RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,405
Re: RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C

ProDude wrote:

Huntin4photos wrote:

"Sensitive equipment" reminds me of when I told my story of the crash landing of my 24-70mm f2.8 original version. Careless abuse? Sorry while I agree with you about the rf 24-240mm, I think sensitive is not a term applicable here.

In my opinion, lens intended for the field, for journalism, or pro use or everyday use should be built tough.

I tried to point to reporters and how they use their equipment without much success.

Then I just noticed the photo of Biden's photographer in the article from about two months ago on Dpreview.

Three cameras with lens attached, slung around his neck for instant use. No lens cap or filter on the front camera lens shown in the photo.

Maybe or maybe not a lens filters on the others. An extra lens somewhere.

Shooting thousands of shots, elbow to elbow with others during pressers.

https://m.dpreview.com/interviews/2622047235/interview-joe-biden-s-official-photographer-adam-schultz?utm_source=self-mobile&utm_medium=marquee&utm_campaign=traffic_source

Seems he is doing what AP now requires, shooting Sony?

Or is it Sony perceived tougher? I am an old Canon shooter. Been like that all my life. Never thought they were delicate except for the coatings on the front element.

But any lens ought not to be sensitive and delicate but rough and tuff is my opinion.

Now....

While I now think it seems to be some sort of individual flaw in the glass or how that particular glass was placed in the mount, rather than just bouncing around because the lens could no longer be parked, I still don't know for certain.

But at this price of nearly 3k, one should expect tough pro-grade construction.

From what I read about the NEW construction of the RF lenses, the 50mm f12 and 85mm f1.2 have unique shock absorbers built into the lens assemblies that enable them to be pretty beaten around without any risk of decentering. The RF70-200 f2.8 and RF100-500 both have that unique non parking system for the IS internals that also have a system of for lack of better terminology bumpers to allow for a degree of shock absorption. I wish I had access to the article I read from Canon that described this new tech in these lenses, but it's out there. So the type or amount of shock coupled with the possibilities of the run of glass used in those first run's of the lenses being somehow compromised is what I'm going on at this point. I seriously do NOT believe or feel the RF100-500 has inherent flaws or weaknesses that will down the line result in higher levels of repairs and such. Even Roger has said as much until he hears back from Canon as to what they feel caused these cracks in that early run of them that were shipped over a thousand times all over the place.

Once again I do NOT blame the lens in any way shape or form........certainly NOT those that are shipping newly manufactured since December.

I didn’t see any mention of bumpers in the lensrentals post, where are you getting this information from?

Also, what are you basing the assumption that the glass in the broken element was defective on?

I get it that you have faith in Canon and I know they are a reputable company but I personally won’t assume that there is nothing about the lens design that could make it less robust than previous models just because I want it to be true.

-- hide signature --

Some of my bird photos can be viewed here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/gregsbirds/

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow