mdees88 wrote:
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.... ...Show more →
mdees88 wrote:
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... ...Show more →
I suggest you at least inquire about the insurance to see if it's worth it. You will be surprised how cheap it is. Insurance is not just for damage, but theft and loss. Insurance also covers shipping insurance for those times you ship your gear, say, to Canon for repair, cleaning etc....at least St. Farm covers this. This can save a lot of money if you ever have to ship and insure your gear. Insurance also takes some of the worrisome tension off of the owner, which, in itself, is worth some of the cost of insurance. I am very careful and protective of my gear, but I know shit happens, such as theft, robbery etc. Because my gear is insured, I don't worry as much about what may happen with my equipment as I would if was not insured and I'd have to come out of my pocket to replace the equipment (i.e. less tension, stress, worry on me). Stuff can happen if you only go out to shoot once a year and no matter how safe you are, shit happens...just as it did with your gear. Hell, someone can break into your house and steal the equipment.
I know a photographer who dropped his Nikon 400 2.8 and had some major damage. He had no insurance and he paid for it. He ended up pulling money out of his 401k, which is not a good financial strategy, to replace the lens
I understand if you want to self insure your equipment, but this stuff ain't cheap. That is why I say to at least inquire about it. But, you know your financial situation better than anyone here.
mdees88 wrote:
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.... ...Show more →
Interesting. I never read those warnings before for the 100-500, but I always lock down the collar after any adjustment on all my lenses with a tripod collar. Good to know.
I will certainly endeavor to tighten the clamp when walking with the tripod over the shoulder, but I have no confidence in the Canon collar at this point.
I'm going to take two 100-500s if that is the longest lens and at least a 100-400 II for backup of the 100-500 if I take a 500/4 or 600/4. I already have five 100-400s of the two types and a 100-500. It's ridiculous.
I don't own the 100-500, but I have the RF 70-200 2.8 with a similar collar, and it seems no different to me than many of Canon's other lenses.
This style of collar (where you loosen the knob to rotate, then pull out on the knob to release) is pretty standard fare. It is used on the 200 2.8L, 70-300L, 28-300L, 70-200 f/4L, 400 f/5.6L and I'm sure on others.
I think with this type of design one must make a point to lock the collar if the lens is not actively in hand during shooting.
When I first got my 100-500, when installing the Collar, I snapped it into the "pre-tighten" catch, and made numerous attempts turning the tightening knob clockwise, but it never seemed to securely tighten down.
Eventually, I determined that it was due to a flawed thread design.
After pressing the knob in with extreme pressure, I was finally able to get the threads to engage, and after repeated loosening & re- engaging it got "worked in" to the degree that it would engage effortlessly.
For those where the threads engaged properly, effortlessly to start with, it's no wonder they can't understand why others could possibly having such difficulty.
When I first got my 100-500, when installing the Collar, I snapped it into the "pre-tighten" catch, and made numerous attempts turning the tightening knob clockwise, but it never seemed to securely tighten down.
Eventually, I determined that it was due to a flawed thread design.
After pressing the knob in with extreme pressure, I was finally able to get the threads to engage, and after repeated loosening & re- engaging it got "worked in" to the degree that it would engage effortlessly.
For those where the threads engaged properly, effortlessly to start with, it's no wonder they can't understand why others could possibly having such difficulty. ...Show more →
I had the same experience with my collar. When I sent my lens in for repair, I asked canon to inspect the collar specifically. I don't think they did and they sent the same one back. I started another return and I'm sending just the collar back for them to check out. I'm fairly certain everyone would agree that this is not acceptable.....
Canon collar quality has never been acceptable to me. Being aware my experience is not typical is no help to me.
Of 4 collars of the same type, the collar that fits 400 5.6L, some others and 200 2.8L (it's black, but otherwise identical to the white one), only 1 tightened properly. All others allowed the lenses to rotate. 3 were new and one bought used but looked mint.
I also had the loosening screws problem with the 100-400 II. The 4 x 2mm screws loosened. After tightening they came loose a 2nd time. Maybe using loctite that time would have worked, I suspect not. I think the threads had already been damaged. I'm in Australia so standard timeframe is 8-10 weeks for Canon Aus repair and previous experience with them was not good so I fixed it myself. (Repair shop removed the collar, then reinstalled it after I permanently attached foot to the collar)
I still have not bought a 100-500 and continue to refuse to do so until Canon fixes this design or a 3rd party comes out with a replacement collar. I'd gladly pay a couple hundred bucks for a replacement collar, just for the peace of mind.
Boy, have I been lucky. I have owned many Canon telephoto lenses over the years, 300 f2.8, 400 f5.6, 100-400 I, 100-400 II, 500 f4.5, 500 f4, including more than one copy of some of those. I never had mechanical issues with the collars or bodies of any of them.
None of those lenses have the level of complaints that the 100-500 has though.
My 500/4 IS (1st version) had an issue with the bearing parts in the tripod collar that required repair.
John_TX wrote:
I still have not bought a 100-500 and continue to refuse to do so until Canon fixes this design or a 3rd party comes out with a replacement collar. I'd gladly pay a couple hundred bucks for a replacement collar, just for the peace of mind.
I own several of these iShoot collars for other Canon lenses and have no real complaints about quality, despite the low cost and made in China sourcing. However, I buy them because they feature built-in dovetails, not because they are better engineered than the OEM collars.
I do not own this lens and have not used this particular collar, as a caveat.
I own several of these iShoot collars for other Canon lenses and have no real complaints about quality, despite the low cost and made in China sourcing. However, I buy them because they feature built-in dovetails, not because they are better engineered than the OEM collars.
I do not own this lens and have not used this particular collar, as a caveat.
Wow, nice find! I was hoping that RRS, Kirk, Wimberley, AcraTech, would come out with a better design that was machined, but I’ll definitely give that one a look! Thanks!
John_TX wrote:
I still have not bought a 100-500 and continue to refuse to do so until Canon fixes this design or a 3rd party comes out with a replacement collar. I'd gladly pay a couple hundred bucks for a replacement collar, just for the peace of mind.
I own several of these iShoot collars for other Canon lenses and have no real complaints about quality, despite the low cost and made in China sourcing. However, I buy them because they feature built-in dovetails, not because they are better engineered than the OEM collars.
I do not own this lens and have not used this particular collar, as a caveat.
John_TX wrote:
Wow, nice find! I was hoping that RRS, Kirk, Wimberley, AcraTech, would come out with a better design that was machined, but I’ll definitely give that one a look! Thanks!
That was the tripod collar I mentioned earlier in the thread. I have one and do not find it useful. YMMV.
EB-1 wrote:
That was the tripod collar I mentioned earlier in the thread. I have one and do not find it useful. YMMV.
EBH
Because of the short foot, presumably? Yes, I imagine that does complicate using it with a gimbal, depending on how large/heavy the camera body is. But with an extending barrel, it's hard to achieve a perfect balance if you zoom.
Yes, it doesn't balance well. The clamping system is almost a copy of the Canon, which is disappointing when they could have improved it. Maybe some engineers can count the threads to see if it is better than the Canon, but it was not cheap nor particulary smooth. I have it around somewhere.
EB-1 wrote:
Yes, it doesn't balance well. The clamping system is almost a copy of the Canon, which is disappointing when they could have improved it. Maybe some engineers can count the threads to see if it is better than the Canon, but it was not cheap nor particulary smooth. I have it around somewhere.
EBH
Yeah. I wonder if the (lack of) smoothness is an aspect of the lens, perhaps the material used for the barrel (a lighter weight plastic now, presumably), rather than the collar per se? The collars seem to have the same low friction linings as earlier designs.
EB-1 wrote:
Yes, it doesn't balance well. The clamping system is almost a copy of the Canon, which is disappointing when they could have improved it. Maybe some engineers can count the threads to see if it is better than the Canon, but it was not cheap nor particulary smooth. I have it around somewhere.
EBH
garyvot wrote:
Yeah. I wonder if the (lack of) smoothness is an aspect of the lens, perhaps the material used for the barrel (a lighter weight plastic now, presumably), rather than the collar per se? The collars seem to have the same low friction linings as earlier designs.
It think is it more about the two narrow contact points and the load on them, not necesasrily at the best angles. The two contact points appear to be smooth plastic.
If the RF did not have that unique 400-500 range it would hardly be worthwhile at all. It's larger than the 100-400 II and with the hoods and tripod mounts (100-500 requires an A-S plate in addition to the bulky collar compared to the compact foot replacement for the 100-400 II) the weights are almost exactly the same.
