December 20, 2014, 12:33:34 AM

Author Topic: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?  (Read 8523 times)

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2840
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« Reply #30 on: April 29, 2014, 08:53:54 PM »
I worry about you guys sometimes. I have lenses I must have changed thousands of times and there is no discernible wear.

+1

'Excessive wear on the mounts'??  Even the plastic bayonet mounts on (relatively) low cost lenses are pretty durable, although they'll wear eventually.  The metal bayonet mounts of bodies and most lenses will not wear appreciably even with many years of heavy use.

Oh really?  Ok, so lens mounts on Canon cameras and their lenses, are the only things in existence that do not wear when they come in contact with each other.  That's nice to know.  I'm glad people worry about me, I feel so loved.

Don't be so silly it has got nothing to do with loving, or not, you as a person, it is about erroneous information put out because of speculation, theory, irrationality, bad teaching etc.

 The lenses are designed to go on and off. Mechanical wear is brought on by friction and the heat that causes, there is no heat generated in a 60° rotation and the friction is supplied via a spring specifically put there to do that job. Of course there is a microscopic amount of wear, but it is so minimal the lenses I have mounted thousands, if not tens of thousands of times show none and that is an empirical observation.

I remember when Canon moved the FD mount to the FDn mount, everybody said twisting the lens was a terrible idea and we'd get wear in no time, turns out that wasn't true either, and I do have fd lenses I have mounted tens of thousands of times.

But you said you worried about me.  Sorry just taking you at your word, I'll try to remember to not do that in the future.

It's good to know you have observed no wear after changing lenses thousands of times on the same body.  I don't plan on doing that, myself, nor do I have the need to.  And it's good to know that I can't trust my lying eyes, after seeing the wear I saw on the 1D4 I mentioned, that I rented.  I feel more relaxed now, because I know that camera and lens mounts, are a good case where metal on metal contact, causes no wear.  If the automakers could only learn this, we could drive our cars with no oil in the engine.
"You can lead a horse to water......."
Whatever dude.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« Reply #30 on: April 29, 2014, 08:53:54 PM »

Ripley

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 108
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« Reply #31 on: April 29, 2014, 09:08:22 PM »
I worry about you guys sometimes. I have lenses I must have changed thousands of times and there is no discernible wear.

+1

'Excessive wear on the mounts'??  Even the plastic bayonet mounts on (relatively) low cost lenses are pretty durable, although they'll wear eventually.  The metal bayonet mounts of bodies and most lenses will not wear appreciably even with many years of heavy use.

Oh really?  Ok, so lens mounts on Canon cameras and their lenses, are the only things in existence that do not wear when they come in contact with each other.  That's nice to know.  I'm glad people worry about me, I feel so loved.

Don't be so silly it has got nothing to do with loving, or not, you as a person, it is about erroneous information put out because of speculation, theory, irrationality, bad teaching etc.

 The lenses are designed to go on and off. Mechanical wear is brought on by friction and the heat that causes, there is no heat generated in a 60° rotation and the friction is supplied via a spring specifically put there to do that job. Of course there is a microscopic amount of wear, but it is so minimal the lenses I have mounted thousands, if not tens of thousands of times show none and that is an empirical observation.

I remember when Canon moved the FD mount to the FDn mount, everybody said twisting the lens was a terrible idea and we'd get wear in no time, turns out that wasn't true either, and I do have fd lenses I have mounted tens of thousands of times.

But you said you worried about me.  Sorry just taking you at your word, I'll try to remember to not do that in the future.

It's good to know you have observed no wear after changing lenses thousands of times on the same body.  I don't plan on doing that, myself, nor do I have the need to.  And it's good to know that I can't trust my lying eyes, after seeing the wear I saw on the 1D4 I mentioned, that I rented.  I feel more relaxed now, because I know that camera and lens mounts, are a good case where metal on metal contact, causes no wear.  If the automakers could only learn this, we could drive our cars with no oil in the engine.
"You can lead a horse to water......."
Whatever dude.

Wait a second, did someone just compare camera lenses to car pistons?!?!
5Diii | 24-70L ii | 50 Art | 600EX-RT x 2 | ST-E3-RT

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2840
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« Reply #32 on: April 29, 2014, 09:13:40 PM »
Wait a second, did someone just compare camera lenses to car pistons?!?!

Yep, that is the kind of "reasoning" we have to try to dispel sometimes.

CarlTN

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2227
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« Reply #33 on: April 29, 2014, 09:19:47 PM »
Wait a second, did someone just compare camera lenses to car pistons?!?!

Yep, that is the kind of "reasoning" we have to try to dispel sometimes.

Not the best analogy maybe, but if you try to read what I said rather than trying to take one sentence out of context, you might understand.  THERE IS METAL TO METAL CONTACT.  Your reasoning is, there is not enough metal to metal contact to cause any "appreciable" wear.  I say, there is certainly metal to metal contact that causes wear, when people rush to change lenses...as if they are changing wheels on an F1 racecar.  Oops, there's another car analogy!  My whole point was, the mount is far from indestructible, and care should be taken when changing lenses.  If you are just wanting to argue, go ahead, but you have to admit, I have a point.

Hold on, let me post under another name to egg this on...oh wait, I'm above that.   ;D

philmoz

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 125
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« Reply #34 on: April 29, 2014, 09:20:33 PM »
Wait a second, did someone just compare camera lenses to car pistons?!?!

Yep, that is the kind of "reasoning" we have to try to dispel sometimes.

Well, they are a similar shape ::)

Phil.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 2840
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« Reply #35 on: April 29, 2014, 09:42:04 PM »
Wait a second, did someone just compare camera lenses to car pistons?!?!

Yep, that is the kind of "reasoning" we have to try to dispel sometimes.

Not the best analogy maybe, but if you try to read what I said rather than trying to take one sentence out of context, you might understand.  THERE IS METAL TO METAL CONTACT.  Your reasoning is, there is not enough metal to metal contact to cause any "appreciable" wear.  I say, there is certainly metal to metal contact that causes wear, when people rush to change lenses...as if they are changing wheels on an F1 racecar.  Oops, there's another car analogy!  My whole point was, the mount is far from indestructible, and care should be taken when changing lenses.  If you are just wanting to argue, go ahead, but you have to admit, I have a point.

Hold on, let me post under another name to egg this on...oh wait, I'm above that.   ;D

And you are speculating that opinion from your own fantastical mind. I am saying I, personally, have had at least half a dozen cameras that have had thousands and thousands of lens changes and neither the lenses nor mounts showed any wear. You are now changing the point from "fast lens changes cause wear" to a more subtle and easier to "prove" "metal to metal contact causes wear".

I have noticed this happens a lot on this forum, more so than others, people theorise about something, somebody with actual experience comes along and says your comments might be theoretically sound but your conclusions are off by a factor of, a lot. The theorist then goes on and on posting, giving meaningless comparisons, ever longer lists of calculations and percentages to "prove" their point, meanwhile the poster with actual experienced gets completely pissed off and either leaves the thread or annoys any readers by trying to defend their position which actually answered the point.

Take it or leave it Carl I am not your enemy, but on this point you are talking rubbish.

skullyspice

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 87
    • View Profile
    • Photojensen.com
Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« Reply #36 on: April 29, 2014, 09:42:29 PM »
so have we decided adding a few drops of motor oil will keep our lens mounts running smoother and extend their life?
5D3, 1vHS, 1nRS, F-1N x6, Fuji X-T1, Fuji X100
50 F1.2L, 100 F2.8L Macro, 200 F2.8L, 40 F2.8, 17-40 F4L, 24-105 F4L, 70-300 F4-5.6L
www.photojensen.com

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« Reply #36 on: April 29, 2014, 09:42:29 PM »

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4575
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« Reply #37 on: April 29, 2014, 10:27:04 PM »
so have we decided adding a few drops of motor oil will keep our lens mounts running smoother and extend their life?

just buy a nikon D600 its self lubricating... no need to add oil...

