Do Canon IS lenses park? Which ones? Ok if they don't?

#61
Yuenglinger has planted a seed that has turned out to be real. There aren't any reports of its failing in normal use, yet but 4 in transit does cause worries. Just checked returns to Canon Store UK
"We’ve extended returns over the Christmas period. For peace of mind, if you change your mind and would like to return your product, all orders placed from 1st to 31st December 2020 can be returned until 31st January 2021. Orders placed from 1st January 2021 will be subject to our 30-day returns policy."
I ordered early December so I can return it and the extender. Maybe I should before it's too late.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#62
AlanF said:
Just checked returns to Canon Store UK
"We’ve extended returns over the Christmas period. For peace of mind, if you change your mind and would like to return your product, all orders placed from 1st to 31st December 2020 can be returned until 31st January 2021. Orders placed from 1st January 2021 will be subject to our 30-day returns policy."
So, I can return it. Maybe I should? Yuenlinger's tenacious forensics are having an effect!
Click to expand...
It’s a tough call. If it was me personally, I would keep it knowing that I treat my lenses very gently and don’t go hiking with them or anything. If you feel you need a more rugged lens design for your usage I would definitely return it. An accidental drop (even with the lens in a camera bag) might be enough to damage the IS element. Having said that though, I can imagine a lens would be much more roughly treated during shipping than most people in normal use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#63
Chris.Chapterten said:
It’s a tough call. If it was me personally, I would keep it knowing that I treat my lenses very gently and don’t go hiking with them or anything. If you feel you need a more rugged lens design for your usage I would definitely return it. An accidental drop (even with the lens in a camera bag) might be enough to damage the IS element. Having said that though, I can imagine a lens would be much more roughly treated during shipping than most people in normal use.
Click to expand...
I too treat my lenses with respect. But, accidents happen. On the last day of our trip to the Pantanal I was sitting in the front passenger seat with the 7D/100-400mm (1st version) between my legs, lens pointed down when I dozed off and it slipped about 12 inches to the floor and broke the AF system. I still have the 100-400mm II as well as the 400mm DO II which work brilliantly but really like the weight of the 100-500mm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#65
Del Paso said:
Since , unlike Alan, I don't have a "backup" tele lens, I need an absolutely reliable lens when travelling abroad.
This excludes the 100-500 option.:cry:
Click to expand...
If anything happens at home, I have an embarrassing amount of back up, but like you, I need something really reliable when travelling. I am not travelling with the 100-500, accompanied by the 100-400mm as a back up!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#66
AlanF said:
Yuenglinger has planted a seed that has turned out to be real. There aren't any reports of its failing in normal use, yet but 4 in transit does cause worries. Just checked returns to Canon Store UK
"We’ve extended returns over the Christmas period. For peace of mind, if you change your mind and would like to return your product, all orders placed from 1st to 31st December 2020 can be returned until 31st January 2021. Orders placed from 1st January 2021 will be subject to our 30-day returns policy."
I ordered early December so I can return it and the extender. Maybe I should before it's too late.
Click to expand...

Thanks, AlanF. Your post including the link to the Canon UK interview definitely helped crystalize my thoughts and posts. Before that I held on to the fantasy of a parking mechanism being present but not activated.

And we should reasonably be challenging each other when somebody posts about problems. If we cannot convince other Canon users, how do we convince Canon?

My letter of last week to Canon is already out of date now that Roger has chimed in. Snail-mail! :rolleyes:

Also, I still believe that a potential exists for misalignment resulting from normal, careful handling. The extreme cases of the IS element shattering grab attention, but of course do not exclude other possible side-effects.

Most of us rarely ship our lens anywhere after purchase, but one (more) concern would be sending a 100-500mm in for repair for, say, AF, or some sand getting in, and so on--only to learn the IS element had been damaged in route to Canon. Or if we plan to sell the lens some day, a buyer might end up with an unpleasant surprise, as would the seller.

