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

#81
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...

A few years ago I did an experiment where I sourced all images for a technical presentation from the internet and contacted the copyright owners if there wasn't a clear license specified (about half of the images :cautious:). A big part of the copyright owners were really surprised at being contacted, they assumed that any image on the internet was fair game and were happy to grant me permission to use their images. Practically speaking they are right, which is a shame for people who make a living from creating their creations.
In the end it took me a lot more time and effort to deal with the images than right write the actual text for the presentation :)

There also seems to be a cultural difference between parts of the internet, on some parts a complete post gets re-shared, in other parts only the content gets re-shared. When those run into eachother you get a lot of "Why aren't you happy we shared your work?" confusion.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#82
I posted this elsewhere but it is important (like all my posts ;)) so I am reposting here.

Experiment on IS parking of 100-400mm II vs 100-500mm.
Remove 100-400mm II from 5DSR - parked whether camera was on or off.
Remove 100-400mm II from 5R - parked when camera had been turned off. Rattles loudly when camera was left on and IS unit shakes from side to side.
RF 100-500mm - rattles with a muffled sound when off the camera.
Conclusions. 100-500mm has (rubber) shock absorber to protect unparked IS unit against damage.
100-400mm II doesn't have the protection when removed from R5 when on so make sure the camera is off when removing lens.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Upvote 0
#83
Very important info posted by Roger Cicala after stripping down one of the broken lenses.

"The cracks we see are NOT in the IS unit, they are in the front focusing group. Looking through the lens the cracks seem to move with the IS unit when we shook it, because optics and all. But the IS units, while not parkable, seem very sturdy. We literally rattled it in our hands as hard as we could and it cared not.

Now why the front focusing element cracked, I do not know. It's not directly impacting any other element, we fit them all back together and it's not possible. Maybe there were a couple of defective elements or something. But we're looking into it and Canon knows about it."


Yippee! It's not the IS unit causing problems and I don't have to think about sending my lens back.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 6 users
Upvote 0
#84
AlanF said:
Very important info posted by Roger Cicala after stripping down one of the broken lenses.

"The cracks we see are NOT in the IS unit, they are in the front focusing group. Looking through the lens the cracks seem to move with the IS unit when we shook it, because optics and all. But the IS units, while not parkable, seem very sturdy. We literally rattled it in our hands as hard as we could and it cared not.

Now why the front focusing element cracked, I do not know. It's not directly impacting any other element, we fit them all back together and it's not possible. Maybe there were a couple of defective elements or something. But we're looking into it and Canon knows about it."


Yippee! It's not the IS unit causing problems and I don't have to think about sending my lens back.
Click to expand...

Thanks, AlanF!

This is beginning to feel reassuring. I am looking forward to Roger's Rf 100-500mm complete teardown insights more than my daughter looks forward to the next season of The Mandalorian, and to Frozen III, COMBINED.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#85
YuengLinger said:
Thanks, AlanF!

This is beginning to feel reassuring. I am looking forward to Roger's Rf 100-500mm complete teardown insights more than my daughter looks forward to the next season of The Mandalorian, and to Frozen III, COMBINED.
Click to expand...

I'm so happy my 4yo hasn't figured out that new films can get created and put on Disney+/Netflix :) She did figure out how rewind works...

I hope the pandemic doesn't get a new season :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#86
While learning more about the lens design is important, I don't feel that learning the scary image of the shattered element is of a focus-element rather than the IS element addresses my original question.

I posted the below also on DPReview; it reflects the original question I asked here:

My concern has been about the continued bumping and knocking of the IS element against the restraining collar, not a shattering or cracking of the element. I would still like to know more about this issue, if it affects alignment over time. I never imagined that even vigorous shaking of the lens would result in cracking or shattering, but as it is an optical element being bumped around frequently--instead of being held relatively secured by a parking mechanism, my opinion is that Canon should educate customers about this new design.

Linked is a Canon website's description of the Rf 70-200mm, with diagrams. Here the focusing-element seems to be to the rear. (I couldn't find similar diagrams for the 100-500mm.)

RF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM: 6 Things You Need to Know (canon-asia.com)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#87
YuengLinger said:
While learning more about the lens design is important, I don't feel that learning the scary image of the shattered element is of a focus-element rather than the IS element addresses my original question.

I posted the below also on DPReview; it reflects the original question I asked here:

My concern has been about the continued bumping and knocking of the IS element against the restraining collar, not a shattering or cracking of the element. I would still like to know more about this issue, if it affects alignment over time. I never imagined that even vigorous shaking of the lens would result in cracking or shattering, but as it is an optical element being bumped around frequently--instead of being held relatively secured by a parking mechanism, my opinion is that Canon should educate customers about this new design.

Linked is a Canon website's description of the Rf 70-200mm, with diagrams. Here the focusing-element seems to be to the rear. (I couldn't find similar diagrams for the 100-500mm.)

RF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM: 6 Things You Need to Know (canon-asia.com)
Click to expand...
It was you bringing to our attention the scary image in the thread you started on DPReview as QSMcDraw that got me worked up and worried. As that image has now been retracted as a false alarm and nothing to do with the unparked IS unit, I am now parking this topic and not worrying about it any more.
 
Upvote 0
#88
AlanF said:
It was you bringing to our attention the scary image in the thread you started on DPReview as QSMcDraw that got me worked up and worried. As that image has now been retracted as a false alarm and nothing to do with the unparked IS unit, I am now parking this topic and not worrying about it any more.
Click to expand...
Relative to the catastrophic damage shown, and first thought by Roger to be the element I was talking about, I understand your relief!

But, as stated, my original question and concern has still to be answered. The cracked focus-element was an unintended distraction.

So, I'm still hoping Roger will shed some light, and that Canon will update its info about parking the IS system--and what changes make it no longer necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#89
YuengLinger said:
While learning more about the lens design is important, I don't feel that learning the scary image of the shattered element is of a focus-element rather than the IS element addresses my original question.

I posted the below also on DPReview; it reflects the original question I asked here:

My concern has been about the continued bumping and knocking of the IS element against the restraining collar, not a shattering or cracking of the element. I would still like to know more about this issue, if it affects alignment over time. I never imagined that even vigorous shaking of the lens would result in cracking or shattering, but as it is an optical element being bumped around frequently--instead of being held relatively secured by a parking mechanism, my opinion is that Canon should educate customers about this new design.

Linked is a Canon website's description of the Rf 70-200mm, with diagrams. Here the focusing-element seems to be to the rear. (I couldn't find similar diagrams for the 100-500mm.)

RF70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM: 6 Things You Need to Know (canon-asia.com)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link, YuengLinger. I don't see anything in the link that would indicate where the IS lenses are. Normally they have a up/down arrowed line to indicate the IS elements, but this was not shown anywhere.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#90
usern4cr said:
Thanks for the link, YuengLinger. I don't see anything in the link that would indicate where the IS lenses are. Normally they have a up/down arrowed line to indicate the IS elements, but this was not shown anywhere.
Click to expand...

In the above post I was thinking about where the focus-element is located, the one that Roger said is what shattered in an Rf 100-500mm during shipping.

These are showing more about the IS system:

Canon lens technology: Image Stabilisation (eos-magazine.com)

This one from Canon has a short animated sequence, but I cannot quite connect what it shows to what I see looking at the Rf 100-500mm's freely moving element:

Image Stabilisation - Canon Europe (canon-europe.com)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#91
YuengLinger said:
In the above post I was thinking about where the focus-element is located, the one that Roger said is what shattered in an Rf 100-500mm during shipping.

These are showing more about the IS system:

Canon lens technology: Image Stabilisation (eos-magazine.com)

This one from Canon has a short animated sequence, but I cannot quite connect what it shows to what I see looking at the Rf 100-500mm's freely moving element:

Image Stabilisation - Canon Europe (canon-europe.com)
Click to expand...
Thanks for the links! Now that I see the shape of the dual magnets in the cut-out lens example, I remember seeing something just like it in the previous post's link which would indeed indicate where the IS lens group was. It was also interesting that they mentioned the frequency response needed for "simple camera shake" (0.5-3 Hz) and for "moving vehicle or helicopter" shake (10-20 Hz)when in a car. That's the first time I've seen anything in print regarding frequency response. I'd bet that typical handheld shake gets up into the 20 Hz range by itself, and I'd think that engine vibrations would be up to 3 times as high as that. But maybe their latest IS design has higher than 20 Hz frequency response.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
#92
usern4cr said:
Thanks for the links! Now that I see the shape of the dual magnets in the cut-out lens example, I remember seeing something just like it in the previous post's link which would indeed indicate where the IS lens group was. It was also interesting that they mentioned the frequency response needed for "simple camera shake" (0.5-3 Hz) and for "moving vehicle or helicopter" shake (10-20 Hz)when in a car. That's the first time I've seen anything in print regarding frequency response. I'd bet that typical handheld shake gets up into the 20 Hz range by itself, and I'd think that engine vibrations would be up to 3 times as high as that. But maybe their latest IS design has higher than 20 Hz frequency response.
Click to expand...
Typically hand tremor is 6-12 Hz https://www.news-medical.net/health/Normal-Noticeable-and-Essential-Tremors.aspx and presumably is damped by the mass of the camera and lens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Upvote 0
#93
Many thanks to Yuenglinger for this thread and to Alan for discovering Roger's new post (And I guess we all thank Roger mentally).
I was scared a little. Having bought a RF1.4 in anticipation for the 100-500 I am now finally free to buy it a 100-500 to keep it company :D

