How resistant are L lenses against the shocks/vibrations?

[climber]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 

[DominoDude]

I've slammed a few L's into doorposts while turning abruptly. I couldn't tell where the lenses had been hit afterwards. (It could be seen on the doorposts though.)
My precious 400mm did a drop and bounce on stones before it settled in mud, sand and water. It sounds a bit differently while focusing, but it functions decently (still haven't serviced it).

[AcutancePhotography]

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

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

[mackguyver]

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

Nice one!

[Click]

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

    

[sunseeker]

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]

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]

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 

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]

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]

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.