# How resistant are L lenses against the shocks/vibrations?



## climber (Aug 1, 2014)

I don't mean if lens drops down on the floor.  I mean how resistant are they against the shocks let say while driving on a really bad road. Assume that lenses are stored in a padded camera bag. Are those vibrations critical for any kind of glass displacement inside of lens?


----------



## Click (Aug 1, 2014)

On a really bad road, I don't know... But not enough resistant to go in space. 

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/9952054


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 1, 2014)

Click said:


> On a really bad road, I don't know... But not enough resistant to go in space.
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/9952054


More of the Nikon spin - funny how they now use Fluorite for their 800mm....

Aside from that, I have dropped some of my L lenses from 6+ feet onto hard surfaces like rocks and asphalt (not a wise idea) and slammed them into trees while ziplining. Other than some cosmetic damage, they have survived with no problems. L lenses are tough, I wouldn't sweat a rough road in a padded bag, unless it was for several hundred miles or exceptionally rough. In that case, you'd probably need to check your AFMA calibration after the trip. Surely someone out there has shot the Paris-Dakar rally and can give better details


----------



## Vivid Color (Aug 1, 2014)

I was on safari in northern Tanzania last year and my bag got bounced around a lot--many of the roads we were on were dirt and at one point, to make up some time, we drove for an hour or so over hard-packed ground that didn't have any roads. Also, a couple of times the range rover we were in slammed to a sudden stop, catapulting my Lowepro camera backpack from its seat to the floor. Fortunately, my bag was zipped up and my two L lenses (24-105L and 70-300L) were just fine as were my Canon 40mm and my Tamron superzoom. Maybe I was just lucky, but I would say the key thing if you are going to be on bad roads or other uneven surfaces is to have a good quality bag, give each lens its own divided space, and to keep the bag zipped up as much as possible. That, and try to place the bag so it won't fall to the floor of your vehicle.


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 1, 2014)

Click said:


> On a really bad road, I don't know... But not enough resistant to go in space.
> 
> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/9952054



I'll call Bull--it on that.

It is an old wives tale that has no actual fact behind it. Besides NASA now have a collection of Canon C line bodies, modified C500's, and C-line lenses on the ISS. Both their main lenses, the CN-E15.5-47mm T2.8 L SP and the CN-E30-105mm T2.8 L SP, have fluorite elements.

The Nikon going into space, along with Hasselblad before them, thing came about through purely financial reasons. All the big camera companies were asked to tender, but it was an expensive contract that cost the producer a lot of money, a high profile loss leader, and a game that Canon wasn't prepared to pay the price to play. Nothing to do with fluorite, Canon make lots of lenses without fluorite that NASA could have used, all be it in very costly modified versions.

So where does that statement _"that NASA would never consider Canon cameras or lenses while they continued to employ Fluorite in any required lenses"_ stand now that they do actually have Canon Fluorite lenses on the ISS?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 1, 2014)

Having done lots of shock and vibration tests for items destined for space craft, rockets, aircraft and the like, I can say that its not a simple issue to answer. Throw in high and low temperatures while doing the testing, and almost any electronic box can be failed. I've had components on jet engines operating on ground at full thrust and under full electrical load for weeks, the metal of the engine turned blue from the heat, but the parts never technically failed, but looked pretty fried when the test finished. The first prototypes shattered when they accidentally fell of a desk.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 4, 2014)

Like weather sealing, a camera lens will resist shock/vibration up until the point it doesn't. ;D

I am very careful with my lenses. I tend to handle my lenses like they were made of glass. 8)


----------



## mackguyver (Aug 4, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I am very careful with my lenses. I tend to handle my lenses like they were made of glass. 8)


Nice one!


----------



## Click (Aug 4, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> I am very careful with my lenses. I tend to handle my lenses like they were made of glass. 8)


 

;D ;D ;D


----------



## sunseeker (Aug 4, 2014)

I was just curious, reading this post, so I took my EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II and slammed it in the ground (it's a mixed stone-marble ground, not so sure about its Young modulus). It still worked fine.
So I went out and found a more defined surface, made of concrete (25 GPa modulus), and made something more serious (I hate answers based on "I think" and "maybe", like "it bounced on rock and Landed on mud"), dropping it vertically (front element facing the ground) from 1 meter.
Still perfectly fine, just few scratches.
Since a single test is not representative, I would suggest that we all do the same, and collect data on a statistically significant number of specimens.
Just my two cents.


----------



## Shootitalready (Aug 4, 2014)

sunseeker said:


> I was just curious, reading this post, so I took my EF 400mm f/2.8 L IS II and slammed it in the ground (it's a mixed stone-marble ground, not so sure about its Young modulus). It still worked fine.
> So I went out and found a more defined surface, made of concrete (25 GPa modulus), and made something more serious (I hate answers based on "I think" and "maybe", like "it bounced on rock and Landed on mud"), dropping it vertically (front element facing the ground) from 1 meter.
> Still perfectly fine, just few scratches.
> Since a single test is not representative, I would suggest that we all do the same, and collect data on a statistically significant number of specimens.
> Just my two cents.





I just finished dropping my EF17-40mm and EF24-105mm, simultaneously, from a height of 1,50m and both are done for! 

My EF100-400mm on the other side landed (from the same height) on its mount and I am happy to report that it still works, BUT is stuck in the 135mm position! :'(

The new Zeiss I recently bought bounced of the tree I threw it at and, apart from minor cosmetic damage, works without any problem. That's GERMAN quality for you!


Anyway, I am looking forward to hearing from the rest of you guys :


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 4, 2014)

Shootitalready said:


> I just finished dropping my EF17-40mm and EF24-105mm, simultaneously, from a height of 1,50m and both are done for!
> 
> My EF100-400mm on the other side landed (from the same height) on its mount and I am happy to report that it still works, BUT is stuck in the 135mm position! :'(
> 
> ...



No it isn't, it is the luck/back luck of the specifics of the impact. I have damaged L lenses comparatively easily and I have failed to impact my 50 f1.4, a lens with an internet reputation for being more fragile than a badly formed egg, hard enough to ever have to send it in to Canon despite spending over ten years in my bag and having been around the world several times. 

The problem with heavier metal lenses is they have more potential energy and they dent, lenses with engineering plastic tend to be lighter and although they deform at the instant of impact they return to their original shape instantly. Many of the newer L lenses have a lot of engineering plastic in them.


----------



## drmikeinpdx (Aug 4, 2014)

It's interesting how different photographers treat their equipment. A few years ago I attended a workshop by glamour photographer Scott Church. In his talk about the importance of equipment, he proudly stated, "I treat my equipment like s**t!" He was perfectly happy doing work for the likes of Playboy with prosumer grade Nikon DSLRs.

Personally, having spent most of my life as an amateur photographer with a limited budget, I treat my gear with extreme care. It's hard for me to comprehend the way some pros do the opposite.


----------



## iron-t (Aug 4, 2014)

drmikeinpdx said:


> It's interesting how different photographers treat their equipment. A few years ago I attended a workshop by glamour photographer Scott Church. In his talk about the importance of equipment, he proudly stated, "I treat my equipment like s**t!" He was perfectly happy doing work for the likes of Playboy with prosumer grade Nikon DSLRs.
> 
> Personally, having spent most of my life as an amateur photographer with a limited budget, I treat my gear with extreme care. It's hard for me to comprehend the way some pros do the opposite.



I find it interesting too. I'm an amateur and I try to treat my gear, particularly lenses that should outlast whatever body I'm currently using, carefully. At the same time, this spring when I took a rough off-road wagon ride with my 5d3 and it ended up rubbing on a metal rail badly enough to take part of the top plate down to bare metal, I comforted myself with the thought that it looked a lot more "pro" with all the scars.


----------



## DominoDude (Aug 5, 2014)

I have not tried to say that I'm careless with my gear, but shit happens at times. Also, I haven't tried to state that gear survives all shocks or rough rides. In my case I took a calculated risk and it backfired, I had enough luck to have a decently working lens afterwards. I only wish I had enough money to be able to have it properly serviced and patched.
If someone has problems with my posts I hope they have enough guts to tell me so.


----------



## Shootitalready (Aug 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Shootitalready said:
> 
> 
> > I just finished dropping my EF17-40mm and EF24-105mm, simultaneously, from a height of 1,50m and both are done for!
> ...




Well, TELL THAT TO THE TREE! :


----------



## Shootitalready (Aug 5, 2014)

iron-t said:


> I comforted myself with the thought that it looked a lot more "pro" with all the scars.



Now we're talking!! That's the spirit! ;D


----------



## privatebydesign (Aug 5, 2014)

Shootitalready said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > Shootitalready said:
> ...



No, the tree already demonstrated it to you.................


----------



## Shootitalready (Aug 5, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> Shootitalready said:
> 
> 
> > privatebydesign said:
> ...





Cut off me legs and call me shorty, but I have no clue as to what you mean by that 
Anyway, I hope you do realize it was all just silly banter and that I didn't really threw my brand new Charley Zeiss against a tree... ???

Cheers!


----------



## aekurth (Aug 5, 2014)

I've been told that sports photographers sometimes find that the vibration from constant air travel will loosen screws on their lens mounts. I've had this problem frequently with the screws holding on the hot shoe of my Canon cameras.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Aug 5, 2014)

aekurth said:


> I've been told that sports photographers sometimes find that the vibration from constant air travel will loosen screws on their lens mounts. I've had this problem frequently with the screws holding on the hot shoe of my Canon cameras.



You sayin' that Canon shooters often have a screw loose?

I knew it!


----------



## sunnyVan (Aug 5, 2014)

climber said:


> I don't mean if lens drops down on the floor.  I mean how resistant are they against the shocks let say while driving on a really bad road. Assume that lenses are stored in a padded camera bag. Are those vibrations critical for any kind of glass displacement inside of lens?



I have wondered about the same thing. But wouldn't you think that the camera and lens would sustain far more shock and vibration while you carry it around your neck than it would inside of a padded bag? At least when I carry it for hikes it moves around bumping my chest and my hip.


----------



## Legalese78 (Aug 5, 2014)

One night when I was out of town, my pit bull decided she was into my 16-35 f/2.8 II...which means that she pulled it off a shelf that is four feet off the ground, and used it as a chew toy. I was sure that this was the end of the lens but, honestly, it works perfectly, cosmetic damage aside.


----------



## RobertG. (Aug 5, 2014)

From my own experience the Canon L lenses are quite resistant against vibrations and shocks. Earlier this year I was hiking in northern Thailand's mountains. During a short stop I put down the backpack to take a closer look on one of the wild orchids. Unintentionally I hit the backpack, which started bumbing down the mountain. It were about 50 meters. Half way down the tripod flew out of the backpack and during some bumps the backpack flew up to one meter or more. It finally stopped in the valley of a dry brook. It took me about a half hour just to climb down the steep mountain to retrieve the tripod and backpack. 
Nothing was broken and all of the equipment still works fine. Included in the backpack were: a 5DII, TS-E 24 mm II, TS-E 45mm, Tamron SP 24-70 f2.8, TS-E 90mm f2.8 & EF 70-300mm F4.0-5.6 L, a carbon fibre tripod, a dozen filters, my tablet PC etc. Only the ball head and panorama plate got some scratches and a screw was lost. Of course the backpack collected a lot of dust and dirty during its journey. The backpack is a 5-year-old Lowepro Primus AW.


----------



## AE1Pguy (Aug 5, 2014)

Each model of lens is different. Cruise on over to lensrentals.com and look at the reports for individual models. They just tested the new 16-35 f/4, and say it will likely be much more reliable over time than the old 16-35 f/2.8, which can apparently survive a pit-bull attack. I guess maybe the new f/4 will be able to handle a Great Dane?

Anyway, the point is that each L lens model is different, and some are more delicate than others.


----------



## archiea (Aug 5, 2014)

Legalese78 said:


> One night when I was out of town, my pit bull decided she was into my 16-35 f/2.8 II...which means that she pulled it off a shelf that is four feet off the ground, and used it as a chew toy. I was sure that this was the end of the lens but, honestly, it works perfectly, cosmetic damage aside.



Yes except now its a Sixteen to Thirty-Slime lens!!! LOL!! HA I kill me.. I'm here all week people..


----------