I had just bought RF 70-200 2.8L IS but I will not be using it that much so I wasn't worried for that. Time to put my EF 70-200 2/8L IS II for sale now :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#95
YuengLinger said:
One poster on DPREVIEW wondered if the cracked focus element was related to tele-extender. I wish Canon were more generous with explanations. Waiting for Roger...
Click to expand...
This is Canon Rumors not QAnon Rumors with theories like Sony being the G Master of tele-extension and tele-pathy to optically destabilise the world of cameras.
 
Upvote 0
#96
AlanF said:
This is Canon Rumors not QAnon Rumors with theories like Sony being the G Master of tele-extension and tele-pathy to optically destabilise the world of cameras.
Click to expand...

It seemed like a reasonable speculation, that perhaps the shattered element, located near the rear of the lens, had been impacted by the barrel being retracted too hard when a tele-extender was attached. Roger found it odd enough to comment on and post pictures, that four lenses would have the same damage he hadn't seen before, and the Rf 100-500mm handles tele-extenders in a new way.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#97
YuengLinger said:
It seemed like a reasonable speculation, that perhaps the shattered element, located near the rear of the lens, had been impacted by the barrel being retracted too hard when a tele-extender was attached. Roger found it odd enough to comment on and post pictures, that four lenses would have the same damage he hadn't seen before, and the Rf 100-500mm handles tele-extenders in a new way.
Click to expand...

Yeah, can't say I'm a big fan of the 'bottom-out' design of the TC's with the 100-500... makes me nervous.
 
Upvote 0
#98
YuengLinger said:
It seemed like a reasonable speculation, that perhaps the shattered element, located near the rear of the lens, had been impacted by the barrel being retracted too hard when a tele-extender was attached. Roger found it odd enough to comment on and post pictures, that four lenses would have the same damage he hadn't seen before, and the Rf 100-500mm handles tele-extenders in a new way.
Click to expand...
Here are some facts from Roger Cicala after he discovered it wasn't the IS unit that was cracked but it was the front focusing element, and I have added the lens diagram and where some elements are.
The cracks are in the front focus element. The IS unit, outlined in red, is separate from the focusing groups - the aperture assembly, indicated by the vertical black lines, is between them. There was absolutely no sign of any other damage in the lens, everything was intact. It is not possible physically for this element to hit any other element, they are physically spaced apart. The front focusing element is also separated by several other lens elements from the rear of the lens where the extender pokes in.

Any reasonable speculation should accommodate what is known - it's not physically realistic for the IS unit or the extender to hit the element that becomes cracked.

100-500mm_construction.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#99
AlanF said:
Here are some facts from Roger Cicala after he discovered it wasn't the IS unit that was cracked but it was the front focusing element, and I have added the lens diagram and where some elements are.
The cracks are in the front focus element. The IS unit, outlined in red, is separate from the focusing groups - the aperture assembly, indicated by the vertical black lines, is between them. There was absolutely no sign of any other damage in the lens, everything was intact. It is not possible physically for this element to hit any other element, they are physically spaced apart. The front focusing element is also separated by several other lens elements from the rear of the lens where the extender pokes in.

Any reasonable speculation should accommodate what is known - it's not physically realistic for the IS unit or the extender to hit the element that becomes cracked.

View attachment 195321
Click to expand...
My oversight: I did not catch that it was the "front focus element," which of course would not be anywhere near the bumper for the tele-extender. When I looked for a diagram of the Rf 100-500mm and found none, I went with the Rf 70-200mm and saw a "focus element" near the rear of the lens.

Thank you.

I'll wait for more info before speculating on this further!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Upvote 0
#100
I really appreciate all of the information and all of the research in this thread. Went for a short hike the other day. As I was putting the RF 70-200 f/2.8 into my backpack, I started thinking about how to carry it (front facing up / front facing down / sideways across bottom) and wondered what would be best. I am not afraid to use my equipment to get an image I am seeking. I don't "baby" my stuff but am not reckless, either. In the end, it was loaded front down with lots of padding.

Reality check: Any dropped lens can break (I've had the pleasure on a couple of occasions) but we all use these for their intended purposes and don't have issues. I will, however, wait on moving from my EF 100-400 to and RF 100-500.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
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