I'm not happy to hear this is a genuine problem! Even after shipping back the lens I began to wonder if I had been overreacting, and I was even tempted to reorder--because I missed the handling and quality of the lens so much. Like a sportscar with known issues, but so darn fun to drive!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#67
AlanF said:
If anything happens at home, I have an embarrassing amount of back up, but like you, I need something really reliable when travelling. I am not travelling with the 100-500, accompanied by the 100-400mm as a back up!
Click to expand...
Since I'm new to Canon, I don't have any previous lenses to use instead. And since I got my RF 100-500 in November, I can't return it. I'd get the 4 year CarePAK to protect it (it's within 90 days) but I've been hosed by an (unintentionally) incorrect "full USA warranty" claim during purchase and now know Canon USA will not honor that warranty for me even though they'd let me buy & pay for it now (I created a thread just for that topic whose link is mentioned in page 3 of this thread).

Soooo, I'm going to keep it, and use it. But it is still my favorite lens to use (for bird shots, or close up of flowers with huge background blur). I don't think I'll have a problem with it long term, especially since I know the issue.

Since the RF 70-200 f2.8L has the identical issue, I'm wondering if all the RF tele zooms (& possibly primes) coming out will have the same build and issue. After all, it takes a long time to get a lens to market and I would almost expect to see this same issue in many or most of the upcoming RF tele lenses.
 
  • Angry
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#68
YuengLinger said:
Thanks, AlanF. Your post including the link to the Canon UK interview definitely helped crystalize my thoughts and posts. Before that I held on to the fantasy of a parking mechanism being present but not activated.

And we should reasonably be challenging each other when somebody posts about problems. If we cannot convince other Canon users, how do we convince Canon?

My letter of last week to Canon is already out of date now that Roger has chimed in. Snail-mail! :rolleyes:

Also, I still believe that a potential exists for misalignment resulting from normal, careful handling. The extreme cases of the IS element shattering grab attention, but of course do not exclude other possible side-effects.

Most of us rarely ship our lens anywhere after purchase, but one (more) concern would be sending a 100-500mm in for repair for, say, AF, or some sand getting in, and so on--only to learn the IS element had been damaged in route to Canon. Or if we plan to sell the lens some day, a buyer might end up with an unpleasant surprise, as would the seller.

I'm not happy to hear this is a genuine problem! Even after shipping back the lens I began to wonder if I had been overreacting, and I was even tempted to reorder--because I missed the handling and quality of the lens so much. Like a sportscar with known issues, but so darn fun to drive!
Click to expand...
Full credit to you over this. I was sceptical at first but your determination has proven warranted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#69
usern4cr said:
Since I'm new to Canon, I don't have any previous lenses to use instead. And since I got my RF 100-500 in November, I can't return it. I'd get the 4 year CarePAK to protect it (it's within 90 days) but I've been hosed by an (unintentionally) incorrect "full USA warranty" claim during purchase and now know Canon USA will not honor that warranty for me even though they'd let me buy & pay for it now (I created a thread just for that topic whose link is mentioned in page 3 of this thread).

Soooo, I'm going to keep it, and use it. But it is still my favorite lens to use (for bird shots, or close up of flowers with huge background blur). I don't think I'll have a problem with it long term, especially since I know the issue.

Since the RF 70-200 f2.8L has the identical issue, I'm wondering if all the RF tele zooms (& possibly primes) coming out will have the same build and issue. After all, it takes a long time to get a lens to market and I would almost expect to see this same issue in many or most of the upcoming RF tele lenses.
Click to expand...

You can bet that I'm going to handle my 70-200mm gently. I've owned it many months now, but with events canceled, portrait sessions dreary, kids home to educate and entertain, I haven't been using it as intended--yet. I take it out for practice, just to stay fluid with it, but now I'm going to avoid using it for just fun, for some shorter replacement for my 100-500mm.

I can't worry about the shorter zooms. I just can't. I'll try to be more careful with them than I was with EF, and I think I was already babying them. But that's it.

How much weight could Canon have saved going without a parking mechanism for an optical IS system?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#70
YuengLinger said:
You can bet that I'm going to handle my 70-200mm gently. I've owned it many months now, but with events canceled, portrait sessions dreary, kids home to educate and entertain, I haven't been using it as intended--yet. I take it out for practice, just to stay fluid with it, but now I'm going to avoid using it for just fun, for some shorter replacement for my 100-500mm.

I can't worry about the shorter zooms. I just can't. I'll try to be more careful with them than I was with EF, and I think I was already babying them. But that's it.

How much weight could Canon have saved going without a parking mechanism for an optical IS system?
Click to expand...
I just wonder if this is a "new" IS design from the EF designs that have non-powered parking? I'd still be surprised to find out that there was an "easy way to park" that they just chose to not implement due to cost or weight savings. They've built this lens (& RF 70-200 f2.8L) to be bullet-proof in so many ways that I'd just be surprised that they made such a trivial choice in the wrong direction.
 
Upvote 0
#71
usern4cr said:
I just wonder if this is a "new" IS design from the EF designs that have non-powered parking? I'd still be surprised to find out that there was an "easy way to park" that they just chose to not implement due to cost or weight savings. They've built this lens (& RF 70-200 f2.8L) to be bullet-proof in so many ways that I'd just be surprised that they made such a trivial choice in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...

From what I've read, the non-powered parking EF/EF-M lenses use weak springs to keep it in place. I haven't come across a tear down showing them, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#72
usern4cr said:
I just wonder if this is a "new" IS design from the EF designs that have non-powered parking? I'd still be surprised to find out that there was an "easy way to park" that they just chose to not implement due to cost or weight savings. They've built this lens (& RF 70-200 f2.8L) to be bullet-proof in so many ways that I'd just be surprised that they made such a trivial choice in the wrong direction.
Click to expand...

Note that until three weeks ago, CPS in Virginia were not aware of this design change. It could be that if a problem exists with the 70-200mm it might show up over time with misalignment--but hasn't been raising alarms with unusual failure rates. But the 100-500mm might be more vulnerable to extreme damage. This might make Canon re-evaluate their decision about the parking mechanism.

We don't have enough data to do more than speculate, unfortunately. Hopefully Canon will respond with education long before any production change.

I think that a pattern of costly failures is generally what prompts a corporation to act. In the case of a lens that breaks during shipping, if there are enough, and the retailers are aware of a vulnerability, then Canon might get enough pressure from their distributors and merchants to take action.

Customers who speak out in forums such as CanonRumors and others are very important. It doesn't have to be Canon reading our posts to prompt change. If businesses like lensrentals and the Canon authorized dealers connect the dots, having been informed by members' posts, then our voices here are amplified.

Note that each CPS tech I talked to, and two lens "specialists" at B&H do read CR! One even said he checks in every week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#73
koenkooi said:
From what I've read, the non-powered parking EF/EF-M lenses use weak springs to keep it in place. I haven't come across a tear down showing them, though.
Click to expand...
Removing the weak springs would be one way in a new design for appreciably faster IS response and thus more stops of IS correction. That's exactly the type of thing I am assuming is the reason that this issue has come up.

But even then, I would think you could have a 2-way (bi-stable) micro servo parking mechanism so that a power pulse could "unlock" the IS lenses for operation and another pulse could "lock" them. When power is removed it stays that way since it is bi-stable. Of course size & weight issues exist, and it wouldn't surprise me that it was a consideration to do something like that, but it wasn't feasible enough at the small scale inside the IS lens unit.

A second way to do this is to have a powered "unlock" feature that will unlock the IS lenses when power was applied (when you are taking a picture and thus want the stabilization to be active). So when you're not taking a picture, or power is off or the lens is removed then the lock would apply since the stable design state has the lock applied. Of course the lock may be designed with a spring, and this spring mechanism may be what the EF lenses actually did. I don't know.

Note that either way works fine for normal photos. But for video the bi-stable design won't draw power while you're taking the long video - a major benefit!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#74
  • Wow
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#75
YuengLinger said:
Note that Roger Cicala has shared a photo he took of the IS element of an RF 100-500mm, apparently cracked during shipping. I didn't want to just copy and paste it here without his permission, so, if interested, you'll have to find it on page four of the DPR thread:

Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
Click to expand...
I didn't know you had to ask to copy an image from one public site to another as long as you gave proper credit to the author. Is that really the case? Otherwise it'd be good for others to see it here. At least it's a really obvious thing to see, and thus you'll know you don't have that problem.

Anyway, the main issue from the beginning is gradual misalignment. That's not something you're going to be able to see I bet.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#76
Canon would have done a ton of drop tests on the lens prior to release, and I doubt they saw any real issues. The design likely allows for protection from a drop from "x height" but I suspect the damage is due to repeated violent lateral movement.

The 4 cracked IS elements that Roger from LR reported all appeared to have happened in shipping while in the heavy foam of a Pelican case. I suspect the case and the foam are playing a role in the damage as there is little give in the foam.

The lateral movement of a car\truck going over a series of bumps would have the IS element slam side to side within the free space, and the more secure the lens is the more violent the force will be on the free moving element.

Until we see reports of the IS element cracking while in our Camera bags while out hiking I am not going to be to worried as I think the very nature of our bags will help distribute the bumps to allow for less violent lateral movements.

That said I am kind of shocked that Canon did not at least attempt the use case of lens in a Pelican type case as many production units use these cases for travel all the time. They might well of performed a drop test but it is the repeated side to side that I think is the main contributor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#77
usern4cr said:
I didn't know you had to ask to copy an image from one public site to another as long as you gave proper credit to the author. Is that really the case? Otherwise it'd be good for others to see it here. At least it's a really obvious thing to see, and thus you'll know you don't have that problem.

Anyway, the main issue from the beginning is gradual misalignment. That's not something you're going to be able to see I bet.
Click to expand...
They are still copyright, just like yours and my bird photos posted here! See - http://dunnerlaw.com/using-online-images-without-violating-copyright/ for example for discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#78
usern4cr said:
I didn't know you had to ask to copy an image from one public site to another as long as you gave proper credit to the author. Is that really the case? Otherwise it'd be good for others to see it here. At least it's a really obvious thing to see, and thus you'll know you don't have that problem.

Anyway, the main issue from the beginning is gradual misalignment. That's not something you're going to be able to see I bet.
Click to expand...
I got banned from Photo.net for posting an image from eBay even though I got the permission of the owner before posting it and forwarding that permission and the contact details of the copyright owner (it was from a listing for an FDn 200mm f1.8 the moderator said didn't exist). Mind you at the time the EOS moderator was a real jerk who I think used it as an excuse to get me banned, but his reason stood up to the editors.

But yes, direct copies without permission can be problematic and even illegal depending on the context they are used in, however there are educational and derivative work exceptions so it isn't as entirely clearcut as a one word 'NO' would suggest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#79
YuengLinger said:
Note that Roger Cicala has shared a photo he took of the IS element of an RF 100-500mm, apparently cracked during shipping. I didn't want to just copy and paste it here without his permission, so, if interested, you'll have to find it on page four of the DPR thread:

Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review (dpreview.com)
Click to expand...

Thx for sharing that... I was following that post the other day and that picture wasn't there yet. It's a bit funny... I actually pulled mine out to look for hairline cracks... not realizing the damage that they noticed as massively obvious/severe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#80
privatebydesign said:
I got banned from Photo.net for posting an image from eBay even though I got the permission of the owner before posting it and forwarding that permission and the contact details of the copyright owner (it was from a listing for an FDn 200mm f1.8 the moderator said didn't exist). Mind you at the time the EOS moderator was a real jerk who I think used it as an excuse to get me banned, but his reason stood up to the editors.

But yes, direct copies without permission can be problematic and even illegal depending on the context they are used in, however there are educational and derivative work exceptions so it isn't as entirely clearcut as a one word 'NO' would suggest.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the information, AlanF & privatebydesign.
Looks like I'll be copying links to the photographs (or to their threads if that's all that's possible) in the future.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
If you could only take one lens on a Botswana safari which lens would you choose?
Replies
16
Views
1K
john1970
J
TwoWheeler
Adapting Fuji X Mount to RF mount
Replies
3
Views
451
meywd
meywd
Canon Rumors
Report: The RF 200-500mm f/4L IS USM is delayed until 2025
Replies
46
Views
4K
upallnight
U
YuengLinger
Rf 24-105mm f/2.8L for sports?
Replies
1
Views
459
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
Canon Rumors
Canon plans to develop more lenses that no one has done before
Replies
182
Views
10K
Juangrande
J
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu