RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C

Started 3 months ago | Discussions
MannyV
MannyV Contributing Member • Posts: 711
RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C
1

https://petapixel.com/2021/01/22/mystery-different-canon-rf-100-500mm-lenses-similarly-cracking/

Hope this only happened in one batch and gets resolved.

-- hide signature --

Manny
Still draft and working towards it - https://www.digitalphoto.work

R2D2 Forum Pro • Posts: 22,608
Re: RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C
1

Here’s a direct link to Lensrental’s blog...

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2021/01/the-secret-of-the-broken-element-a-canon-rf-100-500mm-f4-7-7-1-teardown/

I have an early copy too (love it BTW), so fingers crossed!

R2

-- hide signature --

Good judgment comes from experience.
Experience comes from bad judgment.
http://www.pbase.com/jekyll_and_hyde/galleries

 R2D2's gear list:R2D2's gear list
Canon EOS M6 Canon EOS M6 II Canon EOS R5
ProDude Senior Member • Posts: 2,211
Re: RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C

R2D2 wrote:

Here’s a direct link to Lensrental’s blog...

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2021/01/the-secret-of-the-broken-element-a-canon-rf-100-500mm-f4-7-7-1-teardown/

I have an early copy too (love it BTW), so fingers crossed!

R2

I have a most recent run as there was about a 5 month lapse in production of this model. I hope to have dodged the bullet on whatever may have been a bad run of lens elements that were a bit more prone towards this issue. However if one never drops or continually ships their lens it's a near not gonna happen chance of this issue happening. If you read the article it was with early production lenses, and it happened to 4 of well over a thousand that were shipped many times all over the place. Frankly the likelihood of that happening in those kinds of numbers is already reasonably high. Ever watch how UPS or FedX often handle ground shipments? They are thrashed through a conveyer system and thrown on and off planes or trucks daily. I don't care how you pack something, it's going to be subject to significant G forces at that point. That's assuming it's not getting literally kicked off a truck as we've all seen on some Youtube video's in the past.

The dealer I got mine from had a large multi lens package come from Canon to him, then he wrapped the entire lens box in multiple layers of bubble wrap, and sent it "next day" delivery which is handled considerably nicer in the first place. It got to me without so much as a smudge on the box, just the way I like it. I learned a long time ago this is the best way to send sensitive equipment. It has served me well now for nearly 20 years of purchasing.

-- 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
Calibur Forum Member • Posts: 76
Re: RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C
1

ProDude wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Here’s a direct link to Lensrental’s blog...

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2021/01/the-secret-of-the-broken-element-a-canon-rf-100-500mm-f4-7-7-1-teardown/

I have an early copy too (love it BTW), so fingers crossed!

R2

I have a most recent run as there was about a 5 month lapse in production of this model. I hope to have dodged the bullet on whatever may have been a bad run of lens elements that were a bit more prone towards this issue. However if one never drops or continually ships their lens it's a near not gonna happen chance of this issue happening. If you read the article it was with early production lenses, and it happened to 4 of well over a thousand that were shipped many times all over the place. Frankly the likelihood of that happening in those kinds of numbers is already reasonably high. Ever watch how UPS or FedX often handle ground shipments? They are thrashed through a conveyer system and thrown on and off planes or trucks daily. I don't care how you pack something, it's going to be subject to significant G forces at that point. That's assuming it's not getting literally kicked off a truck as we've all seen on some Youtube video's in the past.

The dealer I got mine from had a large multi lens package come from Canon to him, then he wrapped the entire lens box in multiple layers of bubble wrap, and sent it "next day" delivery which is handled considerably nicer in the first place. It got to me without so much as a smudge on the box, just the way I like it. I learned a long time ago this is the best way to send sensitive equipment. It has served me well now for nearly 20 years of purchasing.

Lensrental's packaging is significant, far more protective than manufacturer packaging. Every lens comes in an oversized pelican case with full padding and the lens in a padded cased within the case. I'm always surprised at how giant and heavy the box is vs the size/weight of what I rent.

ProDude Senior Member • Posts: 2,211
Re: RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C

Calibur wrote:

ing. Every lens comes in an oversized pelican case with full padding and the lens in a padded cased within the case. I'm always surprised at how giant and heavy the box is vs the size/weight of what I rent.

I get that. But are their shipments sent "Next Day Priority" as well? Different handling in the first place, just a thought.

