Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,806
Re: Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain

mbike999 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

mbike999 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

What good will it do me when I’m on a three week trip in the Andes? If Canon comes out and reports that the new design is just as reliable as the previous models then I will feel more confident about purchasing. Hopefully Canon will make some statement about the matter.

I guess.

This whole thread reminds me of iPhone "bendgate". When I bought my iPhone five years ago this seemed like a huge deal at the time, but after five years of ownership it's is still not bent, despite dropping it on the ground, sitting on it accidentally, and whatever other disastrous things I've done to it over the years. I just fail to see why you think it's a design flaw when so many other lens optics share the design and it hasn't resulted in countless catastrophic failures.

I never said it’s a design flaw, but then you already knew that. What I will be doing is holding off on purchasing until some explanation is given from Canon. I wasn’t even planning on buying this lens in the immediate future anyway so the reality is that little has changed for me. My plan was to buy in November or December when they might possibly go on sale. I will definitely be watching for any information from Canon about this issue and watch for any information about failures. At this point, we the end users know very little. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to wait and see what comes to light in the next few months, especially since I have other lenses that can serve the same purpose already. If that makes me chicken little then cluck cluck cluck.

Haha. No worries...the waiting game is always the safe bet to work out the kinks if there are any.

For what it's worth, I just did a forum search on "Lens rattle" and there's so many concerned posts where people asked the same question about lenses that have floating OIS elements or even floating focus motors - for example I just checked my Sony 20mm F/1.8, actually rattles/thunks in a similar way when not connected to a powered camera, and it doesn't even have OIS.

I know I’m a little rough on gear.  I’ve noticed several times after going down some very rough roads that my previously parked IS unit in my 100mm L macro has gotten knocked out of park mode.  I’m guessing that’s more abuse than most users will subject their gear to so I’m probably more interested in this than most.  I sent plenty of gear into Canon for repair over the years so I do want to go for the more robust products when there’s a choice.

-- hide signature --

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

Huntin4photos Contributing Member • Posts: 526
Re: Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain

mbike999 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

mbike999 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

What good will it do me when I’m on a three week trip in the Andes? If Canon comes out and reports that the new design is just as reliable as the previous models then I will feel more confident about purchasing. Hopefully Canon will make some statement about the matter.

I guess.

This whole thread reminds me of iPhone "bendgate". When I bought my iPhone five years ago this seemed like a huge deal at the time, but after five years of ownership it's is still not bent, despite dropping it on the ground, sitting on it accidentally, and whatever other disastrous things I've done to it over the years. I just fail to see why you think it's a design flaw when so many other lens optics share the design and it hasn't resulted in countless catastrophic failures.

I never said it’s a design flaw, but then you already knew that. What I will be doing is holding off on purchasing until some explanation is given from Canon. I wasn’t even planning on buying this lens in the immediate future anyway so the reality is that little has changed for me. My plan was to buy in November or December when they might possibly go on sale. I will definitely be watching for any information from Canon about this issue and watch for any information about failures. At this point, we the end users know very little. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to wait and see what comes to light in the next few months, especially since I have other lenses that can serve the same purpose already. If that makes me chicken little then cluck cluck cluck.

Haha. No worries...the waiting game is always the safe bet to work out the kinks if there are any.

For what it's worth, I just did a forum search on "Lens rattle" and there's so many concerned posts where people asked the same question about lenses that have floating OIS elements or even floating focus motors - for example I just checked my Sony 20mm F/1.8, actually rattles/thunks in a similar way when not connected to a powered camera, and it doesn't even have OIS.

yes . most clearly when not properly shut down and locked in the other cases cited in the other posts and threads that I have seen, but I would think now that now I have figured out who Roger is, that his crew would know how to shut down and lock any and all Canon lenses by now before shipping them out [ or well, may be not ?].

I would be very surprised, indeed shocked, if they have not the knowledge and reading his posts in this thread, clearly mandates the conclusion that they do know how to do it. and did it.

ProDude Senior Member • Posts: 2,356
Won't It Be Interesting

Huntin4photos wrote:

yes . most clearly when not properly shut down and locked in the other cases cited in the other posts and threads that I have seen, but I would think that I have figured now I have figured out who Roger is, that his crew would know how to shut down and lock any and all Canon lenses by now before shipping them out [ or well, may be not ?].

I would be very surprised, indeed shocked, if they have not the knowledge and reading his posts in this thread, clearly mandates the conclusion that they do know how to do it.

to see a year from now if this problem ends up very isolated or a rampant issue. I'm better on the former. I have to believe that after allowing preliminary copies to be in the field and tested that they wouldn't note such issues. Many of their folks around the world they release early production copies to for testing ARE in fact those in Africa on safari's, folks who do landscapes in far off places, action shooters and more. All had their hands on this lens at some point prior to when it was officially released. So I have to believe this is a spontaneous issue and not something typical of it's performance in the wild. Drop lenses and all bets are off. Nothing too shocking there.

-- hide signature --

Name the gear and I've probably owned it and used it.

 ProDude's gear list:ProDude's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM +17 more
Huntin4photos Contributing Member • Posts: 526
Re: Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain

mbike999 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

mbike999 wrote:

jl_smith wrote:

mbike999 wrote:

BirdShooter7 wrote:

What good will it do me when I’m on a three week trip in the Andes? If Canon comes out and reports that the new design is just as reliable as the previous models then I will feel more confident about purchasing. Hopefully Canon will make some statement about the matter.

I guess.

This whole thread reminds me of iPhone "bendgate". When I bought my iPhone five years ago this seemed like a huge deal at the time, but after five years of ownership it's is still not bent, despite dropping it on the ground, sitting on it accidentally, and whatever other disastrous things I've done to it over the years. I just fail to see why you think it's a design flaw when so many other lens optics share the design and it hasn't resulted in countless catastrophic failures.

Bendgate was real. Many examples of free replaced phones or free repairs from Apple . My under 2-yr-old iphone bent and I was very careful with it.
different use cases result in different reaults

The point is that just because some users report an alleged issue doesn't mean it's a widespread defect or design flaw requiring a recall. I'm not trying to give Canon a pass if there does prove to be an issue down the road, but this is premature.

Actually, from reading the original post, it’s not a defect. The lens is designed to function this way. The question is, what are the implications with respect to reliability, if any. Roger Cicala reports having seen some breakages. It’s a limited data set, definitely doesn’t seem like enough to come to any conclusions but it has caught my attention since I do eventually hope to own this lens and others that will likely share the same technology. I think it would be great if Canon would share with us the benefits of this new design and make some statement on how if affects reliability. We’ll see if they do. I know if they did it would make me much more confident to purchase or at least better informed about what alternative product to use (like the EF 100-400 mk2) or some other forthcoming lens with more robust build...

Apparently the 600 mk III rattles too...but it sounds like that's only when it's disengaged without "parking it"

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/64491821

I was poking around and noticed Canon posted this topic below that they updated in 2019. Maybe someone can send them a note and ask them to update it with regards to the RF 70-200 and 100-500.

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/learn/education/topics/article/2019/august/whats-that-rattling-sound-from-your-image-stabilized-lens/whats-that-rattling-sound-from-your-image-stabilized-lens

Seems reasonable to me.

RCicala
RCicala Contributing Member • Posts: 755
Re: Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain
4

jl_smith wrote:

Fair enough. I’m also hesitant to think this is systemic, otherwise we’d see way more press. Wonder if Lensrentals has numbers on how many total trips their lenses made vs the 4 breaks to give a ratio

Well over 1,000 shipments, so it's not a common occurrence, it's just something we haven't seen before.

traderjay
traderjay Regular Member • Posts: 464
Re: Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain

You guys do know that the sensor on the r5 also rattles and don't park in a static position right? The manual did warn not to expose the camera to excessive shock.

-- hide signature --

Workstations - EPYC 7702 + 3950X || ASUS Strix RTX 3090OC || Canon imagePROGRAF Pro-1000

 traderjay's gear list:traderjay's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Canon RF 28-70mm F2L USM Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM DxO Optics Pro Elite +1 more
mbike999
mbike999 Senior Member • Posts: 1,087
Re: Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain

RCicala wrote:

jl_smith wrote:

Fair enough. I’m also hesitant to think this is systemic, otherwise we’d see way more press. Wonder if Lensrentals has numbers on how many total trips their lenses made vs the 4 breaks to give a ratio

Well over 1,000 shipments, so it's not a common occurrence, it's just something we haven't seen before.

Were the lenses returned to Canon? If so, what did they say about it?

-- hide signature --
Huntin4photos Contributing Member • Posts: 526
Re: Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain

traderjay wrote:

You guys do know that the sensor on the r5 also rattles and don't park in a static position right? The manual did warn not to expose the camera to excessive shock.

What? Do Nikon and Sony have similar issues and/Or warnings?

What is "excessive shock"?
Dropping it from 500 feet onto concrete?

Letting it bounce on the couch as you sit down?

Bouncing down a country road?

Huntin4photos Contributing Member • Posts: 526
Re: Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain

RCicala wrote:

jl_smith wrote:

Fair enough. I’m also hesitant to think this is systemic, otherwise we’d see way more press. Wonder if Lensrentals has numbers on how many total trips their lenses made vs the 4 breaks to give a ratio

Well over 1,000 shipments, so it's not a common occurrence, it's just something we haven't seen before.

A thousand shipments sounds like a very high volume business. The percentage would be about
.04%.
However in terms of probability compared to how
many thousands of shipments over how many years without this problem with other Canon lens is zero.

THEREFORE the propensity, even at .04 for failure should be a BIG red flag warning.

Then there is the R5 excessive shock. I vaguely remembered that and thought it meant electrical shock.
Silly me again.

I am not a Canon user by choice or consideration of merit nor fan of Nikon or Sony. I began using Canon as the result of a gift from my grandparents in the mid-sixties while I was in high school. I was and remain too lazy to study other makes and products. Tough enough just keeping track of Canon.
If the gift had been a Nikon, then in all likelihood, I would be using Nikon.

The only time I had similar angst was during the first years of production of the 1Ds mk.iii with oily mirror and alignment issues but this was clearly a quality control issue, not the result of a deliberate design to save $$$$ and a few ounces of weight.
So I waited several years to buy a used second hand that had a recent Canon service check.
The price was small compared to the introductory price of $8k.
One of my best buys along with the Magic Drainpipe that beat out the 70-200mm f2.8 IS that I rented for motogp races, specifically the race won by Nicki Hayden. I have lost track of how many were very impressed by images from the Magic, while those from the 70-200 were very sedate. Like cant u adjust it? What happened?

Leigh A. Wax Senior Member • Posts: 1,288
Re: Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain

RCicala wrote:

jl_smith wrote:

Fair enough. I’m also hesitant to think this is systemic, otherwise we’d see way more press. Wonder if Lensrentals has numbers on how many total trips their lenses made vs the 4 breaks to give a ratio

Well over 1,000 shipments, so it's not a common occurrence, it's just something we haven't seen before.

Is this anomaly something that a "User" can readily detect, or is it a hair-line crack that doesn't effect operation, and can only be observed with disassembly of the lens?

RCicala
RCicala Contributing Member • Posts: 755
Re: Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain
9

Leigh A. Wax wrote:

Is this anomaly something that a "User" can readily detect, or is it a hair-line crack that doesn't effect operation, and can only be observed with disassembly of the lens?

I'm pretty comfortable the user would notice it

mbike999
mbike999 Senior Member • Posts: 1,087
Re: Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain

RCicala wrote:

Leigh A. Wax wrote:

Is this anomaly something that a "User" can readily detect, or is it a hair-line crack that doesn't effect operation, and can only be observed with disassembly of the lens?

I'm pretty comfortable the user would notice it

Wow. I can't imagine the forces that lens must have experienced unless the element truly is super fragile.

Can we say with certainty that resulted from shipment? It seems like the most likely scenario I guess.

-- hide signature --
OP QSMcDraw Forum Member • Posts: 69
Re: Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain
2

Thank you, Roger, for sharing the photo of the cracked IS element.  I'm one of many big fans of your teardowns, and I've learned a lot about the basics of lens construction from them.

When I started talking to CPS, and started a thread on Canon Rumors, I was sharing concerns about gradual misalignment of the IS element!

I never posted to declare that the RF 100-500mm is anything less than a wonderful lens--but a "rugged" lens is only as rugged as its weakest part.

I simply want Canon to explain why parking the IS element is no longer necessary.  Hard drive read-heads are still parked.  Has something changed with IS elements?  Apparently they haven't been hardened, or given a sufficiently impact-absorbing collar to knock against.

Some of the most compelling replies in this thread, in my opinion, have been from those who want a Canon L-series wildlife lens that has the expected, customary toughness we have seen for several generations of IS lenses.  Why?  Because they plan to bring those lenses on a few-in-a-lifetime amazing trips to remote locations and not worry about coddling the lens!

I am cheered to hear that from your experience, normal use (which might be hard to precisely define) doesn't seem to result in the IS element cracking, but I'd still like to know about the chances of the element being bumped out of proper alignment over time.  I had expected to hike about 15-20 miles a week with it, something that has not affected my Ef lenses with IS (as far as I know).

