod collar on the RF 100-500 (which I own) and apparently the RF 70-200 f/2.8 (which I do not own) are very similar in operation to the collars on several EF lenses, including the EF 400 f/5.6, the original non-IS EF 300 f/4 and the original EF 70-200 f/4 IS, all of which I own or owned.
With all these EF lenses it was my custom to tightly close the knob after loosening and rotating the lens. I never had a failure with any of these EF lenses, which I customarily carried while attached to my tripod, which in turn was carried over my shoulder....Show more →
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I always lock the tripod collar when using a collared lens on tripod. I don't need to rotate the camera during shooting a sequence; I align the gimbal or fluid head using a leveling base so that every shot has the horizon level. I leave the panning and up/down movement unlocked and this allows me to pan and follow the subject. Every shot will have horizon level which is one of the reasons I would use a tripod in the first place, the other is to hold the camera setup while I am waiting for the action to begin.
I'm a Nikon user and there are several Nikon lenses that have tripod mounts which can lead to lens and camera to fall from a black rapid or similar strap, and plenty of people have reported such mishaps. In my opinion the flaw is typically not in the collar or foot, but simply incorrect usage. It's meant to hold the lens on a tripod or monopod with the foot (in case of a removeable foot) and collar tightened during shooting and the tripod foot is not a carrying handle. That said, there are third-party solutions for some lenses which can lead to increased safety when (mis)using the collar / foot in this way....Show more →
Clearly reviewers are responsible! How dare reviewers not consider every single possible farfetched remote use case out there in their testing! It's not like Canon didn't warn owners in the len's manual...oh wait, they did. That whole personal responsibility thing really bites sometimes!
Likely it's difficult for someone who epitomizes absolute perfection in everything they do, to have any condolences for the rest of us utterly flawed individuals.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I always lock the tripod collar when using a collared lens on tripod. I don't need to rotate the camera during shooting a sequence; I align the gimbal or fluid head using a leveling base so that every shot has the horizon level. I leave the panning and up/down movement unlocked and this allows me to pan and follow the subject. Every shot will have horizon level which is one of the reasons I would use a tripod in the first place, the other is to hold the camera setup while I am waiting for the action to begin.
I'm a Nikon user and there are several Nikon lenses that have tripod mounts which can lead to lens and camera to fall from a black rapid or similar strap, and plenty of people have reported such mishaps. In my opinion the flaw is typically not in the collar or foot, but simply incorrect usage. It's meant to hold the lens on a tripod or monopod with the foot (in case of a removeable foot) and collar tightened during shooting and the tripod foot is not a carrying handle. That said, there are third-party solutions for some lenses which can lead to increased safety when (mis)using the collar / foot in this way....Show more →
I've shot my 100-400 on a monopod. I leave it just loose enough to rotate orientation as needed and to maintain level while turning. I can easily see accidentally crossing the line and having a lens like he 100-500 fall out. I just don't see why they felt the need to replace a very safe setup with one that can be just a few screw threads away from disaster. It won't stop me from buying a 100-500 some day, but it still sucks.
My husband has same lens and his ring is fine so it is intermittent problem. Folks just need to be aware. There are two other forums that discuss this very same issue on Canonrumors and Dpreview. The RF ring collar is very different than the EF.
Or switch to Sony and get their 200-600. 