-- 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
BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,406
Re: RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C
2

ProDude wrote:

R2D2 wrote:

Here’s a direct link to Lensrental’s blog...

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2021/01/the-secret-of-the-broken-element-a-canon-rf-100-500mm-f4-7-7-1-teardown/

I have an early copy too (love it BTW), so fingers crossed!

R2

I have a most recent run as there was about a 5 month lapse in production of this model. I hope to have dodged the bullet on whatever may have been a bad run of lens elements that were a bit more prone towards this issue. However if one never drops or continually ships their lens it's a near not gonna happen chance of this issue happening. If you read the article it was with early production lenses, and it happened to 4 of well over a thousand that were shipped many times all over the place. Frankly the likelihood of that happening in those kinds of numbers is already reasonably high. Ever watch how UPS or FedX often handle ground shipments? They are thrashed through a conveyer system and thrown on and off planes or trucks daily. I don't care how you pack something, it's going to be subject to significant G forces at that point. That's assuming it's not getting literally kicked off a truck as we've all seen on some Youtube video's in the past.

The dealer I got mine from had a large multi lens package come from Canon to him, then he wrapped the entire lens box in multiple layers of bubble wrap, and sent it "next day" delivery which is handled considerably nicer in the first place. It got to me without so much as a smudge on the box, just the way I like it. I learned a long time ago this is the best way to send sensitive equipment. It has served me well now for nearly 20 years of purchasing.

If you don’t understand what the actual cause of the problem is you can’t really know any of this.  I agree that it seems unlikely that anyone would experience this problem but at the same time I think it’s foolish to just dismiss it.

-- hide signature --

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

Huntin4photos Contributing Member • Posts: 519
Re: RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C

"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.

Leigh A. Wax Senior Member • Posts: 1,231
Re: RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C

Talk is cheap, and so are assumptions, but the positive aspect, thanks to R. C., & Lens Rentals, is that Canon is aware of it, and they know that "we're" aware of it, so any denial of Warranty will hopefully be "off the table".

bernie r
bernie r Regular Member • Posts: 307
Re: RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C

Well, I'm glad I never bought this lens...

-- hide signature --

Camera:
Canon EOS R5
Canon RF 15-35 2.8
Canon RF 28-70 2
Canon EF 70-200 2.8
Canon EF 500 f/4 L IS II USM + 1.4X III
Sigma 105 1.4 DG HSM Art
Stuff:
Gitzo Fluid Gimbal Head
Gitzo GT4543LS Systematic Series 4 Carbon eXact Long Tripod
Benro Mach3 TMA38CL Carbon Fibre Tripod
Benro G3 Ball Head

ProDude Senior Member • Posts: 2,211
Re: RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C

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.

-- 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
ProDude Senior Member • Posts: 2,211
Re: RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C
3

bernie r wrote:

Well, I'm glad I never bought this lens...

I guess your own paranoia and false assumptions will be glad to rob you of some enjoyable images you might otherwise have gotten with this lens. There are certainly plenty of us out there enjoying it and NOT damaging them nor seeing any issues with them. 4 out of 1000+ and from first run manufacture is hardly some determining factor of reliability.

-- 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: 519
Re: RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C

bernie r wrote:

Well, I'm glad I never bought this lens...

I am glad that I first  got a cheaper gray market and sold it as I had great experiences with the ef100-400 starting several year before an R5 got into my hands plus I was motivated for the lens you list Rf28-70 in your post and needed some cash to cover my butt with the Ms.

Looking back, that lens could have been one of those "first runs" with defects. Plus gray market meantt no USA warranty.     So....better lucky than smart.

In any event , the Rf 28-70mm is great and worth every penny that i paid a few months back while the supplies were more  plentiful.

But seeing people on Ebay asking 3k, 4k and 5k for it, with auctions going over 3.2k for it,  I  am tempted to sell it for a profit and wait till the supply is no longer so limited.

Or probably not.

bernie r
bernie r Regular Member • Posts: 307
Re: RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C

Huntin4photos wrote:

bernie r wrote:

Well, I'm glad I never bought this lens...

I am glad that I first got a cheaper gray market and sold it as I had great experiences with the ef100-400 starting several year before an R5 got into my hands plus I was motivated for the lens you list Rf28-70 in your post and needed some cash to cover my butt with the Ms.

Looking back, that lens could have been one of those "first runs" with defects. Plus gray market meantt no USA warranty. So....better lucky than smart.

