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

[neuroanatomist]

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.

I don’t have a 200-800, but if I did then I’d want to take off the tripod collar. I’d prefer the tripod collar on my 100-300/2.8 to be removable, and I’d prefer the collar on my 24-105/2.8 come off not just the foot. The only lens I would never remove a collar from is my 600/4 II.

 

[EricN]

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.

Official keyboard warrior rule book says that "any disagreement results in a +75% chance of being a troll." It's on page 57 near the bottom but I have 2nd edition

 

[Toamelicious]

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.

Be careful. It's listed as a macro lens, so anything farther than minimum focus distance can cause the lens to spontaneously burst into flames.

 

[EricN]

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.

How did it snap?

 

[koenkooi]

How did it snap?

I suspect something moved the ring during transport while the lock was engaged, or when mounting the tripod collar. After some initial tries, I never use the feature, so it didn't snap from heavy use

 

[neuroanatomist]

How did it snap?

It’s an L-series lens intended for use in extreme environments. Obviously, it’s not able to withstand such pedestrian uses as shooting still life macro indoors.

 

[ShowMeTheEagles]

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.

I don't know why you'd honestly feel appalled by the truth. The 200-800 is a great lens for the money. I'm not suggesting people should have bought an L lens, I'm acknowledging that the 200-800 is not an L lens. Product segmentation is a "thing," especially in the photo industry. There is a real difference between entry, mid, and pro-level products, most notably in build quality and materials. Those are just facts. As long as I've been in photography it's been understood that non-L lenses are less durable than L-lenses.

If you didn't read my post that carefully, I own the 200-800 and travel with it often. So, I if I was diminishing the 200-800 and its users in your mind, then I'd also have to be diminishing myself. Of course that wasn't what I was doing. I was just calling out that blue is blue, red is red, and a non-L lens will always be a non-L lens. If the 200-800 was built like an L lens we both know its MSRP would be at least as much at the 100-500. I mean if you bought a Chevy Trax would you expect it to perform like Tahoe off road? No difference here.

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.

By the law of odds, if there are 7 reported there are probably more, sure. The point is, for a lens that been out for over a year there is not a flood of complains that you'd expect to see if it was a widespread defect. In fact, this is the first report I've heard of such. That the lens snapped is not in itself, scandalous. We don't have the complete story here, but if you apply enough pressure to any object it will snap, bend, dent, whatever. That's just physics. Now if the lenses tended to snap or crack just holding them, that would be damning. But a lens put in a position where it's getting banged by another object or is bouncing around a snowmobile, that's a different story. It reminds me of the stories many years ago when people complained their iPhones were getting bent when that sat on them.

But I think you demonstrate my point when you acknowledge you've used your 200-800 extensively and had no issues. That's been my experience as well, and apparently many others on this forum and others. Also I never referred to you as a troll -- I never refer to anyone as a troll, so not sure why you'd mention that.

 

[AlanF]

I don't know why you'd honestly feel appalled by the truth. The 200-800 is a great lens for the money. I'm not suggesting people should have bought an L lens, I'm acknowledging that the 200-800 is not an L lens. Product segmentation is a "thing," especially in the photo industry. There is a real difference between entry, mid, and pro-level products, most notably in build quality and materials. Those are just facts. As long as I've been in photography it's been understood that non-L lenses are less durable than L-lenses.

If you didn't read my post that carefully, I own the 200-800 and travel with it often. So, I if I was diminishing the 200-800 and its users in your mind, then I'd also have to be diminishing myself. Of course that wasn't what I was doing. I was just calling out that blue is blue, red is red, and a non-L lens will always be a non-L lens. If the 200-800 was built like an L lens we both know its MSRP would be at least as much at the 100-500. I mean if you bought a Chevy Trax would you expect it to perform like Tahoe off road? No difference here.



By the law of odds, if there are 7 reported there are probably more, sure. The point is, for a lens that been out for over a year there is not a flood of complains that you'd expect to see if it was a widespread defect. In fact, this is the first report I've heard of such. That the lens snapped is not in itself, scandalous. We don't have the complete story here, but if you apply enough pressure to any object it will snap, bend, dent, whatever. That's just physics. Now if the lenses tended to snap or crack just holding them, that would be damning. But a lens put in a position where it's getting banged by another object or is bouncing around a snowmobile, that's a different story. It reminds me of the stories many years ago when people complained their iPhones were getting bent when that sat on them.

But I think you demonstrate my point when you acknowledge you've used your 200-800 extensively and had no issues. That's been my experience as well, and apparently many others on this forum and others. Also I never referred to you as a troll -- I never refer to anyone as a troll, so not sure why you'd mention that.

Of course people can (and often should) honestly feel appalled by the truth. Aren't you appalled by all the terrible events that are going on the world that you have reason to believe are true? It's the events in reports that you know not to be true you should not feel appalled about, just be appalled about the reports being false. Of course, most objects will break if enough force is applied to them. It is the job of the designer and engineer to anticipate the forces that are likely to be met and then build an object that can withstand those. I have never personally heard of any of the large number of Canon super telephoto lenses made in the last 25 years breaking in two, though some must surely have, yet a lens barely a year old, according to the grapevine, has at least 15 go that way.

 

[ShowMeTheEagles]

Of course people can (and often should) honestly feel appalled by the truth. Aren't you appalled by all the terrible events that are going on the world that you have reason to believe are true? It's the events in reports that you know not to be true you should not feel appalled about, just be appalled about the reports being false. Of course, most objects will break if enough force is applied to them. It is the job of the designer and engineer to anticipate the forces that are likely to be met and then build an object that can withstand those. I have never personally heard of any of the large number of Canon super telephoto lenses made in the last 25 years breaking in two, though some must surely have, yet a lens barely a year old, according to the grapevine, has at least 15 go that way.

Yes, but OP was appalled by my comment acknowledging the truth. Big difference from being appalled by events.

And again the 200-800 is not an L lens, so not built to its tolerances. It’s snapping in two so far is more anecdotal than widespread so it’s premature to suggest it wasn’t designed properly. As far as we know we are talking about a few examples compared to the rest of the 200-800s in the wild that are perfectly fine.

 

[AlanF]

Yes, but OP was appalled by my comment acknowledging the truth. Big difference from being appalled by events.

And again the 200-800 is not an L lens, so not built to its tolerances. It’s snapping in two so far is more anecdotal than widespread so it’s premature to suggest it wasn’t designed properly. As far as we know we are talking about a few examples compared to the rest of the 200-800s in the wild that are perfectly fine.

Its snapping in two is not anecdotal - there are two photos of it in this very thread. And Canon did supposedly design the lens to be durable - @vikingar in an earlier post pointed out that the Canon on its USA site claimed:
"Durable and Dependable Build
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."

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

 

[becceric]

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.

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

If you want to tempt fate, I've been told I have a face that would break lenses

It's disappointing to learn that the SA lock pin is already broken. That would repeatedly frustrate me to the point of sending the lens in for repair.

 

[amorse]

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.

Well that makes me feel a bit better as that's exactly where my paint has chipped. I always assumed I wasn't as nice to it as I was trying to be but hey, maybe that's not the case.

 

[scyrene]

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.

I'm not sure if I understand correctly but I almost always carried my EF 500 by the foot, albeit not rotated (rather the whole camera and lens were upside down). I pretty much never used the strap.

 

[Chig]

I've been looking at my 200-800 and it seems so reassuringly solid and robust.
One possible positive aspect is that it looks like it would be very easy to repair: just unscrew the broken plastic plate and screw in a new one unless other parts are damaged.
With a metal part there might be more damage to the rest of the lens.
If it was metal then it would be either aluminium or magnesium which are both prone to cracking under stress and not necessarily any stronger than a plastic part which is less prone to cracking too

 

[Toamelicious]

I've been looking at my 200-800 and it seems so reassuringly solid and robust.
One possible positive aspect is that it looks like it would be very easy to repair: just unscrew the broken plastic plate and screw in a new one unless other parts are damaged.
With a metal part there might be more damage to the rest of the lens.
If it was metal then it would be either aluminium or magnesium which are both prone to cracking under stress and not necessarily any stronger than a plastic part which is less prone to cracking too

While that might be an easy fix, I'd be more worried about the front half of the lens, that would have fallen down to the ground, if it snapped off.

 

[Chig]

While that might be an easy fix, I'd be more worried about the front half of the lens, that would have fallen down to the ground, if it snapped off.

Of course, or fallen into the sea

 

[AlanF]

I'm not sure if I understand correctly but I almost always carried my EF 500 by the foot, albeit not rotated (rather the whole camera and lens were upside down). I pretty much never used the strap.

Apologies - I wrote badly. Yes, I have seen cameras and long lenses carried that way.

 

[AlanF]

I've been looking at my 200-800 and it seems so reassuringly solid and robust.
One possible positive aspect is that it looks like it would be very easy to repair: just unscrew the broken plastic plate and screw in a new one unless other parts are damaged.
With a metal part there might be more damage to the rest of the lens.
If it was metal then it would be either aluminium or magnesium which are both prone to cracking under stress and not necessarily any stronger than a plastic part which is less prone to cracking too

I think you are fairly safe looking at it. Seriously, the worry is that you are on safari and the Jeep driver isn't a Canon engineer with a spare plate and tools, though epoxy resin could be an answer for a quick and nasty repair.

 

[AlanF]

I wonder if the enormous foot could be one source of the breakage problem for the packed lens? Without the foot, the lens would sit safely in a case. But, the foot could act as a fulcrum for something pressing on the end of the lens?

 

[Frodo]

Joshua wrote "This lens (not mine) was not dropped, it was in the camera bag on the back of the snow mobile safely secured. " So it was not in a backpack on someone's back. I once had an FD 300/5.6 shake to pieces when in the luggage of my motorbike on Australian backcountry roads. I have never since carried camera gear in motorbike luggage, always on my back.