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

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,560
11,268
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.
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

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,189
2,017
Kentucky, USA
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"! :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,560
11,268
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

YuengLinger

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,493
1,943
USA
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

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,560
11,268
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,189
2,017
Kentucky, USA
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

YuengLinger

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,493
1,943
USA
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!
 
  • Like
Reactions: usern4cr

AlanF

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,560
11,268
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.""

So no need to keep phoning CPS - it is a deliberate design feature.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stevelee and Joules

Bdbtoys

R5
CR Pro
Jul 16, 2020
406
295
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.""

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

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?
 
Last edited:

YuengLinger

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,493
1,943
USA
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.""

So no need to keep phoning CPS - it is a deliberate design feature.
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!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,189
2,017
Kentucky, USA
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 :mad: . 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:
 
  • Sad
Reactions: YuengLinger

usern4cr

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,189
2,017
Kentucky, USA
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:

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

YuengLinger

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,493
1,943
USA
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

EOS R6
CR Pro
Dec 20, 2012
3,493
1,943
USA
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.

 
  • Like
Reactions: AlanF

privatebydesign

I post too Much on Here!!
CR Pro
Jan 29, 2011
10,433
5,656
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

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,560
11,268
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger

JPAZ

If only I knew what I was doing.....
CR Pro
Sep 8, 2012
1,108
344
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

R5
CR Pro
Sep 2, 2018
1,189
2,017
Kentucky, USA
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.
 
Last edited:

Del Paso

M3 Singlestroke
Aug 9, 2018
1,239
1,313
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

Stay at home
CR Pro
Aug 16, 2012
8,560
11,268
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: YuengLinger