In any event , the Rf 28-70mm is great and worth every penny that i paid a few months back while the supplies were more plentiful.

But seeing people on Ebay asking 3k, 4k and 5k for it, with auctions going over 3.2k for it, I am tempted to sell it for a profit and wait till the supply is no longer so limited.

Or probably not.

I use my 28-70 for basically everything but wildlife

-- hide signature --

Camera:
Canon EOS R5
Canon RF 15-35 2.8
Canon RF 28-70 2
Canon EF 70-200 2.8
Canon EF 500 f/4 L IS II USM + 1.4X III
Sigma 105 1.4 DG HSM Art
Stuff:
Gitzo Fluid Gimbal Head
Gitzo GT4543LS Systematic Series 4 Carbon eXact Long Tripod
Benro Mach3 TMA38CL Carbon Fibre Tripod
Benro G3 Ball Head

bernie r
bernie r Regular Member • Posts: 307
Re: RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C
1

ProDude wrote:

bernie r wrote:

Well, I'm glad I never bought this lens...

I guess your own paranoia and false assumptions will be glad to rob you of some enjoyable images you might otherwise have gotten with this lens. There are certainly plenty of us out there enjoying it and NOT damaging them nor seeing any issues with them. 4 out of 1000+ and from first run manufacture is hardly some determining factor of reliability.

What images I would've gotten with the lens? I'll stick to the images I get with my current 500, thanks.

-- hide signature --

Camera:
Canon EOS R5
Canon RF 15-35 2.8
Canon RF 28-70 2
Canon EF 70-200 2.8
Canon EF 500 f/4 L IS II USM + 1.4X III
Sigma 105 1.4 DG HSM Art
Stuff:
Gitzo Fluid Gimbal Head
Gitzo GT4543LS Systematic Series 4 Carbon eXact Long Tripod
Benro Mach3 TMA38CL Carbon Fibre Tripod
Benro G3 Ball Head

ProDude Senior Member • Posts: 2,211
Re: RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C

bernie r wrote:

I'll stick to the images I get with my current 500, thanks.

Yeah that's hardly a lens to complain about. Good on you

-- 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: 519
Re: RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C

Bernie r.

I tend to use my old ef 24-70mm, the one that did the nosedive that would still shoot somewhar and was repaired a number of years ago about as much as the 28-70mm. R5 gave it new life.

I think one reason is a concern that it might not be that tough, given the 100-500mm recent incidents. But the larger reason is the rf24-240mm that works from up close and wide at 24mm out to 240mm giving good to great results, plus being less likely to miss the various opportunities with the wide range.

If I were told I could only use one lens , for all use forever, it would probably be the 24-240mm since I shoot a lot of wild ducks and birds as well as up close with family and such.

But the 28-70mm is special for those special events. I would hate to be forced to choose.

Huntin4photos Contributing Member • Posts: 519
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.

Shock absorbers strikes as a solid preventive measure.  I wonder about Sony? Was it tough lens or mucho money and free equipmenf that put those Sony cameras around Schultz's neck?

Was  It an AP requirement or Shultz' s choice?

BirdShooter7 Veteran Member • Posts: 6,406
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/

ProDude Senior Member • Posts: 2,211
Re: RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C

BirdShooter7 wrote:

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.

I know they didn't mention any shock absorbers in their tear down as I happened to read in a tech Canon description some time ago. Wish I'd saved a link but I didn't. I DO know for a FACT that lenses such as the 50mm f1.2 and 85mm f1.2 do in fact have extra measures taken so that the elements are not shocked out of place or decentered.

Personally you won't get ME to insinuate that the elements of the RF100-500 are in any way "defective" in their design. I'll maintain it may have either been a weakness from manufacture from the early batch or is an anomaly based upon the horrid handling those poor 4 measly copies out of the 1000+ that were shipped all over the place by LR got. End of my story. I'm not the least bit concerned.

-- 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
1Dx4me Forum Pro • Posts: 10,962
Re: RF 100-500mm multiple lens crack - Roger C

MannyV wrote:

https://petapixel.com/2021/01/22/mystery-different-canon-rf-100-500mm-lenses-similarly-cracking/

Hope this only happened in one batch and gets resolved.

well, if this is a real flaw of this lens at this price, i think canon should recall it and refund the money to the owners! but then again, canon or any other corporation wouldn't admit to their wrong doings in history! i am glad i haven't invested in R5 or RF lenses, yet, perhaps till the end of summer season!

-- hide signature --

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads