Does The Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM Have A Design Weakness?

[amorse]

That's incredibly disappointing. I was pretty close to pulling the trigger on that lens, but I know my stuff gets beaten up despite my best intentions. I always transport stuff in a padded bag, but I see wear on white the paint of my EF 70-200 ii, so I know I must not be that nice to it. Think I'll keep my money for now!

 

[Toamelicious]

That's a little unnerving. Regardless of not being an L lens, this seems like a design flaw to me. It's one thing to use weaker materials and bigger tolerances to cut price, but another to have an obvious weak spot at a part of the lens, that is most certainly going to get a lot of stress under normal usage.

I'll have to be cautious and keep that problem in mind.

 

[Deleted member 386702]

On the first image of the split lens, it looks like a 100-500mm... not bad for that price

 

[blackcoffee17]

Cost cutting everywhere...

 

[AlanF]

@Canon Rumors

The Canon RF 200-800mm f/6.3-9 IS USM has been a terrific selling lens for Canon. We’re big fans of its performance and price performance. It has allowed so many photographers get reach without selling their car or a kidney.

Read The Full Article

@Canon Rumors, could you possibly get some of the lens serial numbers to give a clue if it's general or confined to some batches?

 

[digigal]

I just purchased this lens recently and took it on a trip to Alberta, Canada and northern Norway. Because of the hassles of flying with camera gear, I'm now checking most of my gear in my luggage. I packed this lens in a padded pouch (https://www.amazon.com/JJC-200-600m...ter/dp/B0948CZTS7/ref=pd_ci_mcx_pspc_dp_2_i_0) surrounded by parkas and heavy snow boots in my duffle bag and it survived all the travels without a hitch in the checked bag. The wildlife was close enough that I didn't need the lens but my husband did use it one day. I have the well padded Peak 20L Everyday Backpack and it will just fit in with the camera attached if the top of the bag is extended and the internal dividers are removed. Catherine
Flights from SF to Canada to Amsterdam to Oslo to No Norway to Copenhagen to SF

 

[David - Sydney]

That's incredibly disappointing. I was pretty close to pulling the trigger on that lens, but I know my stuff gets beaten up despite my best intentions. I always transport stuff in a padded bag, but I see wear on white the paint of my EF 70-200 ii, so I know I must not be that nice to it. Think I'll keep my money for now!

The white paint around the mounting ring on the EF70-200/2.8 was an appalling choice by Canon. It always chipped away and looked bad. No impact to function or image quality but I was disappointed with their engineering decision. No issues with RF lenses though.

 

[SnowMiku]

Canon are probably aware of this problem and I have a feeling they will quietly fix the design flaw in the next batch. Hopefully those effected with a broken lens can get it fixed/replaced under warranty.

 

[ShowMeTheEagles]

All the examples are in exotic locates or circumstances. Yes, it's a consumer lens despite being white. I've used mine since nearly its launch and no issues. Air traveled plenty with it, albeit inside of the U.S, but it needs to be babied because it's not built like a tank -- except the foot which I wish would fall off. Plus 7 known incidents out of how many copies of this lens sold worldwide at this point? Seems like an overreaction at this point.

 

[Quack]

I'll say it again...I really wish Canon had priced the RF 200-800 2x what they did and made a few improvements. Removable foot, better lens coatings, and now, sounds like, more metal in the construction.

But, this is an optically very good consumer level lens.

A removable tripod foot for this size telephoto lens is not a good idea. The foot (rotated to the top) is the best, and probably the most popular way to carry the lens. So, you can see why any chance of removal would be a big problem.

 

[Toamelicious]

A removable tripod foot for this size telephoto lens is not a good idea. The foot (rotated to the top) is the best, and probably the most popular way to carry the lens. So, you can see why any chance of removal would be a big problem.

Not really. What would be the big problem in having a rotatable and detachable collar?
Besides designing them badly, so they break off I mean... But considering this possibility, one could argue to not build collars at all because anything breaks when badly designed.

 

[AlanF]

A removable tripod foot for this size telephoto lens is not a good idea. The foot (rotated to the top) is the best, and probably the most popular way to carry the lens. So, you can see why any chance of removal would be a big problem.

See the post just above by @ShowMeTheEagles who would like to see the foot fall off! We must move in different circles as I have never seen one being carried by the foot other than the other way around - attached to a strap via the socket.

 

[vikingar]

All the examples are in exotic locates or circumstances. Yes, it's a consumer lens despite being white. I've used mine since nearly its launch and no issues. Air traveled plenty with it, albeit inside of the U.S, but it needs to be babied because it's not built like a tank -- except the foot which I wish would fall off. Plus 7 known incidents out of how many copies of this lens sold worldwide at this point? Seems like an overreaction at this point.

I'm sort of appalled at this sentiment, also in the article itself.

It's just a consumer lens, people should've just bought the super-duper L lens, of course it's going to break if you actually use it, etc. No I don't think so, especially not for ~2000$.

Not to mention that there is no 200-800 L of the same size. The brand "Canon" should itself be enough reputation. And especially at 2000$ for a consumer lens, that is going to be a lot of cash for a simple "consumer" or non-professional amateur. Have a little bit of empathy for the little man please, not just for the giant Canon corp who decided to save a buck here or simply skimped on engineering.

Bearing some exceptions of people needlessly abusing the thing, I think it's wholly unacceptable that it would break simply during transport.

 

[koenkooi]

I'm sort of appalled at this sentiment, also in the article itself.

It's just a consumer lens, people should've just bought the super-duper L lens, of course it's going to break if you actually use it, etc. No I don't think so, especially not for ~2000$.

Not to mention that there is no 200-800 L of the same size. The brand "Canon" should itself be enough reputation. And especially at 2000$ for a consumer lens, that is going to be a lot of cash for a simple "consumer" or non-professional amateur. Have a little bit of empathy for the little man please, not just for the giant Canon corp who decided to save a buck here or simply skimped on engineering.

Bearing some exceptions of people needlessly abusing the thing, I think it's wholly unacceptable that it would break simply during transport.

You’d assume that bringing an 800mm on safari or to Svalbard is its intended use!

 

[vikingar]

You’d assume that bringing an 800mm on safari or to Svalbard is its intended use!

Safari yes, at least according to Canon's lens finder: https://www.canon-europe.com/lenses/lens-finder/

Select Wildlife->Safari, then e.g. "compatible with extenders".

Also listed at the bottom of https://www.canon-europe.com/canon-club/safari-photography-multi-tips/, but you could argue it's coincidence.

Svalbard I don't know, but the marketing says:

https://www.usa.canon.com/shop/p/rf200-800mm-f6-3-9-is-usm

The RF200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM lens is built with field shooting in mind. Dust- and weather-resistant design features on the mount, switches, buttons, focus/control ring, zoom ring, and adjustment ring, along with white paint as a heat countermeasure when shooting outdoors, provide for high dependability and durability.

And here:

https://www.canon-europe.com/lenses/rf-200-800mm-f6-3-9-is-usm/#

Get the shot you want, even when hiking to a location where the elements might be against you, with dust and moisture resistance equivalent to our pro L-series lenses, and white exterior paint for reliable optical performance when shooting out in the sun.

No mention of minimum temperatures though, but the L-series lenses don't specify that either.

So in summary, I think it's fair to assume/expect both from the marketing. And L lens marketing isn't much different.

 

[Toamelicious]

You’d assume that bringing an 800mm on safari or to Svalbard is its intended use!

Yeah camera stores should start sorting lenses by categories of "intended use cases" so people don't accidentally use their lenses for anything other than specified, because there should be specifically constructed lenses for traveling by plane for example.

 

[AlanF]

All the examples are in exotic locates or circumstances. Yes, it's a consumer lens despite being white. I've used mine since nearly its launch and no issues. Air traveled plenty with it, albeit inside of the U.S, but it needs to be babied because it's not built like a tank -- except the foot which I wish would fall off. Plus 7 known incidents out of how many copies of this lens sold worldwide at this point? Seems like an overreaction at this point.

First, I’ll wager you there are far more than 7 broken. Secondly, for a lens to snap in two is plain scandalous. And I have used an RF 200-800mm for close to 100,000 shots, many posted here, happily since a few weeks of its launch and have posted enthusiastic threads about it so I am hardly a troll.

 

[Canon Rumors]

First, I’ll wager you there are far more than 7 broken. Secondly, for a lens to snap in two is plain scandalous. And I have used an RF 200-800mm for close to 100,000 shots, many posted here, happily since a few weeks of its launch and have posted enthusiastic threads about it so I am hardly a troll.

You are correct and I think the construction of the lens will be evolved, Canon doesn't want to be putting these lenses back together. Canon has evolved a bunch of lenses in the past when real world issues have been found.

Whether or not its an L, I have never seen a lens do this and I have owned and rented hundreds of them.

 

[koenkooi]

Yeah camera stores should start sorting lenses by categories of "intended use cases" so people don't accidentally use their lenses for anything other than specified, because there should be specifically constructed lenses for traveling by plane for example.

I hope my RF100L doesn't snap in two when I used it for portraits instead of macro shots

Having said that, the spherical aberration lock pin has already snapped, so before use I have to verify that the ring hasn't moved in transport.

 

[Askeladden]

Victim of the cold weather.