 :P
APS-H Fanboy

ahab1372

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 327
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« Reply #38 on: April 29, 2014, 10:29:27 PM »
so have we decided adding a few drops of motor oil will keep our lens mounts running smoother and extend their life?
Yes, but don't forget to send the camera and lenses in for an oil change every 3000 mount operations.
Otherwise, there will be a few dozen atoms lost after some years.

kennephoto

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« Reply #39 on: April 29, 2014, 10:54:05 PM »
so have we decided adding a few drops of motor oil will keep our lens mounts running smoother and extend their life?
Yes, but don't forget to send the camera and lenses in for an oil change every 3000 mount operations.
Otherwise, there will be a few dozen atoms lost after some years.

Now this is the reason I love this forum! You know if you use synthetic oil on your lens mounts you can go up to 10,000 lens mount operations! I move lenses like a crankshaft to a piston at 9,000 rpms but still no wear!
Canon 5d Mark II Canon 1D classic EOSM 20-35 2.8L 50 1.2L 135 2.0L 80-200 2.8L 40 Pancake and a bunch of old film cameras

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • ********
  • Posts: 3580
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« Reply #40 on: April 29, 2014, 11:15:32 PM »
so have we decided adding a few drops of motor oil will keep our lens mounts running smoother and extend their life?
Yes, but don't forget to send the camera and lenses in for an oil change every 3000 mount operations.
Otherwise, there will be a few dozen atoms lost after some years.
And this is why Nikons will always be superior! They come from the factory with oil and have the wonderful feature where it gets on the sensor to tell you that you need some more. :)
The best camera is the one in your hands

wickidwombat

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 4575
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« Reply #41 on: April 29, 2014, 11:17:11 PM »
so have we decided adding a few drops of motor oil will keep our lens mounts running smoother and extend their life?
Yes, but don't forget to send the camera and lenses in for an oil change every 3000 mount operations.
Otherwise, there will be a few dozen atoms lost after some years.
And this is why Nikons will always be superior! They come from the factory with oil and have the wonderful feature where it gets on the sensor to tell you that you need some more. :)
i beat you to this joke  :D
APS-H Fanboy

Daniel Flather

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 871
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« Reply #42 on: April 30, 2014, 12:05:34 AM »
I have both - if I had to choose between them, I'll take the 85L every time :)

+1

+2

The 50's keeper rate is lower, but having owned the 50/1.4 and 50 1.8 mrk 1, I'm very happy with the 50/1.2.  Keep in mind you are judging the 50/1.2 to the legendary 85/1.2.

| 5D3 | 8-15L | 24L II | 35L | 50L | 85L II | 100/2.8 | 200/2L | EOS M | 22 STM |

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« Reply #42 on: April 30, 2014, 12:05:34 AM »

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1522
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« Reply #43 on: April 30, 2014, 01:04:44 AM »

I have noticed this happens a lot on this forum, more so than others, people theorise about something, somebody with actual experience comes along and says your comments might be theoretically sound but your conclusions are off by a factor of, a lot. The theorist then goes on and on posting, giving meaningless comparisons, ever longer lists of calculations and percentages to "prove" their point, meanwhile the poster with actual experienced gets completely pissed off and either leaves the thread or annoys any readers by trying to defend their position which actually answered the point.


One could be forgiven for believing that the above paragraph was written in the context of the Ancient Aliens program on The History Channel.  :P
1DX, 5D3, 600D, RX100
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 18-55 II, 55-250 II, 1.4x III, 2x III, 600RT x 4
The grass is always greener when you crank up the saturation in photoshop

J.R.

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1522
    • View Profile
Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« Reply #44 on: April 30, 2014, 01:07:03 AM »
I have both - if I had to choose between them, I'll take the 85L every time :)

+1

+2

The 50's keeper rate is lower, but having owned the 50/1.4 and 50 1.8 mrk 1, I'm very happy with the 50/1.2.  Keep in mind you are judging the 50/1.2 to the legendary 85/1.2.

+3 ... but then the 50L isn't designed for sharpness anyway - Personally, I bought it for the bokeh and it excels at that. 
1DX, 5D3, 600D, RX100
16-35L, 24-70L II, 70-200L II, 100-400L, 50L, 85L II, 135L, 24TSE, 40, 100 macro, 18-55 II, 55-250 II, 1.4x III, 2x III, 600RT x 4
The grass is always greener when you crank up the saturation in photoshop

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon's f/1.2's: What is really going on?
« Reply #44 on: April 30, 2014, 01:07:03 AM »