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

Sporgon

5% of gear used 95% of the time
CR Pro
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

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,502
5,746
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

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,516
1,962
USA
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.
 
Feb 15, 2020
535
369
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

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,516
1,962
USA
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!
 

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,212
2,077
Kentucky, USA
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!
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

If only I knew what I was doing.....
CR Pro
Sep 8, 2012
1,132
518
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

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Mar 25, 2011
16,699
1,667
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

YuengLinger

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,516
1,962
USA
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Del Paso

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,277
1,369
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...
 
  • Love
Reactions: YuengLinger

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,703
11,753
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!
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

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,502
5,746
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

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,703
11,753
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

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,502
5,746
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

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,703
11,753
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

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,212
2,077
Kentucky, USA
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

EOS R5
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,516
1,962
USA
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
415
298
@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.