I was shooting the Motocross of Nations in Budd's Creed, MD this summer when I fell in the mud and landed on one of my cameras. I ripped the back end off a 70-200 f/2.8 that was attached to a 1D mkII. When I got up I noticed the lens was at a 30 degree angle to the body and that the corner of my flash battery pack had crushed through my 8th and 9th ribs about 2" from my spine. I didn't even care about the camera. I brought the whole mess into Canon NJ on my way home and they told me the lens fix would be $600 and to throw the 1D away. I had the lens fixed. I took the 1D home and cleaned it, it works perfectly. Glad I didn't throw it out! Canon will replace every single part that may even remotely have a problem, not just the rear housing. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Karl Witt wrote:
OK, my daughter is an EMT, she tells me all sorts of stories after injury but your pics are so graphic! Oh, that makes me feel sick...............
Interesting innards. Plastic vs metal? I have a feeling that there is some rather cheap metals that exist as far as strength goes. Metals trasfer heat and cold much more intensely than plastic, not good. Remember putting your tongue on that metal pole when you were a kid. Metals also can create magnetic fields and cause interference in electronics and possibly stabalizers. Polycarbonate at a certain thickness I believe is bullet proof, comfortable at all temps on the hands and extremely durable.
I'm gonna let Canon decide what works best, to suspend their 'L' glass in. So far, I have not doubted the integrity of an L glass lens.
I hope surgery goes well, I am sure your lens will recover faster than you!! That was a very graphic story............Ha! Good luck Matt, I hope to never hear another story like this again.
Karl...Show more →
The f4 was designed to be light. It has nothing to do with impact points or EMI. The reason you don't see polycarbonate on bigger lenses is due to fatigue over general use. Metal fatigues less then polycarbonate. Plastics also heat up faster.
Metal L lenses are designed for low but frequent impacts and torsional rigidity. I don't think Canon does drop tests like bike helmets or Symbol barcode scanners. But they do keep in mind to carefully select material and to properly machine the 'hardpoints'. (where the elements, servos and whatnot are mounted.)
justruss wrote:
There's no way that Canon designed a "break point" for that lens. You guys have got to be kidding yourselves.
These kinds of occurrences are waaaaaay too infrequent to spend any time on engineering costs associated with that kind of thing. The problem with something like this is that a "break point" decreases the threshold over which the lens will actually be damaged (though it also reduces the cost of fixing said damage). That means: more instances of damage at lower cost per incident.
Incidence x damage cost per incident = total cost
Actually, the way you put it, it would be good business for Canon to design break points for the lenses. After all, the customers will be happier (lower cost to each of them) and Canon will be happier (larger total income to them). It makes perfect business sense!
Joel Kern wrote:
Most likely the guys in Jersey will be able to put it back the way it should be for you.
I like to think of Canon lenses as being like little F1 cars - they`re made to break at certain points so as not to damage something more important (think of the driver pod in an F1 car, which survives in an accident because everything else breaks off to absorb the impact).
When a Canon lens breaks it can look nasty... but it broke that way for a reason. That's how I try to see it at least.
What part of the Mark III AF system was designed to break the way it did?
Sorry.. Couldn't help myself... I feel your pain... Hope you have some other lenses to use in the meantime. I have a bunch of lenses and a broken body...
tom guffey wrote:
The F/2.8 is not plastic............
Exactly, that is where you getting about $500 less in price
Looking on this picture broken plastic parts attaching one part to another looks too small to my MD in mechanical engineering. I wouldn't call it much as lens advantage.
Breitling65 wrote:
Exactly, that is where you getting about $500 less in price
Looking on this picture broken plastic parts attaching one part to another looks too small to my MD in mechanical engineering. I wouldn't call it much as lens advantage.
Yeah, looks like a Tonka toy material, doesn't it. However, the lens performance as well as the barrel colour are "pro". One is not supposed to be dropping those things anyways.....not designed to take that by any stretch of imagination despite all those apocryphal accounts of the "them L lenses are built tough" sort.
The 70-200 f/2.8 IS has the first barrel segment (mount side) made of metal. The other two main barel segments are plastic too.
PetKal wrote:
Yeah, looks like a Tonka toy material, doesn't it. However, the lens performance as well as the barrel colour are "pro". One is not supposed to be dropping those things anyways.....not designed to take that by any stretch of imagination despite all those apocryphal accounts of the "them L lenses are built tough" sort.
The 70-200 f/2.8 IS has the first barrel segment (mount side) made of metal. The other two main barel segments are plastic too.
What scared me most is that heavy part been connected to the small plastic peaces. Plastic simply could get old by the time and get cracked, tons of examples of this. I don't think many pros are using F4 lenses, faster glass always winner, yes it is very good lens and lighter than F2.8, and now we know why ...
Breitling65 wrote:
What scared me most is that heavy part been connected to the small plastic peaces. Plastic simply could get old by the time and get cracked, tons of examples of this.
I think I know what you are saying, but the danger of age induced material degradation and cracking is rather small IMO, especially since we are probably dealing with a very stable polycarbonate material here. The lenses are not sitting in tropical sunshine for days on end, besides, much of the sunlight aggressive spectrum is being repelled by barrel colour, and one is not likely to expose the lens to high amounts of ionizing radiation either.
Thanks for posting your lens carnage. It was educational to see what the lens looks like inside. It was neat to see the flat ribbon cables, the wire harnesses, and the way the plastic barrel mounts to the metal ring. Thanks again for posting the close-up images.
What scared me most is that heavy part been connected to the small plastic peaces. Plastic simply could get old by the time and get cracked, tons of examples of this. I don't think many pros are using F4 lenses, faster glass always winner, yes it is very good lens and lighter than F2.8, and now we know why ...
High quality engineering plastic is very durable. Ok, maybe not as durable as metal but, assuming that you've chosen a proper plastic for the job (and you've designed the part properly), it can easily last two to three decades, if not more.
By the way, plastics are chosen for ease of production (and thus lower cost). The best possible metal alloys, be it steel, aluminium, magnesium or titanium alloys, will have about the same strength-to-weight ratio as the best engineering plastics. Though it does matter how the part is loaded, it makes a difference if the loading is in bending mode or in tension/compression.
(I'm graduating MSc in Materials Science & Engineering, can you tell ?? )
in january our 70-200 f4 IS slipped out of a bag and fell 2 feet and it broke in exactly the same spot as the 70-200 f4 IS in the pictures.i sent it to new jersey and canon asked us for $850 to fix it.
when i mounted it on the camera it autofocused just fine. i guess this is the spot where 70-200 f4 IS's break and canon knows that it is always the users fault no matter how new the lens is.
i thought well maybe i can make a 70-200 f4 IS tilt lens out of it.
where could i buy a new rear housing?
vincent
amplexis wrote:
where could i buy a new rear housing?
vincent
A couple of years ago I was able to order the rubber ring for my 80-200 2.8L from the Canon parts department. In the USA Canon parts phone number is: (732) 521-7230. Or at least it used to be. It really helps if you now the part number.
After reading the thread, how much impact can an L lens take and being amazed. I don`t think we will ever find stories about the 70-200 f4 L is in that thread.
I had a 20D with a 70-200 f2.8 IS slide off my lap about 1.5 foot off the ground and land straight onto the concrete lens hood first. I caught it on the first bounce. No problems at all. My lesson was that, without a lens hood, I probably would have toasted the front glass. I love lens hoods!
I just hung up with Canon. Repair bill (unless they find something else) will be $173, including overnight return shipping. I'll post again when it's finished & let everyone know how it turned out.
One is not supposed to be dropping those things anyways.....not designed to take that by any stretch of imagination despite all those apocryphal accounts of the "them L lenses are built tough" sort. 