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



## YuengLinger (Jan 1, 2021)

I noticed that my Rf 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS lens exhibited a surprising amount of free movement of the visible part of the image-stabilization cylinder. With no camera attached, looking down through the front element, and gently tilting the lens in different directions, I can see the topmost element bumping and tapping against the inner-barrel.

When the lens is attached to a body with IS on, the movement is different, showing that the IS system is compensating. With the body on but IS switched off, the visible inner element is held rigidly.

From a new owner's standpoint, I was concerned that this movement I'm seeing might be more than what is normal for this lens, and that it could, over time, result in elements getting bumped out of alignment.

Some of you will have read my posts elsewhere asking for others to check their own lens. Since then I have had nearly two hours of conversations with Canon CPS, which has helped bring the issue into better focus.

Three CPS techs, two whom I spoke to directly, and one involved by relay, expressed surprise, because they thought the IS system would be parking when the lens was attached to a camera that had been powered off, or when the lens was not attached to a camera. We walked through the proper sequence for parking (something I had believed to not be relevant to newer lenses), and whether I powered off the IS while the body was still active or not, the 100-500mm's elements behave exactly the same--no parking.

Being the last few days of the year, and up against the weekend, the techs said that they are going to start "digging deeper" next week. They said they did have a surprising number of customers calling to ask about unusually loud IS sounds from the 100-500mm, but had not considered whether is was parking or not.

So my case is being looked into further. Naturally, in the meantime, I searched the web to find more about this issue, and only found two primary references (and a bunch referring vaguely or directly to the two I found).

First is from Canon, an article from Rudy Winston about noises from IS lenses, and about the procedure for parking IS lenses:

Canon U.S.A., Inc. | Whats-That-Rattling-Sound-From-Your-Image-Stabilized-Lens

The other is a briefer mention in a lensrentals.com blog post:

Lens Rentals | Blog

This leaves me wondering whether the 100-500mm should be parking. Common sense suggests that lens elements should be kept fairly well secured when the lens is not being used, so that the elements aren't gradually getting nudged out of alignment. (I think of it as analogous to hard disk drives parking when powered off.) Now I'm not planning to run cross-country with my 100-500mm, but I do hike and walk about 15-20 miles a week for fitness and health, and I'd like that lens with me most of the time. I'd like to know that it is not going to need an expensive realignment from time to time due to not parking properly. Being an early adopter is fun and exciting, but it also leaves us with no info about long-term issues.

I will, as expected, share what Canon CPS tells me next week, but in the meantime, anybody interested in this, please look at your own longer lenses with IS and share how they behave according to Rudy Winston's suggestion to let the IS system stop for a few seconds before turning off the camera. Do you see more movement if the lens is parked or not?

Maybe others here have been through all this. What exactly should be parking? How well secured should those elements be when IS is not energized?

I've checked my other RF lenses, the 24-70mm and 70-200mm. As might be expected, the 24-70mm has barely discernible movement inside when detached, and the 70-200mm a slight bit more--but it doesn't have that same freely bumping and tapping movement, maybe just because it is much shorter than the 100-500mm.

Happy 2021!


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jan 1, 2021)

I'm really curious as to what CPS says on this. I thought the 100-500 just didn't park for crap as I noticed the same thing.

For reference, I'm using the latest firmware on both the lens and R5. I also give the system plenty of time to shut down before removing lens for the park to engage (actually, I notice it more when lens is mounted and body is off).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 1, 2021)

As I recall, its recommended to turn off the camera before removing the lens and the IS parks. I don't have that recommendation at hand. The IS lenses here on my desk (RG 35 1.8, and RF 24-240) do not rattle, they were removed after the camera was off.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 1, 2021)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> As I recall, its recommended to turn off the camera before removing the lens and the IS parks. I don't have that recommendation at hand. The IS lenses here on my desk (RG 35 1.8, and RF 24-240) do not rattle, they were removed after the camera was off.


Yes, and it's doubly important as turning off also closes the protective shutter to stop dust getting inside and onto the sensor. That protection is one of the neat things about Canon mirrorless.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 1, 2021)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> As I recall, its recommended to turn off the camera before removing the lens and the IS parks. I don't have that recommendation at hand. The IS lenses here on my desk (RG 35 1.8, and RF 24-240) do not rattle, they were removed after the camera was off.


Please see the link to Rudy Winston's article for that recommendation in my post above. I might not be remembering correctly, but I think the ef 70--200mm f/2.8L IS II's concise user guide mentions that. I did not check the online archives.

But it is thanks to CPS that I've narrowed down my concerns to whether the lens is parking, and whether it should be parking. I must have caught them during a slow time, when there wasn't a lot of pressure from incoming calls. And they might actually see this as something worth bringing to Canon's attention. One tech did tell me that CPS centers seem to be the last in line for news about changes in how things are done, as in this case with the parking of the IS system. But, I still can't get past the thought that having any of the inner elements bumping around during normal transport is bad in the long run.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jan 1, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> Please see the link to Rudy Winston's article for that recommendation in my post above. I might not be remembering correctly, but I think the ef 70--200mm f/2.8L IS II's concise user guide mentions that. I did not check the online archives.
> 
> But it is thanks to CPS that I've narrowed down my concerns to whether the lens is parking, and whether it should be parking. I must have caught them during a slow time, when there wasn't a lot of pressure from incoming calls. And they might actually see this as something worth bringing to Canon's attention. One tech did tell me that CPS centers seem to be the last in line for news about changes in how things are done, as in this case with the parking of the IS system. But, I still can't get past the thought that having any of the inner elements bumping around during normal transport is good in the long run.



I noticed this most in a chest harness I have, that connects to the camera with a special adapter that screws into the tripod mount. When the camera is hooked to the harness, it sits high on my chest, with lens pointed down. During normal walking (with camera off), I could hear it clanking around so much... and it was so bad(loud) I actually decided to hold it instead.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 1, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> I noticed this most in a chest harness I have, that connects to the camera with a special adapter that screws into the tripod mount. When the camera is hooked to the harness, it sits high on my chest, with lens pointed down. During normal walking (with camera off), I could hear it clanking around so much... and it was so bad(loud) I actually decided to hold it instead.


What lens was attached?


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 1, 2021)

My RF 100-500L will lock the IS lenses only if the lens is on the R5, the R5 is ON, and the stabilization switch is OFF. In all other cases the IS lenses are free to move. If this is how all these lenses are then I'll live with it (I'm getting great images now and really love that lens). But I'd like to know for sure that it's supposed to behave this way.

I tried the RF 70-200L and it behaves the SAME way as the RF 100-500L. It has the same "free IS" behavior, except that the free IS travel is smaller and less noticeable. Edit: LenRentals did a teardown of this lens and I posted below their photo of the IS unit.

I tried the RF 24-70L and I can't see any IS travel at all, on or off the camera, in use or not. So maybe the travel and lens viewing effect is so small as to not be noticeable (by me) if it exists.

I don't notice any IS travel (when off the R5) on the RF 15-35L and I didn't bother to put it on the R5 as I assume it's same as the RF 24-70L.

I tested the RF 800mm f11 and I don't see any IS motion off the R5 or on it whether turned on or not. I'm not sure where the IS elements would be as the whole view seems to be one massively open tube when looking down it. Edit: LenRentals did a teardown of the RF 600mm f11 and showed a glimpse of the IS unit (see their picture below).

Any verification by others of this effect for these or other lenses would be appreciated.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jan 1, 2021)

AlanF said:


> What lens was attached?



The 100-500 that we are discussing.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 2, 2021)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> As I recall, its recommended to turn off the camera before removing the lens and the IS parks. I don't have that recommendation at hand. The IS lenses here on my desk (RG 35 1.8, and RF 24-240) do not rattle, they were removed after the camera was off.


It would have never occurred to me to remove a lens while the camera is still on. It’s not like I’m going to shoot anything without a lens on, or something.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 2, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> The 100-500 that we are discussing.


We are not discussing just the 100-500mm. Several different ones have been mentioned as the thread title is *Do Canon IS lenses park? Which ones? Ok if they don't? *


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jan 2, 2021)

AlanF said:


> We are not discussing just the 100-500mm. Several different ones have been mentioned as the thread title is *Do Canon IS lenses park? Which ones? Ok if they don't? *



Was that necessary?

The OP noticed it on the 100-500. I commented earlier how I specifically said I also noticed it on the 100-500. And then commented again how I noticed it. Reading it over, perhaps I was a bit snarky (which actually was not intended) in the 'we are discussing'... but it was the main example, which I confirmed. Granted OP is also asking about all... but how I commented was in context.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 2, 2021)

Bdbtoys said:


> Was that necessary?
> 
> The OP noticed it on the 100-500. I commented earlier how I specifically said I also noticed it on the 100-500. And then commented again how I noticed it. Reading it over, perhaps I was a bit snarky (which actually was not intended) in the 'we are discussing'... but it was the main example, which I confirmed. Granted OP is also asking about all... but how I commented was in context.


I was asking a straight question and explained why I asked In light of your reply.


----------



## SteveC (Jan 2, 2021)

stevelee said:


> It would have never occurred to me to remove a lens while the camera is still on. It’s not like I’m going to shoot anything without a lens on, or something.



True, but some people get in a hurry and just do the actual lens swap. They have no intention of trying to shoot with no lens, but they forget to flip the switch (or don't think it's necessary to) twice.

I know once I forgot and then chastised myself mentally.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 2, 2021)

stevelee said:


> It would have never occurred to me to remove a lens while the camera is still on. It’s not like I’m going to shoot anything without a lens on, or something.


While I did take your post as humorous, I'd just like to point out that what Canon spokesperson Rudy Winston recommended was actually waiting 3 seconds before powering off the camera--or switching IS off before shutting down.

But with the R bodies having IS/IBIS _always _engaged except when sleeping or powered off, it seems switching off the lens IS before removing would be the standard procedure. Except some Rf lenses don't seem to be parking at all, no matter what steps are taken.

And this is what I hope CPS will address. Does parking reduce wear and tear on the elements and IS unit or not? The little I found, namely Rudy Winston's PSA, suggests it does. And if it does, why does the Rf 100-500mm not park, not secure the elements so to reduce knocking around inside the barrel?

It would be great to get a quick answer, but I'm not counting on it. By middle of next week I will either decide to buy a CarePak (first time) and see how it goes, or ship back my lens and wait and see if the issue gets addressed in the future.

I wish LensRentals would do a tear down! Or somebody with credentials could weigh in about parking being something that could be done with firmware...But if it's magnets keeping the elements "rigid" when the camera is powered on but the IS off (as when using the lens on a tripod), how could that be accomplished when the lens is detached? Maybe there is a mechanism that just isn't engaging?

Conjecture, conjecture, conjecture.

EDIT: Curious...Has anybody ever received a new Canon lens that had the IS switch in the OFF position when unboxed? (I never did--they all came with IS switch in ON position.)


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 2, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> While I did take your post as humorous, I'd just like to point out that what Canon spokesperson Rudy Winston recommended was actually waiting 3 seconds before powering off the camera--or switching IS off before shutting down.
> 
> But with the R bodies having IS/IBIS _always _engaged except when sleeping or powered off, it seems switching off the lens IS before removing would be the standard procedure. Except some Rf lenses don't seem to be parking at all, no matter what steps are taken.
> 
> ...


LensRentals DID do a tear down of the RF 70-200L, which behaves the exact same way as the RF 100-500L regarding "unparked IS" in my personal testing. I remember that being a wonderful teardown and one reason I longed to buy that lens. But I don't remember any mention of parking of IS elements in it - I'll read it again just to make sure of it.

They also did a teardown of the RF 600mm f11 which I recently read, and there was no mention (I remember) about IS parking.

Also, to my recollection, all my RF lenses came with IS switched ON when new in the box.

By the way, here's their photo of the RF 70-200L IS unit. You can see the small amount of travel it can do. It looks like they might (?) have a thin soft liner which the IS unit hits if it reaches the edge when free-floating.






Here's their photo of the RF 600mm f11 IS unit, which they mention is way down in the barrel:





I don't see any mention of IS parking in either of those 2 teardowns.


----------



## stevelee (Jan 2, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> While I did take your post as humorous,


The latter part, anyway. But I was serious that I always turn the camera off between lenses, and that it would never have occurred to me to do otherwise.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jan 2, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I was asking a straight question and explained why I asked In light of your reply.


Fair enough... lets go back to helping people.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 3, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> LensRentals DID do a tear down of the RF 70-200L, which behaves the exact same way as the RF 100-500L regarding "unparked IS" in my personal testing...



This was a very helpful post, usern4cr! Thanks.

It led me to look again at the teardown for the ef 100-400mm II, a teardown that convinced me it was a great lens. I also don't see any mention of parking mechanisms here, or in any other teardown I've read.

Lens Rentals | Blog

If you see the last photo in the link, you might notice that the IS mechanism _seems_ to show almost no gap, but the angle the photo was taken at doesn't allow for a clear comparison.

I wonder if the 100-400mm II did show "parking behavior." (Which might mean something entirely different to, ummm, photographers with longer memories.)

I'd just like to know clearly if there was some specific mechanism or means in the past, and if so, has Canon gone without it in the Rf lenses. If that is the case, why? Why would parking no longer be important? Very slight travel of the IS element before bumping into the inner barrel/collar doesn't seem a problem on shorter lenses. But on my 100-500mm, the gap is much wider than on any other lens I'm able to look at, and the "bump" can be felt.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 4, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> This was a very helpful post, usern4cr! Thanks.
> 
> It led me to look again at the teardown for the ef 100-400mm II, a teardown that convinced me it was a great lens. I also don't see any mention of parking mechanisms here, or in any other teardown I've read.
> 
> ...