ProDude Senior Member • Posts: 2,356
Re: Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain

mbike999 wrote:

RCicala wrote:

Leigh A. Wax wrote:

Is this anomaly something that a "User" can readily detect, or is it a hair-line crack that doesn't effect operation, and can only be observed with disassembly of the lens?

I'm pretty comfortable the user would notice it

Wow. I can't imagine the forces that lens must have experienced unless the element truly is super fragile.

Can we say with certainty that resulted from shipment? It seems like the most likely scenario I guess.

Yeah those elements are NOT paper thin to begin with . That had to be some kind of whack to do that damage. It most certainly did NOT happen on it's own.

-- hide signature --

Name the gear and I've probably owned it and used it.

 ProDude's gear list:ProDude's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM +17 more
OP QSMcDraw Forum Member • Posts: 69
Re: Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain
1

mbike999 wrote:

Wow. I can't imagine the forces that lens must have experienced unless the element truly is super fragile.

Can we say with certainty that resulted from shipment? It seems like the most likely scenario I guess.

I'm not sure the forces were unimaginable, as the the other elements do not appear damaged. What I can imagine is that the IS element of the Rf 100-500mm has a lot of travel room, a wide gap, for the IS element to get banged, bounced, and knocked around within its restraining collar.  After all, it is a moving part made of glass, and allowed to bounce around freely when the lens is not powered.

This is precisely why I sent the lens back to the retailer while still within my return window.  Canon made a change that not even their repair centers were aware of, and I want to know more before re-ordering.

I would be surprised if the IS element itself is "super fragile" compared to previous generations, though maybe Canon did get carried away with weight-saving measures... Instead, it might be a typical IS element that is getting banged very hard from whiplash like movements that a parking mechanism could prevent--as previous generation Canon super-telephoto IS lenses have had.

mbike999
mbike999 Senior Member • Posts: 1,087
Re: Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain

QSMcDraw wrote:

mbike999 wrote:

Wow. I can't imagine the forces that lens must have experienced unless the element truly is super fragile.

Can we say with certainty that resulted from shipment? It seems like the most likely scenario I guess.

I'm not sure the forces were unimaginable, as the the other elements do not appear damaged. What I can imagine is that the IS element of the Rf 100-500mm has a lot of travel room, a wide gap, for the IS element to get banged, bounced, and knocked around within its restraining collar. After all, it is a moving part made of glass, and allowed to bounce around freely when the lens is not powered.

This is precisely why I sent the lens back to the retailer while still within my return window. Canon made a change that not even their repair centers were aware of, and I want to know more before re-ordering.

I would be surprised if the IS element itself is "super fragile" compared to previous generations, though maybe Canon did get carried away with weight-saving measures... Instead, it might be a typical IS element that is getting banged very hard from whiplash like movements that a parking mechanism could prevent--as previous generation Canon super-telephoto IS lenses have had.

Well the other possibility is a glass defect. It wouldn't be unheard of for glass to crack when exposed to extreme changes in atmospheric pressure or temperature during international shipping for example. That's why I'm curious to hear what Canon has to say about it.

-- hide signature --
ProDude Senior Member • Posts: 2,356
Re: Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain

QSMcDraw wrote:

mbike999 wrote:

Wow. I can't imagine the forces that lens must have experienced unless the element truly is super fragile.

Can we say with certainty that resulted from shipment? It seems like the most likely scenario I guess.

I'm not sure the forces were unimaginable, as the the other elements do not appear damaged. What I can imagine is that the IS element of the Rf 100-500mm has a lot of travel room, a wide gap, for the IS element to get banged, bounced, and knocked around within its restraining collar. After all, it is a moving part made of glass, and allowed to bounce around freely when the lens is not powered.

This is precisely why I sent the lens back to the retailer while still within my return window. Canon made a change that not even their repair centers were aware of, and I want to know more before re-ordering.

I would be surprised if the IS element itself is "super fragile" compared to previous generations, though maybe Canon did get carried away with weight-saving measures... Instead, it might be a typical IS element that is getting banged very hard from whiplash like movements that a parking mechanism could prevent--as previous generation Canon super-telephoto IS lenses have had.

Personally I believe there is a distinct connection regarding the fact they originally released it earlier in the summer with shipments. The by August it was literally unavailable and no shipments occurred for about 5 months. Surely they must have become aware of some weaknesses in the original production and perhaps made some adjustments in design/production for the newer release in latter December of the new lenses. I got one on literally the first new shipments late in December. Mine is just fine and I'd be the first to say it isn't likely to be dropped, banged or otherwise molested in any way. I'm near OCD when it comes to my gear. It's either kept in it's carry bag and a backpack prior to mount or is in a padded holster bag when in use. NO straps for me thanks. It's a marvelous lens surgically sharp and instant to focus. I'm not about to jeopardize it's longevity.

-- hide signature --

Name the gear and I've probably owned it and used it.

 ProDude's gear list:ProDude's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM +17 more
Huntin4photos Contributing Member • Posts: 526
Re: Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain

Well accidents will happen unless one lives in a vacuum without any kids and never ventures out. But as I learned even in the home, a dangling camera strap can be enough....

Neverthess most of this is speculating and Canon may refuse to disclose its secrets about this issue or be misleading about it.

But if the case was not crushed or damaged at all and packaging was not damaged nor other damage found such as a cracked or scarred lens body, then something major here "Just aint right".
What exactly would require forensic analysis even potentially destructive testing as a two gs of force is not that high and should be expected to be encountered regularly.

Huntin4photos Contributing Member • Posts: 526
Re: Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain

Huntin4photos wrote:

Well accidents will happen unless one lives in a vacuum without any kids and never ventures out. But as I learned even in the home, a dangling camera strap can be enough....

Neverthess most of this is speculating and Canon may refuse to disclose its secrets about this issue or be misleading about it.

But if the case was not crushed or damaged at all and packaging was not damaged nor other damage found such as a cracked or scarred lens body, then something major here "Just aint right".
What exactly would require forensic analysis even potentially destructive testing as a two gs of force is not that high and should be expected to be encountered regularly despite the comment that the accelerometer typically showed 2gs as not unusual but unlikely to produce the same result in a car or other usual activities.

Indeed roller coasters and slamming on car brakes appear to create upwards of 3 to 5 gs. F1 cars are upwards of 6 or more gs when braking.
These are
Far higher gs than what was occaisionally found during the shipping of lens as a reported but a 2 to 4 foot fall would produce these measurements.

Two feet to three feet jumping from one height to another is not unusual for mountain hiking with a backpack as i have experienced. The impact suffeicentbto damage the wheel rims on my f250 were probably in the range of 6 to 7 gs. . Glad i did not have a 100-500mm where the is unit could have travelled the distance internally in a straight or parallel direction to the force or it would probably have looked like the photo.
Just saying.

ProDude Senior Member • Posts: 2,356
Re: Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain

Huntin4photos wrote:

Huntin4photos wrote:

Well accidents will happen unless one lives in a vacuum without any kids and never ventures out. But as I learned even in the home, a dangling camera strap can be enough....

Neverthess most of this is speculating and Canon may refuse to disclose its secrets about this issue or be misleading about it.

But if the case was not crushed or damaged at all and packaging was not damaged nor other damage found such as a cracked or scarred lens body, then something major here "Just aint right".
What exactly would require forensic analysis even potentially destructive testing as a two gs of force is not that high and should be expected to be encountered regularly despite the comment that the accelerometer typically showed 2gs as not unusual but unlikely to produce the same result in a car or other usual activities.

Indeed roller coasters and slamming on car brakes appear to create upwards of 3 to 5 gs. F1 cars are upwards of 6 or more gs when braking.
These are
Far higher gs than what was occaisionally found during the shipping of lens as a reported but a 2 to 4 foot fall would produce these measurements.

Two feet to three feet jumping from one height to another is not unusual for mountain hiking with a backpack as i have experienced. The impact suffeicentbto damage the wheel rims on my f250 were probably in the range of 6 to 7 gs. . Glad i did not have a 100-500mm where the is unit could have travelled the distance internally in a straight or parallel direction to the force or it would probably have looked like the photo.
Just saying.

Sounds like you need to wear padded clothing and stick with a non IS prime lens and just forget about it. You're just digging for more excuses why it's ok to abuse gear. Like everyone has dangling straps and loves to slam their gear around. Perhaps a small Olympus camera is a better bet and not the exchangeable lens type.

-- hide signature --

Name the gear and I've probably owned it and used it.

 ProDude's gear list:ProDude's gear list
Canon EOS R5 Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG HSM Art Sigma 105mm F1.4 DG HSM Art Canon RF 24-70mm F2.8L IS USM Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM +17 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads