EB-1 wrote:
None of those lenses have the level of complaints that the 100-500 has though.
500/4 IS (1st version) had an issue with the bearing parts in the tripod collar that required repair.
Imagemaster wrote:
Who said they did
And all your many other Canon lenses did not?
Not for the tripod collar bearings. I think that is unusual. The 500/4 IS (1st version) is the heaviest lens I've owned, though I've used heavier. It was almost 10 years old at the time, and overall gave me great service. The 500/4 IS II is better in most every way though also old nowadays.
I've rotated the collars on my two 100-400 IIs thousands of times and they are as smooth as when the lenses were released in 2014.
EB-1 wrote:
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.
EBH
Yes. I upgraded my shorter zooms, but I have held onto my 100-400 II for now. Thanks for your insight.
I must have gotten a bad copy of the RF 100-500. I tried my damnedest yesterday to try to get it to pop out of the tripod collar while freely rotating it around in the collar as shown in that video, but it just wouldn't pop out.
On a serious note. I feel bad for the few people that have had this happen to them and the damage and grief it has caused. I know I'd be pissed if this happened to me. I appreciate the heads up about this and will continuously keep a close eye on it just to be safe.
I'm wondering if there are some bad collars out there or something. Thankfully for me at least, the collar seems fine on my copy. I actually had a hard time figuring out how to get the dang thing to open up and off when I first got it when I was putting some camo wrap on it.
lighthound wrote:
I must have gotten a bad copy of the RF 100-500. I tried my damnedest yesterday to try to get it to pop out of the tripod collar while freely rotating it around in the collar as shown in that video, but it just wouldn't pop out.
My initial drop was not due to twisting of the Camera to the lens. It was a moderate yank down on the foot.
I was carrying the R5/100-500 with a Sling Strap connected to the Foot, and just stepping forward, putting a bit of downward force, which was enough for the clasp to pop open.
With the threads disengaged but the clasp still held together in the initial notch, try slight to moderate pull on the foot and see if it comes loose. On mine just lifting it by the foot, the weight of the camera and lens causes it to open.
Seems that Canon got their design badly wrong. I understand it allows for faster release from tripod to handheld use, but at the cost of safety.
It’s kind of a weird one as pretty much everyone is using quick release plates anyway.
They could have recycled the ef 100-400L design with an arca swiss profile and still be able to brag about the weight savings while achieving all the benefits.
It’s a petty design for a lens of that price.
Sy Sez wrote:
With the threads disengaged but the clasp still held together in the initial notch, try slight to moderate pull on the foot and see if it comes loose. On mine just lifting it by the foot, the weight of the camera and lens causes it to open.
I use BlackRapid straps with long lenses fastened by their collars and, no offense, but I would never consider letting the lens hang with the threads disengaged. This is not how this collar is designed to be used. It makes sense that a decent tug on the collar will pop the clasp because the load then is born by just a spring-loaded knob. You must lock the collar when transporting or carrying the lens, just like many other lenses having similar collars.
I have to think that at least some of the mishaps are due to prior experience with the EF 100-400 II. That lens has a captive collar which cannot detach. This lens' collar design is different and it needs different operation.
garyvot wrote:
. This is not how this collar is designed to be used. It makes sense that a decent tug on the collar will pop the clasp because the load then is born by just a spring-loaded knob. You must lock the collar when transporting or carrying the lens, just like many other lenses having similar collars..
When I first got the lens, I attempted to tighten the knob down, and after turning knob clockwise many times over I wrongly assumed that with the new design I had tighten it to the Max allowable.
There is/was nothing in the manual warning that the threads would fail to engage unless extreme force was applied to force engagement, and that multiple thread engagement and disengagement was required before it would function properly.
After my mishap I forced engagement as per above, and now the threads engage with an effortless turn, but that's how it should have worked in the first place.
Sy Sez wrote:
When I first got the lens, I attempted to tighten the knob down, and after turning knob clockwise many times over I wrongly assumed that with the new design I had tighten it to the Max allowable.
There is/was nothing in the manual warning that the threads would fail to engage unless extreme force was applied to force engagement, and that multiple thread engagement and disengagement was required before it would function properly.
After my mishap I forced engagement as per above, and now the threads engage with an effortless turn, but that's how it should have worked in the first place. ...Show more →
Ah, I see. Sorry, I missed your earlier explanation. Yes, that sounds like your collar had a factory defect.
ChrisHA wrote:
FYI: something that I do with all of my rigs is attach the lens foot plate to the camera body with Op/Tech 1301012 uni adapter loops/system connectors (regular) for peace of mind as “crap” happens and it’s cheap insurance.
I'm thinking of getting a couple of the uni-loop adapters. Would you mind providing a little more detail about how you use them (what they are connected to)?
crisdesign wrote:
Seems that Canon got their design badly wrong. I understand it allows for faster release from tripod to handheld use, but at the cost of safety.
It’s kind of a weird one as pretty much everyone is using quick release plates anyway.
They could have recycled the ef 100-400L design with an arca swiss profile and still be able to brag about the weight savings while achieving all the benefits.
It’s a petty design for a lens of that price.
Exactly, and there is no weight difference between the 100-400 II and 100-500 on a tripod.
We are paying a significant weight penalty to have the crummy 100-500 collar and then have to use an A-S plate on that.