I doubt if Canon feels that IS parking is no longer important. I'd rather guess that the latest IS mechanism needs to be as light and responsive as possible and the mechanism to do that can't have a IS park without power being applied, which is not an option in a removed lens - again just a guess.


----------



## Sporgon (Jan 4, 2021)

stevelee said:


> It would have never occurred to me to remove a lens while the camera is still on. It’s not like I’m going to shoot anything without a lens on, or something.


Crickey I'm forever changing lenses without switching the camera off and I'm sure masses of wedding photographers don't. I've noticed that if in live view the camera switches out of that mode as soon as you begin to detach the lens. (Losing contact with the communication pins). This is with the 5D series,, so I'd have thought that with the R5 it would drop the shutter. Hell, even the end caps don't go on the lenses, just into the bag as they are. If doing this with an R5 caused problems to the camera I think that would be a big issue for the likes of wedding photographers. Have to admit I hadn't thought about the issue of IS not parking up, if indeed it does.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 4, 2021)

For what it’s worth, I have never switched off any camera to change lenses. I own the EF 300mm f2.8 IS, EF 70-200 F2.8 IS, EF 100 Macro IS, and EF 35mm IS with IS and a few without.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 4, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> For what it’s worth, I have never switched off any camera to change lenses. I own the EF 300mm f2.8 IS, EF 70-200 F2.8 IS, EF 100 Macro IS, and EF 35mm IS with IS and a few without.



Rereading both the links in my OP, waiting for IS to settle, or even switching it off, before removing the lens is recommended--but I don't see that either states the camera should be turned off. Apparently parking is so likely to happen under normal circumstances that there was never any big campaign to teach a proper procedure.. .But the 100-500mm isn't parking at all.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Jan 4, 2021)

It would seem that with most modern Canon lenses, that they must be attached to a camera (that is switched on), with the IS switched off for there to be no movement. My RF 85mm F2 IS arrived yesterday and it rattled quite a bit straight out of the box. My EF 85mm 1.4L IS was the same and always had a bit of movement when off the camera. Very curious to know if any modern Canon IS lenses do actually park?.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 4, 2021)

Had my final conversations today with Canon CPS. According to several of the technicians, they looked at the Rf 100-500mm and confirmed that the lens does not park. They also looked at older lenses, including the ef 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II, and said that they do indeed park.

They understood my concern about the Rf 100-500mm because its IS unit does seem to travel quite freely, and its lens element does get bumped around with normal movement. They, of course, offered no opinion about whether this is a mistake, is harmful to alignment, or why Canon has made the lens this way. They also could not say whether an IS parking mechanism is present and not activated, or simply not a part of the Rf 100-500mm. 

They did pledge to follow this up with memos and at their next meeting with US based engineers. They also typed up my concerns and their finding to present to Canon Customer Voice, a program they said does present issues to the right people in Canon management. (But I cannot find anything about the program.)

Finally, they said again that when Canon makes design and feature changes, the service centers are often the last to know.

What I hope is that Canon will offer information explaining why the lenses don't park the IS system.

In the meantime, personally, I made the decision to ship the lens back. I've looked at it, seen how the IS element impacts frequently against the inner barrel, and just don't want to worry about hiking and traveling with it, so I took advantage of my return window. 

But I will miss it!


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jan 5, 2021)

Thank you for your follow-up on this.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 5, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> Had my final conversations today with Canon CPS. According to several of the technicians, they looked at the Rf 100-500mm and confirmed that the lens does not park. They also looked at older lenses, including the ef 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II, and said that they do indeed park.
> 
> They understood my concern about the Rf 100-500mm because its IS unit does seem to travel quite freely, and its lens element does get bumped around with normal movement. They, of course, offered no opinion about whether this is a mistake, is harmful to alignment, or why Canon has made the lens this way. They also could not say whether an IS parking mechanism is present and not activated, or simply not a part of the Rf 100-500mm.
> 
> ...


Sorry to hear you're returning it, but better to do so now when you can. Thanks for your work with Canon CPS - Please let us know what they say in the future (if anything).

I've found that I feel the unparked IS motion is tolerable for me. When I hand carry the R5 & RF 100-500 the lens is not directly down and the off-vertical angle makes it so there is usually no IS motion. I will know to backpack it level instead of vertical to avoid continuous IS bouncing. I've found that I like to take most of my photos (so far) with this lens and I'm really happy to have it.


----------



## JPAZ (Jan 5, 2021)

Thanks for all of he inquiry and follow up. I've been pondering selling my EF 100-400 mkii and getting the RF 100-500 so I won't need to deal with adapters and so I can (at least a little) lighten my load. Now this information adds one more level of concern. I'll continue to ponder.........


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jan 5, 2021)

JPAZ said:


> Thanks for all of he inquiry and follow up. I've been pondering selling my EF 100-400 mkii and getting the RF 100-500 so I won't need to deal with adapters and so I can (at least a little) lighten my load. Now this information adds one more level of concern. I'll continue to ponder.........


While the idea is tempting, the difference in the amount I'd get for my old lens versus the price of the new one is not worth it to me. I'd probably go for a new 1.5 - 2X Macro lens and sell my 100L.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 5, 2021)

JPAZ said:


> Thanks for all of he inquiry and follow up. I've been pondering selling my EF 100-400 mkii and getting the RF 100-500 so I won't need to deal with adapters and so I can (at least a little) lighten my load. Now this information adds one more level of concern. I'll continue to ponder.........


Personally I seriously regret getting rid of an excellent lens with rugged build quality. I think if the ergonomics work for you, keep going with what you have.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 5, 2021)

JPAZ said:


> Thanks for all of he inquiry and follow up. I've been pondering selling my EF 100-400 mkii and getting the RF 100-500 so I won't need to deal with adapters and so I can (at least a little) lighten my load. Now this information adds one more level of concern. I'll continue to ponder.........


KEEP IT !!!
And, for what you saved, buy a nice "little" RF 85mm f1,2...


----------



## JPAZ (Jan 5, 2021)

Del Paso said:


> KEEP IT !!!
> And, for what you saved, buy a nice "little" RF 85mm f1,2...


Can always wait for the 100-500 Mk ii


----------



## AlanF (Jan 5, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> Had my final conversations today with Canon CPS. According to several of the technicians, they looked at the Rf 100-500mm and confirmed that the lens does not park. They also looked at older lenses, including the ef 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II, and said that they do indeed park.
> 
> They understood my concern about the Rf 100-500mm because its IS unit does seem to travel quite freely, and its lens element does get bumped around with normal movement. They, of course, offered no opinion about whether this is a mistake, is harmful to alignment, or why Canon has made the lens this way. They also could not say whether an IS parking mechanism is present and not activated, or simply not a part of the Rf 100-500mm.
> 
> ...


I can't see any movement of internal parts with my 100-500mm off the camera. It's difficult to see much because the iris stops right down to give a narrow aperture, unlike the 100-400mm II which remains wide open when detrached. Is yours the same?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I can't see any movement of internal parts with my 100-500mm off the camera. It's difficult to see much because the iris stops right down to give a narrow aperture, unlike the 100-400mm II which remains wide open when detrached. Is yours the same?


Doesn't the aperture only stop down to the last aperture used? I thought that was how EF lenses worked.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 5, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Doesn't the aperture only stop down to the last aperture used? I thought that was how EF lenses worked.


The 100-400mm II opens up wide when detached from the R5 even when stopped down before turning off before removal. It does the same with the 5DSR - opening wide on removal after being stopped down. The 100-500mm stops down when wide open before detaching.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> The 100-400mm II opens up wide when detached from the R5 even when stopped down before turning off before removal. It does the same with the 5DSR - opening wide on removal after being stopped down. The 100-500mm stops down when wide open before detaching.


Ha, I was thinking back to FD! FD lenses stop down to their last used aperture if you move the aperture lever when they are off the body. Good god my senility has reached new heights....


----------



## AlanF (Jan 5, 2021)

privatebydesign said:


> Ha, I was thinking back to FD! FD lenses stop down to their last used aperture if you move the aperture lever when they are off the body. Good god my senility has reached new heights....


No comment... The EF lenses remain wide open for focussing and stop down during exposure and spring back. The RF lenses focus at the aperture to what they are set for exposure. I suppose stopping down when turned off protects the sensor against light for R bodies without the mechanical shutters like on the the R and R5.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 5, 2021)

Yes, the RF 100-500L lens is stopped down when off the R5. With both end caps off, I just hold it vertically under a bright ceiling light and look down into the front element and can see the aperture stopped down. It is very easy (for me) to see the IS group that moves with a small side-to-side travel when slightly tilting it front or back (or left or right etc).

Again, for me, it's no problem now that I know that this is how it is built. I get beautiful photos and it's my favorite lens to use so far (well, for far off birds and close up of flowers). Once I'm free (from Covid hunkering down) to travel I'm sure I'll be enjoying my RF 15-35L a lot more for landscapes as well as other lenses for the people and places I meet.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 5, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I can't see any movement of internal parts with my 100-500mm off the camera. It's difficult to see much because the iris stops right down to give a narrow aperture, unlike the 100-400mm II which remains wide open when detrached. Is yours the same?


First to clear up one point: Aperture isn't involved. The IS element that CPS and I see moving around is *the first lens element you can clearly see beneath the front element.* If you hold the lens so that the front element is up, and at a bit of an angle so your head isn't blocking light, you can look down and see that element moving around within the inner lens barrel when tilting the lens from side to side or back and forth. Compared to other IS lenses, the gap between the IS element and the collar that restricts its movement is very noticeable. So when I tilt, I can see the element bumping against that collar--and I can feel the vibration with my hands. (In other lenses the movement is slight, more of a very light tapping at the most.)

I thought this was the kind of mild but frequent impact that parking the IS elements on earlier models was supposed to prevent, and according to CPS, this is unexpected to them. But, as I said a few posts up, they would not go so far as to say whether it was a problem or not, just that in their experience, the older IS lens do have a parking mechanism.

So what is the _potential _problem, in my opinion? When the lens is attached to a body that has timed out or is powered off, the IS element can bump around freely within the collar while the rig is being carried or transported. The same is true when the lens is not attached to a body. I believe that Canon used to park the IS system for a reason. Maybe they have made changes to construction that make it unnecessary. But unless they can explain what has changed, I foresee the lens developing alignment problems--especially if it is carried a lot while hiking.

I understand usern4cr's plan to carry the rig in such a way as to not jostle the lens while hiking or walking, and that makes sense if one is able to carry the lens by the foot all the time, keeping the lens mostly parallel to the ground with a gentle swaying. This seems fine on a level path. usern4cr also plans to stow the lens in a bag horizontally, from my understanding, which doesn't work well in my Lowepro backpacks--especially if the lens is attached to a body!

Requiring such conscious concern about outdoor/wildlife/sports equipment just seems unfair. I baby my equipment the best I can, but Canon has so spoiled us in the past with rugged gear that, with the L series's reputation and the 100-500mm's MSRP, it's just asking too much.

If I had been past my return window, ok, just pay for the four year CarePak and enjoy the wonderful lens. But since I was able to return, I did so, and I will keep asking Canon for an explanation. Why do they now allow the IS elements to bump around on a 100-500mm super-telephoto, but, according to CPS, kept the IS elements of an inactive 100-400mm II locked down (parked) by default.

Until you can see the actual moving and bumping of the element within that collar, it is very hard to just read about this and believe it's worth returning the lens. Once you do see it, then you can judge for yourself. Like I said, if I were keeping it, I'd get the CarePak, an option I've never paid for in the past.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jan 6, 2021)

@YuengLinger
Before you created this post I noticed the extra wiggle in the barrel with the camera off the first time I took the 100-500 on a walk (on my harness). It was a bit alarming, so I decided to hand-hold it for the remainder of that walk. After your last post, I looked down the barrel in the front and the wiggle is obvious (if not a little disheartening). And obviously it's not parking (whether by design or not).

However, if you you think the 100-500 no-park is bad... wait until you see the RF 70-200 f2.8. I just pulled it off the shelf to give it another look and it wiggles around just as much when off as the 100-500 (I think the extra size of the 100-500 makes it a tad more noticeable). I also probably didn't notice it as much as I tend to hand-hold the 70-200 more and I only recently got the harness (so I'm sure that will rattle just as much). It's a shame to discount both of those lenses because of the lack of a park (but if that's deal breaker...than it is what it is).

I also checked the 24-70 f2.8 and it also didn't park, but it barely moved when compared against the other two.

Perhaps you are right and they just did away with the parking of the RF lenses (I have to admit I was kind of hoping it was a firmware bug). However I think there is also knowledge to be gained by knowing current state even if we have no long term proof that it is bad. I will probably baby the lenses a bit more knowing what I know now.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 6, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> First to clear up one point: Aperture isn't involved. The IS element that CPS and I see moving around is *the first lens element you can clearly see beneath the front element.* If you hold the lens so that the front element is up, and at a bit of an angle so your head isn't blocking light, you can look down and see that element moving around within the inner lens barrel when tilting the lens from side to side or back and forth. Compared to other IS lenses, the gap between the IS element and the collar that restricts its movement is very noticeable. So when I tilt, I can see the element bumping against that collar--and I can feel the vibration with my hands. (In other lenses the movement is slight, more of a very light tapping at the most.)
> 
> I thought this was the kind of mild but frequent impact that parking the IS elements on earlier models was supposed to prevent, and according to CPS, this is unexpected to them. But, as I said a few posts up, they would not go so far as to say whether it was a problem or not, just that in their experience, the older IS lens do have a parking mechanism.
> 
> ...


If you think that the Canon lens designers are so incompetent that they put out lenses that are so fragile that they are going to break in normal use, then it is time for you either to find a different manufacturer or stick with an existing DSLR and EF lenses that you consider rugged. Maybe, you should even avoid all lenses that have IS and stick to manual focus to minimize risk. Or, you could just take some photos with your new RF lenses instead of cancelling orders, then reordering, examining from all angles, worrying like mad and then sending the lens back. The 100-500mm is a marvellous lens, so let the rest of us enjoy it and not make us neurotic.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 6, 2021)

AlanF said:


> If you think that the Canon lens designers are so incompetent that they put out lenses that are so fragile that they are going to break in normal use, then it is time for you either to find a different manufacturer or stick with an existing DSLR and EF lenses that you consider rugged. Maybe, you should even avoid all lenses that have IS and stick to manual focus to minimize risk. Or, you could just take some photos with your new RF lenses instead of cancelling orders, then reordering, examining from all angles, worrying like mad and then sending the lens back. The 100-500mm is a marvellous lens, so let the rest of us enjoy it and not make us neurotic.


The RF 100-500L and 70-200L have the same unpowered unparked IS issue to varying degrees. But based on LensReviews teardown of the RF 70-200L and R5, I am convinced that Canon engineers are rather superb in their optical design ability and their manufacturing has FF class leading robustness in general. But they're not perfect - their superb moisture sealing of the R5 has the unintended side effect of retaining heat, but through countless discussions regarding it I know it's limitations and am quite happy with what it can provide for my uses. Similarly, I strongly assume their IS design uses technology designed for optimum performance which require high frequency response, and a side effect of this is a difficulty in adding an unpowered parking for the IS elements. I am confident the designers are 100% aware of this, and from the 70-200 teardown it looks like they have a thin shock absorber to minimize the contact forces. Since I have both of these lenses and know they provide exceptional performance I am quite happy to continue using them and I assume that they will give me a long a wonderful life. But knowing the unparked IS issue, I will choose to carry and pack it in such a way as to minimize any risk as long as it's practical/convenient enough to do so.

I very much thank YuengLinger for bringing this to our attention and contacting Canon through channels that might actually get an informed response from them, and look forward to hearing what they have to say. If he wants to return it within the allowed time then I'm glad that he'll be happy. I think it is good for people to be aware of this issue before they buy it, since no one wants to pay that much money and later stress out about a possible issue they wish they knew of before buying it. So he's done us all a service in helping to bring the issue to light now, and to get a response to satisfy our concerns over it. His suggestion of getting a CarePak for it is something I'm going to look into now, and I would appreciate any feedback I can get regarding how happy users are that get it.

I'll enjoy my RF 100-500L and 70-200L and the great pictures I get from them and the R5.
And as AlanF reminds me, LensRentals calls it the RF-SLB 70-200mm f/2.8, SLB meaning "Strong, Like Bull"!


----------



## AlanF (Jan 6, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> The RF 100-500L and 70-200L have the same unpowered unparked IS issue to varying degrees. But based on LensReviews teardown of the RF 70-200L and R5, I am convinced that Canon engineers are rather superb in their optical design ability and their manufacturing has FF class leading robustness in general. But they're not perfect - their superb moisture sealing of the R5 has the unintended side effect of retaining heat, but through countless discussions regarding it I know it's limitations and am quite happy with what it can provide for my uses. Similarly, I strongly assume their IS design uses technology designed for optimum performance which require high frequency response, and a side effect of this is a difficulty in adding an unpowered parking for the IS elements. I am confident the designers are 100% aware of this, and from the 70-200 teardown it looks like they have a thin shock absorber to minimize the contact forces. Since I have both of these lenses and know they provide exceptional performance I am quite happy to continue using them and I assume that they will give me a long a wonderful life. But knowing the unparked IS issue, I will choose to carry and pack it in such a way as to minimize any risk as long as it's practical/convenient enough to do so.
> 
> I very much thank YuengLinger for bringing this to our attention and contacting Canon through channels that might actually get an informed response from them, and look forward to hearing what they have to say. If he wants to return it within the allowed time then I'm glad that he'll be happy. I think it is good for people to be aware of this issue before they buy it, since no one wants to pay that much money and later stress out about a possible issue they wish they knew of before buying it. So he's done us all a service in helping to bring the issue to light now, and to get a response to satisfy our concerns over it. His suggestion of getting a CarePak for it is something I'm going to look into now, and I would appreciate any feedback I can get regarding how happy users are that get it.
> 
> I'll enjoy my RF 100-500L and 70-200L and the great pictures I get from them and the R5.


Yes, and this is how Lensrentals describes the RF 70-200L: "It’s obviously very robustly engineered from a mechanical standpoint. The internal composites are strong as hell. There are double cams, rods, and posts everywhere. There’s no play in any moving parts. We can’t imagine there will ever be play in the moving parts unless you run over it with a truck. You could describe it as ruggedized, but I’m going to stick with Strong, Like Bull, and suggest we refer to this as the RF-SLB 70-200mm f/2.8 from now on." https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...ed-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/
So, I am not going to worry about these new designs shaking apart.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 6, 2021)

AlanF said:


> If you think that the Canon lens designers are so incompetent that they put out lenses that are so fragile that they are going to break in normal use, then it is time for you either to find a different manufacturer...



Hi, AlanF, I’m sorry you aren’t happy with my reporting of experience with the Rf 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS. Were you finally able to see for yourself the movement I and others have described?

The main points have been:

1) I noticed that the IS element moved a surprising amount within the inner lens barrel, knocking and bumping against the collar that restrains it.

2) I posted on CR questions asking if others’ lenses behave the same way.

3) I contacted Canon Professional Services (CPS) in Newport News, Virginia, and spoke to several techs for over three hours total, and I learned that they were surprised by what they were seeing, and that they had not been told by Canon that this Rf lens would behave differently than previous IS lenses. They had assumed that it also had the same parking mechanism as its predecessors.

4) CPS told me that they were going to use several channels to follow up. This wasn’t just due to curiosity, but because customer service has been getting an unusual number of calls about rattling and grinding sounds from the Rf telephoto zooms. CPS offered no opinion about why the new lenses are not parking, and I stated that in my posts.

I buy Canon because their products are extremely reliable. I buy Honda automobiles and lawnmowers for the same reason. But companies do make unexpected changes to their products, and companies do make mistakes. Companies issue recalls and offer repairs beyond warranty periods to correct mistakes.

*In this case, I don’t know if Canon made a design or manufacturing mistake. CPS didn’t express an opinion. But I do believe that if Canon has stopped parking the IS element intentionally, by design, they should share this information with their customers and their own service technicians. Virginia based CPS said they only learned about this because I called, and that they have been telling customers until now to switch off IS on the RF lenses before removing them from camera bodies—so that the IS element could park. This has been standard procedure on previous IS lenses.*

I have said I am concerned about the alignment effects of frequent “mild impacts” of the IS element against the inner barrel, something which Canon prevented with parking in previous super-telephoto IS lenses. Because I was in my return window, I simply returned the lens. To repeat what I typed in my previous post, if I had missed the return window, I would have bought a CarePak for peace of mind.

Canon Rumors is a place to speculate about products that haven’t been released yet, but it is also a place to learn about new gear. I think a lot of visits to this sight are for questions and peer-to-peer technical support. (And if you go back to another thread where somebody was upset about the image blur caused by R5 mechanical shutter shock, I reacted by agreeing that seems a problem, did my own tests, then did much better tests, and came down on the side of the shutter shock being nearly inconsequential and easily worked around. Yes, I am a gearhead, unapologetically, and I don’t meet as many gearheads offline as I do on Canon Rumors. Go figure!)

Please, help keep CR friendly by allowing questions, by not having a, “This is your country—love it or leave it!” attitude.

Yesterday you said you couldn’t even see the IS element movement I’ve been discussing, and you were wondering about aperture, which is not related to seeing this issue. If you did see it since then, I would welcome your opinion, because I believe you have long experience. You could just say you’ve seen it and it doesn’t seem a problem. We can have discussions without attacking the messenger, but I also have lost patience with other posters here. I’m not perfect either!

And nobody has ever accused me of not being blunt enough!

*Here is what I hope happens: The Rf 100-500mm f/4.5-7.1L IS actually has a parking mechanism that needs a firmware fix to activate. If this dream is not reality, if IS elements no longer need to be protected by parking, my expectation is that Canon will explain why to customers and repair techs. That’s it!*


----------



## AlanF (Jan 6, 2021)

Canon has designed at least two RF lenses that have a floating IS element. You are jumping to the conclusion that it is a design flaw and needs a parking mechanism to fix it. I doubt very much if it is a design flaw and if it was that it has been missed by Lensrentals in their teardown.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 6, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Canon has designed at least two RF lenses that have a floating IS element. You are jumping to the conclusion that it is a design flaw and needs a parking mechanism to fix it. I doubt very much if it is a design flaw and if it was that it has been missed by Lensrentals in their teardown.


I (hopefully) doubt that it was a design flaw, either, but I still would like to hear back from them on the topic. As I've mentioned, I'm still happy with mine.

But I don't think it was even considered as an issue one way or the other by the LensRental teardown. They showed an image of the RF 70-200 f2.8L IS unit being held for a photo shot, which clearly showed the IS lens resting noticeably offset from center (pulled there by gravity as they held it) but there was no mention at all about it. They just showed it and moved on to taking other stuff apart. There's a lot of stuff that they show but mention that they're not going to delve into further disassembly on it.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 6, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Canon has designed at least two RF lenses that have a floating IS element. You are jumping to the conclusion that it is a design flaw and needs a parking mechanism to fix it. I doubt very much if it is a design flaw and if it was that it has been missed by Lensrentals in their teardown.


Maybe Lensrentals will share a teardown of the 100-500mm and discuss the change to how the IS system rests when there is no power to the lens. I'd pay close attention!


----------



## AlanF (Jan 6, 2021)

I have found the official answer from Canon:

"Other design innovations were made possible by the technical advantages of the RF mount. "The IS lock mechanism was removed to make the lens lighter," says Development Leader and Mechanical Design specialist Toshihiro Okuda. "On EF mount lenses, a lock ring is required to keep the heavy IS lens group in place when not receiving power. With an RF mount, however, the lens always receives power while it is attached to the camera, eliminating the need for a mechanical lock.""





Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM developers interview - Canon UK


Developers reveal five technical innovations and groundbreaking technologies in the Canon RF 70-200mm F2.8L IS USM telephoto zoom lens, from a new IS mode to incredible miniaturisation.




www.canon.co.uk





So no need to keep phoning CPS - it is a deliberate design feature.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jan 6, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I have found the official answer from Canon:
> 
> "Other design innovations were made possible by the technical advantages of the RF mount. "The IS lock mechanism was removed to make the lens lighter," says Development Leader and Mechanical Design specialist Toshihiro Okuda. "On EF mount lenses, a lock ring is required to keep the heavy IS lens group in place when not receiving power. *With an RF mount, however, the lens always receives power while it is attached to the camera, eliminating the need for a mechanical lock.*""
> 
> ...



Actually, the quote only gives half of an answer. The bold is technically not a true statement, since 3 seconds after you turn off main power the IS goes limp. However, who knows when the article was written, what their plans were, and what happened. Perhaps they found out electronic lock while camera was off was chewing threw the batteries and reversed that call.

Honestly that whole link reads more like a marketing brochure than anything else.
Boss: How can we cut costs and increase profits?
Lead: Remove Lock?
Marketing: Ok, but how can we put a positive spin on it?
Lead: We can say it's smaller (for more reduced cost) and it weighs less!
Boss/Lead/Marketing: Lets do it!!!
Engineer: but...
Boss/Lead/Marketing: What part of "Lets do it!!!" did you not understand?
Engineer: Fine.
6 months later...
CPS: Wait, what?


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 6, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I have found the official answer from Canon:
> 
> "Other design innovations were made possible by the technical advantages of the RF mount. "The IS lock mechanism was removed to make the lens lighter," says Development Leader and Mechanical Design specialist Toshihiro Okuda. "On EF mount lenses, a lock ring is required to keep the heavy IS lens group in place when not receiving power. With an RF mount, however, the lens always receives power while it is attached to the camera, eliminating the need for a mechanical lock.""
> 
> ...


I've already stated more than once that my Rf 70-200mm exhibits detectable, but, in my opinion, not concerning bumping and tapping when the lens is not powered. It's minor.

The Rf 100-500mm is a different lens, and its gap between the restraining collar and the IS element is quite a bit bigger. Time will tell if the weight savings is worth the wear and tear on that IS element. Perhaps the collar has a lining that reduces the effects of impact. Perhaps the IS element is so ruggedly built that it will hold up to the bumping and tapping for many years, not lose precise alignment, and last longer than other parts of the lens. I hope so!

But the fact is, Canon thought the parking mechanism was necessary for several generations of IS lenses. They apparently don't think so anymore. I hope they are right! Hard drives still use parking mechanisms for their read heads, and for good reason.

And, thanks, AlanF, for sharing a link that is very close to on point, and from Canon. Good find!


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 9, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> I have said I am concerned about the alignment effects of frequent “mild impacts” of the IS element against the inner barrel, something which Canon prevented with parking in previous super-telephoto IS lenses. Because I was in my return window, I simply returned the lens. To repeat what I typed in my previous post, if I had missed the return window, I would have bought a CarePak for peace of mind.


Thanks, YeungLinger, for suggesting I consider getting a CarePAK for keeping my RF 100-500 L lens. I decided to do just that. BUT, I found out something very disturbing when I looked into doing it. Even though I've already registered my new lens with Canon USA and it offers their link for me to buy the CarePAK for it, I've now found out that Canon USA will DENY COVERAGE for it when I later request service for it  . This is something everyone in the USA needs to know about buying Canon equipment from authorized Canon dealers in Canada, even if they had been assured they had FULL USA WARRANTY coverage! I have opened up a new link to alert fellow users to this at this CanonRumors link:





CPW warning: Purchased USA Canon CarePAK will DENY WARRANTY CLAIMS WHEN YOU TRY TO USE IT for purchases from Canada!


I have purchased 6 new RF lenses through CPW (Canon Price Watch) which got me in contact with CameraCanada to purchase those lenses at a considerable discount. I had been assured that there was a FULL USA WARRANTY with them doing this. I've received the lenses and been very happy with them, as...




www.canonrumors.com


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 9, 2021)

AlanF said:


> I was once advised to insure against events that happen only rarely and you cannot afford to pay for if they do happen. If you can afford to pay for a loss that is not too expensive then you will save money in the long run if you don't insure. The logic is that the insurers know the odd of losses happening and so when you insure you are betting with professionals who know more than you. Also if you are a careful person, you are paying for all those careless people. So, I wouldn't bother paying for a CarePak. But, others might like the comfort of one.


I'm putting my reply to your post in my created thread for it at:





CPW warning: Purchased USA Canon CarePAK will DENY WARRANTY CLAIMS WHEN YOU TRY TO USE IT for purchases from Canada!


I have purchased 6 new RF lenses through CPW (Canon Price Watch) which got me in contact with CameraCanada to purchase those lenses at a considerable discount. I had been assured that there was a FULL USA WARRANTY with them doing this. I've received the lenses and been very happy with them, as...




www.canonrumors.com





I think it is appropriate for the comments on this topic to go there.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 10, 2021)

Just an update, for anybody interested: Following the advice of a lead CPS service technician, I sent a typed letter by snail-mail to Canon USA, Professional Series Group. I'm not holding my breath! And I also posted a (long) summary of this experience with the lens on DPReview, a forum in which I've rarely participated. Why? My letter might or might not have been powerfully persuasive, but even just one good letter probably won't get much response, other than a nice form-letter thanking me for my interest in Canon products.

When Canon does reply, I'll share what they wrote!


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 11, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Yes, and this is how Lensrentals describes the RF 70-200L: "It’s obviously very robustly engineered from a mechanical standpoint. The internal composites are strong as hell. There are double cams, rods, and posts everywhere. There’s no play in any moving parts. We can’t imagine there will ever be play in the moving parts unless you run over it with a truck. You could describe it as ruggedized, but I’m going to stick with Strong, Like Bull, and suggest we refer to this as the RF-SLB 70-200mm f/2.8 from now on." https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/20...ed-teardown-of-the-canon-rf-70-200mm-f2-8-is/
> So, I am not going to worry about these new designs shaking apart.


Roger of lens rental commented in Dpreview. Seems as if shipping reveals a vulnerability. 






Rf 100-500mm Not Parking IS Elements…Canon, Please Explain: Canon EOS R Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review


Expert news, reviews and videos of the latest digital cameras, lenses, accessories, and phones. Get answers to your questions in our photography forums.




www.dpreview.com


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 11, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> Roger of lens rental commented in Dpreview. Seems as if shipping reveals a vulnerability.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Now that is very interesting! I suspect a MkII version reasonably quickly with a real park mechanism. Or a silent upgrade to the MkI...


----------



## AlanF (Jan 11, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> Roger of lens rental commented in Dpreview. Seems as if shipping reveals a vulnerability.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Your persistent questioning has eventually paid off. We are covered by consumer law in the UK for five years for manufacturing faults. It would seem advisable to leave the power on always when carrying the lens and camera on a strap.


----------



## JPAZ (Jan 11, 2021)

I find myself looking down the front element of the RF 70-200 f/2.8 a lot now and seeing that movement is disconcerting. The CR threads and the DPreview thread has made me put the RF 100-500 on the back burner for now. I'll stick with the EF 100-400 and adapter so it is not like I am missing out on anything other than weight and size savings.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 11, 2021)

AlanF said:


> Your persistent questioning has eventually paid off. We are covered by consumer law in the UK for five years for manufacturing faults. It would seem advisable to leave the power on always when carrying the lens and camera on a strap.


Leaving the power on when carrying your camera will only drain your battery and not fix the problem. If you have the stabilizer button ON and the body ON and you're not actively taking pictures then it will turn the power off to the IS lenses and they will move just as if the camera is off.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 11, 2021)

The post by Roger Cicala just convinced me to put the acquisition of the EOS R5 and 100-500 on hold, and wait for a 100-500 II with "IS parking".
Sure is: I'll never sell my EF 100-400 as long this issue hasn't been solved in a satisfactory way.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 11, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Leaving the power on when carrying your camera will only drain your battery and not fix the problem. If you have the stabilizer button ON and the body ON and you're not actively taking pictures then it will turn the power off to the IS lenses and they will move just as it the camera is off.


You are right. It might be an idea for everyone to write to Canon now there is the evidence from Lensrentals.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 11, 2021)

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.


----------



## Chris.Chapterten (Jan 11, 2021)

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!


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.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 11, 2021)

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.


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.


----------



## Del Paso (Jan 11, 2021)

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.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 11, 2021)

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.


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!


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 11, 2021)

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.



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!  

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!


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 11, 2021)

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!


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.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 11, 2021)

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?
> 
> ...


Full credit to you over this. I was sceptical at first but your determination has proven warranted.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 11, 2021)

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.



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?


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 11, 2021)

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?


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.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 11, 2021)

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.



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.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 11, 2021)

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.



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.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 11, 2021)

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.


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!


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 12, 2021)

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)


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 12, 2021)

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)


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.


----------



## Jonathan Thill (Jan 12, 2021)

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.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 12, 2021)

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.


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.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jan 12, 2021)

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.


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.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jan 12, 2021)

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)



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.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 12, 2021)

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.


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.


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 13, 2021)

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.



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 ). 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.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 13, 2021)

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.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 14, 2021)

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."_






IS unit of RF 100-500mm not parking - a mechanical weakness?


Canonrumors member Yuenglinger has been investigating the IS unit of the 100-500mm flopping around when it is not attached to a R body or when the...



www.fredmiranda.com





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


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 15, 2021)

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.
> 
> ...



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*_*.*_


----------



## koenkooi (Jan 15, 2021)

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*_*.*_



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


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 15, 2021)

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)


----------



## AlanF (Jan 15, 2021)

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:
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 15, 2021)

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.


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.


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 15, 2021)

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:
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 15, 2021)

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.



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)


----------



## usern4cr (Jan 15, 2021)

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:
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 15, 2021)

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.


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.


----------



## tron (Jan 15, 2021)

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  

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


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 16, 2021)

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...


----------



## AlanF (Jan 16, 2021)

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...


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.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 16, 2021)

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.



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.


----------



## Bdbtoys (Jan 16, 2021)

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.



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.


----------



## AlanF (Jan 16, 2021)

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.


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.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 16, 2021)

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.
> ...


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!


----------



## JPAZ (Jan 18, 2021)

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.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jan 23, 2021)

By now some readers interested in this issue have read the fascinating, deep teardown discussion by lensrentals.com. I'm going to take a liberty here to briefly resuscitate this thread with my final thoughts on the issue by copying and pasting what I wrote in reply to some very sharp criticisms of the 100-500mm on another forum:

_I agree with every criticism of yours regarding the 100-500mm, but it is an incredibly fun lens to shoot with, and, without an extender, is ergonomically superb and has spectacular image quality. The MFD is very important to me.

That said, wow, the tele-extender limitation is just plain goofy, like some no-name knockoff might come up with. The slower aperture at 500mm is disappointing and frustrating.

But, at this time, there really is nothing comparable that beats it for convenient, easy-to-carry, top performance. I'm very curious about the Sigma150-600mm, but it seems large and unwieldly compared to the 100-500mm, and even without using it, I'm sure it can't match with AF speed and accuracy. So, for somebody who wants something light, quick, and with excellent IQ, the 100-500mm on an R5 just doesn't have any real competition yet.

YET. Yes, I wish something like a 200-600mm f/5.6 had been offered, even a little heavier, but, as others have noted, nothing like that is on Canon's horizon at the moment.

The 100-500mm reminds me a lot of the EOS R, a body which in hindsight seems to have been a bridge, or a stopgap--something designed quickly so Canon could get its new RF lenses into the mirrorless game. And I loved the R despite its burst limitations, its older sensor, and its ergonomic awkwardness.

Compromise is one of the fundamentals of photography. To call the 100-500mm flawless is silly, but to call it a failure is just as ridiculous. If somebody strongly desires a great outdoor lens, the 100-500mm can fit the bill until something better comes along!

BTW, I was the OP of the thread questioning the soundness of the 100-500mm's lack of IS parking. Roger Cicala's exhaustive teardown convinced me to relax and reorder the lens!_


----------



## Dockland (May 26, 2021)

I can confirm the rattling sound on my EF 600mm f/4 III
It sounds like it a loose wooden ball inside if not parked.


----------



## FrenchFry (Jun 6, 2021)

Is there any further news regarding the unparked IS since January, either in the RF 100-500 or 70-200?


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 6, 2021)

FrenchFry said:


> Is there any further news regarding the unparked IS since January, either in the RF 100-500 or 70-200?


Not that I've heard. I have both and am still extremely happy with them.
The 100-500 f4.5-7L is my absolute #1 lens in use and I wouldn't want to be without it.
If you have the chance, just buy one and you'll love it!!!!


----------



## FrenchFry (Jun 6, 2021)

usern4cr said:


> Not that I've heard. I have both and am still extremely happy with them.
> The 100-500 f4.5-7L is my absolute #1 lens in use and I wouldn't want to be without it.
> If you have the chance, just buy one and you'll love it!!!!


I recently purchased the 70-200mm F2.8, and am waiting to see what lenses are announced before deciding on the 100-500mm.

Hoping for some new telephoto choices to be announced close to the Olympics, or at least in 2021. Would love to see more information about some of the rumored lenses.

I love the 70-200 so far, and I am hoping it has a long and useful life even without IS parking. I got mine at a good price from CPW so no CarePAK as an option. Bring it on hikes all the time; isn't that one of the points in getting a more compact and portable lens? Time will tell if issues appear.


----------



## JPAZ (Jul 1, 2021)

JPAZ said:


> I will, however, wait on moving from my EF 100-400 to and RF 100-500



That was my thoughts in January. Now, 6 months on, just got an RF 100-500 and actually just sold the EF 100-400 mkII to help pay for it. I've been reassured by the multiple responses by others discussing that despite the shaking IS elements, just how great this lens has proven to be. Preliminary testing tonite makes me secure that this lens is a good copy optically. Hope I've made the right move.


----------



## YuengLinger (Jul 1, 2021)

JPAZ said:


> That was my thoughts in January. Now, 6 months on, just got an RF 100-500 and actually just sold the EF 100-400 mkII to help pay for it. I've been reassured by the multiple responses by others discussing that despite the shaking IS elements, just how great this lens has proven to be. Preliminary testing tonite makes me secure that this lens is a good copy optically. Hope I've made the right move.


Nearly six months later, I'm 100% satisfied with all aspects of the lens. I've had loads of fun and even gotten some extremely satisfying shots with it. It's a great companion on hikes. Amazingly versatile!


----------



## JPAZ (Jul 1, 2021)

YuengLinger said:


> Nearly six months later, I'm 100% satisfied with all aspects of the lens. I've had loads of fun and even gotten some extremely satisfying shots with it. It's a great companion on hikes. Amazingly versatile!


Thanks.


----------



## stevelee (Jul 1, 2021)

If you like that lens anywhere near as much as I like the EF 100-400mm, you are happy indeed.


----------



## AlanF (Jul 1, 2021)

stevelee said:


> If you like that lens anywhere near as much as I like the EF 100-400mm, you are happy indeed.


They are both stellar lenses, and you can't go wrong with either.


----------



## Frodo (Jun 27, 2022)

Any further developments on this issue? I just bought an RF 100-500 and was surprised at the degree to which the unpowered IS unit wobbles around. For context, I had an RF 24-105L become visibly decentred and needed the IS unit replaced after, at worst, a minor fall onto soft grass. It wasn't worth repairing so I replaced it.


----------



## usern4cr (Jun 27, 2022)

Frodo said:


> Any further developments on this issue? I just bought an RF 100-500 and was surprised at the degree to which the unpowered IS unit wobbles around. For context, I had an RF 24-105L become visibly decentred and needed the IS unit replaced after, at worst, a minor fall onto soft grass. It wasn't worth repairing so I replaced it.


This has been discussed a lot a long time ago. To my knowledge (and a seemingly rough consensus) there is no problem with this and it is indeed how it is designed to work. It is my favorite lens which I use almost all the time, carrying around etc, and there are no problems and the results art tack sharp. I can only assume that this is an intentional design to allow for the extremely fast IS response in this lens.


----------

