Taking Apart the Canon RF 600mm f/11 IS STM
Here I sit, the guy who gets poetic writing about tiny resolution differences in high-priced wide-aperture lenses, having just bought this lens. Its aperture is in the diffraction-softening range. The manufacturer’s (pronounced ‘better than reality’) MTF charts aren’t very good.
600mm f/11 compared to 100-500mm f4.5-7.1 at 500mm, Canon.com
So why did I buy this pig? Because it could fit a need, of course. Despite the religious fervor with which some worship certain lenses and brands, despite my complaints about this lens’ astigmatism or that lens’ corners, it always comes down to ‘does it do the job?’.
I spend a week a month at a vacation home on a lagoon next to a wildlife refuge. Photography is not why I go. It’s downtime and I don’t take a bunch of gear. But sometimes I see really cool birds or reptiles and wish I could get a picture. The reptiles are often alligators, so I wish to take that picture from a distance. So if the Canon RF 600mm f/11 can get me ‘internet acceptable’ images for $699 and 2 pounds, it would be worthwhile. (I rented the camera, I still haven’t committed to a mirrorless system yet. Commitment, well, it’s not my strength.)
Since the lens arrived the day before I left, Aaron suggested we should take it apart and see what’s in there. Besides air. At 2 pounds, there’s going to be a lot of air. I was leaving in a few hours, but we do this all the time, so we were confident. We were, perhaps, even, a tiny bit arrogant, since the only R mount camera we had available was back at my house, packed for the drive. (This here is what we professional writer types call foreshadowing.)
A Quick, “So How’d They Do That?”
It’s f/11, but it’s still 600mm in a 2-pound package, which is unheard of. They do it with diffraction optics. The same type as the 400mm f/4 IS DO, specifically, the newer ‘gapless’ diffraction optics. This basically is market speak for ‘instead of an air space between the DO elements, we invented some special glue.’
Image from Canon.com technical paper: “Gapless Dual-Layered Diffractive Optical Elements.”
Compared to ‘gapped’ diffraction optics, the gapless design reduces longitudinal chromatic aberration, ring-shaped flare, and improves contrast. Some. You can read about it here.
While I can’t find the lens block diagram, Canon has a fairly recent patent for 600mm and 800mm f/11 lenses that seems right. We know there are 10 elements in 7 groups in the 600mm f/11, (compared to 17 in 13 for a 600mm f/4 IS; or 18 in 12 for the 400mm f/4 IS DO lens). The patent is one element short of that, but patents often differ from the final product a bit.
I have to say, the DO element being right up there at the front makes me a bit nervous from a scratch and chip standpoint. But, the construction should be fairly simple in there. We think. Those of you who follow our teardowns know things are usually not like we think they’re going to be.
Let’s Take Stuff Apart
From the outside, it’s pretty much a standard looking lens, except for the ring that locks-unlocks to extend the barrel. You have to unlock, extend, and relock before the camera will let you shoot with the lens (shown here with barrel extended). Lots of air in there, we said. Easy disassembly, we said. It’ll be fun, we said.
Narrator’s voice: But it was not easy, and it was not fun.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
We removed the tripod mount first; a lot of telephoto lenses give you some access underneath the tripod mount.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
We found the mounting plate was quite a heavy, robust thing.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
But there wasn’t any access underneath it.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
The rear mount is pretty much standard.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
The bayonet is held in place by seven long, large screws. That’s more than most bayonet mounts, but the screws mount into plastic, not metal, so that seems like a good idea.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
Then we pop out the plastic light baffle. By the way, it says “made in Taiwan” on the inside of the baffle. I only throw this out because someone’s going to pop out their light baffle, read that, and then have a melt-down on the internet. It doesn’t matter where your lens is assembled; the parts inside it come from all over.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
Then we take off the bayonet.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
The spacer ring and rearmost barrel lift right off.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
Lensrentals.com, 2020
While this is not a weather-resistant lens, but there are some felt seals under various barrels, probably as friction pads.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
We took out the PCB and then removed the screws holding the ‘adjust-lock’ barrel in place.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
Which slides right off. This concludes the ‘just like we expected’ portion of this teardown.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
You can see the circular tensioning spring right above the felt in the image above; there’s also a standard spring on the opposite side of this barrel.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
There are a pair of extensive metal guides or posts that are involved in the locking/extension mechanism and probably provide some barrel support. We think. Honestly, we’ve never seen anything quite like this mechanism, so we’re hunting our way around here.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
It seemed the likely next move was to take those guides out.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
But they liked it where they were. Taking out the screws wasn’t quite enough to encourage them to leave their posts.
So we took out the ring of screws at the top of the extending barrel.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
That just let us slide the outer sleeve from the extending barrel.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
With that off, we have enough room to take out the metal side braces, or guides, or whatever you want to call them. They’re certainly more than the inch-long guides we were expecting.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
They’re quite solid pieces of metal, going almost the length of the lens, so I suspect the provide some structural rigidity.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
If you’re getting the impression that this doesn’t look like your typical Canon lens, well, so were we. Those long guides went way down into the lens. So do several flexes, and the flex layout is less direct than we usually see with Canon. Taking off the switch panel seemed like a good idea; it would hopefully let start tracing the flexes.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
But it really only showed us a plug for the switches.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
We took off the inside of the lock-unlock barrel and its circular spring next, mostly because we could see how to do it.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
We can see the lock / unlock switch now. You can see the amber-colored plastic of a barrel guide in the upper left part of the image. There’s a pretty big flex with about 20 traces diving straight down into the lens. That many traces probably means it’s going to split like tree branches, so tracing it out is going to be ultra-important if we want this lens to work when we’re done.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
Now we can see the set of screws that are obviously holding the mid barrel, so those come out next, and the middle barrel should slide right off.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
Well, the screws came right out, but the barrel went nowhere. We thought that taking out the set of guides (nice and sturdy, but a type of plastic we’ve not seen before) might help.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
Taking those out let us extend the barrel fully but did nothing else. It did expose a set of screws that looked like it held the extending barrel to the front barrel. The barrel-to-barrel junction is plastic to plastic, but numerous double screws hold it together, so it looks pretty sturdy.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
By the way, all the flexes are enthusiastically taped to the extending barrel. If you intend to enter this temple yourself, we suggest making heavy offerings of alcohol and heat to the Flex Gods, or you’re going to tear something you don’t want to tear.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
After taking out the junction screws, we offered up some 4-letter prayer words to the high priests of Canon engineering, because, well, nothing was coming apart, flexes dipped down into places we couldn’t reach, and everything was at a standstill. So we put the screws back in and decided we’d try going in from the front.
The makeup ring, like the flexes, took a fair amount of time to spungy off. Canon seems to have upped their adhesive game a notch. We weren’t playing anymore. After alcohol, we got out the heat gun and told the makeup ring, “you can come off, or you can melt; your choice.” The makeup ring decided this wasn’t the hill to die on and eventually gave way.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
With it out, we could remove a set of six screws underneath it.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
Which let us take off the filter ring. (Note: this means filter ring replacement is quick, simple, and probably cheap if you bust it.)
Lensrentals.com, 2020
Now we can see two sets of screws. The inner set seems to hold the front group in place, the outer set seems (I say seems because by this point we’ve lost trust in how anything seems) to hold on the focusing barrel.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
Taking those screws out let us finally accomplish something; the entire external barrel comes off as one piece. I wish we’d known this two hours ago.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
Lensrentals.com, 2020
A look inside shows us what was keeping the mid barrel from coming off and take the appropriate actions.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
Lensrentals.com, 2020
And that there are some internal posts that prevented disassembling the outer barrel piece-by-piece. So next time we’ll know, you have to remove the whole outer barrel before you start dismantling it.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
We also found that what looked like weird, random flex runs were because the flexes ran in an odd random way. They go all the way from the bayonet mount to the front of the lens, some of them turning around and going back down. It’s flex anarchy up in there. There’s probably some reason for it, but right now, 3 hours into an expected 1-hour disassembly, I think the reasoning took place after the engineers drank a lot of sake.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
Below you see the SLAGI connector. As in “Seems Like A Good Idea” to run the flex all the way from the bayonet to the front of the lens, then connect it to another flex to run back down the lens.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
There are some very Nikon-like right-angle bends, tape holding stuff down, and even (GASP!!) a bit of flex solder. That 20-something trace flex split into about half-dozen different traces that took about three right-angle turns each.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
While the electronics don’t look like the usual Canon lens, the optics do. We can also see there are several robust eccentric adjustment colors on some of the mid-area lens groups. You can see one to the right of the white tape above; there’s another shown down below.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
And yet another paired set towards the rear.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
With all this disassembled, we went back and finally took out the screws that seemed to hold the extending barrel in place and took them out.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
And then could slide it off.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
We can look down and see the IS unit now, still reasonably far forward in the barrel.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
We examined the screws holding the front element in place; it’s neither shimmed for tilt, nor a centering adjustment (full disclosure: we have no desire to try centering a DO element), so we took those out.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
This just removed a ring plate holding the front element down.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
You can see the front group is a cemented pair now, just like the patent diagram suggests. If you look into the slots below the element, you can see (OK, we could see) that it was cemented in place. We had zero interest in breaking up that cement just to look down the barrel.
Lensrentals.com, 2020
That’s All Folks
At this point, we were over 3 hours into disassembling this beast, and I had to leave in another hour or two. The front group was cemented in place; we weren’t going to uncement it. Further barrel disassembly was going to start with a LOT of flex tracing and unhooking, and we just weren’t up for that today.
We’d found the electronic construction was complex for a Canon lens, or at least very different. The optical construction in the core has a very Canon look, with numerous optical adjustments/compensations using their new, large eccentric collars. I remain convinced this is because Canon is making automated optical adjustment of subgroups during assembly. Nobody else is adjusting to this degree or in this manner.
So Aaron put the lens back together, and I went off to vacation and to take some pictures to see if it reached my ‘acceptable for internet’ level of low expectations. Except, as I so clearly foreshadowed, the damn lens didn’t work. During reassembly, we buggered up the ‘barrel extended’ switch so the camera wouldn’t recognize the lens was ready to shoot.
Pride goeth before the fall, as they say. For the first time in our long history, we didn’t test the lens after reassembly, because ‘we got this.’ So a week later, Aaron’s going to have to take this lens apart again so we can figure out what we buggered up.
So we got an AFLE on this one; Another Frigging Learning Experience. And what did we learn? That we don’t want to work on the Canon RF 600mm f/11 IS STM. Life’s too short. When these break, they’re going to the Canon service center. Except for this one, cause those Canon techs would enjoy fixing what we broke far too much; we’re never going to tell them this happened.
Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz
Lensrentals.com
August, 2020
Addendum: Just to avoid having to answer 4 times in the comments; Aaron did fix the lens, turns out this switch had to be put one way during reassembly, and we put it the other.
118 Comments
Kachen Konkayan ·
Lens block diagram can be found in Canon Japanese website. Link here https://cweb.canon.jp/eos/r...
Chik Sum ·
off topic a bit, as in you arn’t committed to a mirrorless system yet statment. I am in the same camp but since my reason is stubbornness, may I ask why you still cling on the DSLR system till now to own it personally?
Roger Cicala ·
Chik, it’s worse than that. I sold or gave away ALL of my SLR gear, mostly gave away to some kids starting out. I wasn’t in a hurry to move to mirrorless, but I do think that’s where the future is.
Chik Sum ·
Right Roger, I thought you stuck onto the old DSLR, personally I still feels like seeing the actual scene through an Ovf is more of an enjoyment but I agree the mirror less should be the future, pure functionality and performance wise I feels like the R6 would be better as successor to my first production run 5D mk III. I doubt with pretty high usage can the R6 be as durable as the 5Ds especially consider electronic ages with constant heat and use which creates more dead pixels through time
David Alexander ·
I did that, and now I’m debating if I want to chuck the mirrorless gear too. Most of my photography is while backpacking, and the phones have gotten so good for the 15-100 focal range. It’s starting to feel ridiculous to lug an extra five pounds for the privilege of creating a lot of raw processing work when I get back.
Olandese Volante ·
I think that mirrorless was the future but at present has become the here & now. However budget dictates that for the time being I’ll be stuck with my old 50D. When the time comes, I guess I’ll go for the Rp which is a neat little camera for the money (tried it, love it) but I’ll be holding on to my EF glass.
BTW, should you have a 70-200/4 L IS lying around that you don’t know what to do with, please chuck it in my general direction heheheh 🙂
Andrew Leonard ·
EF glass performs beautifully on the new R bodies. That said, the new R glass is another league ahead of old “L” glass… a leap in lens tech I didn’t think was possible. I’m still keeping several of my best performers but the few new pieces I have used are really much better than even some of the recent EF “L” releases.
Olandese Volante ·
Haven’t had the opportunity to try the big ass R glass, but the test results I’ve seen are nothing short of impressive. For my purposes however, my current EF glass will do for the time being, at least until Canon comes up with a few affordable 1.8 primes.
YS ·
off topic a bit, as in you arn't committed to a mirrorless system yet statment. I am in the same camp but since my reason is stubbornness, may I ask why you still cling on the DSLR system till now to own it personally?
Roger Cicala ·
Chik, it's worse than that. I sold or gave away ALL of my SLR gear, mostly gave away to some kids starting out. I wasn't in a hurry to move to mirrorless, but I do think that's where the future is.
YS ·
Right Roger, I thought you stuck onto the old DSLR, personally I still feels like seeing the actual scene through an Ovf is more of an enjoyment but I agree the mirror less should be the future, pure functionality and performance wise I feels like the R6 would be better as successor to my first production run 5D mk III. I doubt with pretty high usage can the R6 be as durable as the 5Ds especially consider electronic ages with constant heat and use which creates more dead pixels through time
David Alexander ·
I did that, and now I’m debating if I want to chuck the mirrorless gear too. Most of my photography is while backpacking, and the phones have gotten so good for the 15-100 focal range. It’s starting to feel ridiculous to lug an extra five pounds for the privilege of creating a lot of raw processing work when I get back.
Olandese Volante ·
I think that mirrorless was the future but at present has become the here & now. However budget dictates that for the time being I'll be stuck with my old 50D. When the time comes, I guess I'll go for the Rp which is a neat little camera for the money (tried it, love it) but I'll be holding on to my EF glass.
BTW, should you have a 70-200/4 L IS lying around that you don't know what to do with, please chuck it in my general direction heheheh :-)
Andrew Leonard ·
EF glass performs beautifully on the new R bodies. That said, the new R glass is another league ahead of old "L" glass... a leap in lens tech I didn't think was possible. I'm still keeping several of my best performers but the few new pieces I have used are really much better than even some of the recent EF "L" releases.
Olandese Volante ·
Haven't had the opportunity to try the big ass R glass, but the test results I've seen are nothing short of impressive. For my purposes however, my current EF glass will do for the time being, at least until Canon comes up with a few affordable 1.8 primes.
Athanasius Kirchner ·
Damn, that must’ve been rough. I wanted to hear your impressions on the lens, too.
I’m interested in your hypothesis regarding Canon’s computerized adjustment. Do you mean that Canon have developed a fully-automated testing and adjustment setup for lenses? Or maybe the software just tells a human operator “tighten this screw three turns, and loosen the other half a turn”?
Roger Cicala ·
My best guess, and it’s just that, is each subassembly gets put on a jig and measured by computer. Not sure if it tells a tech ’60 degrees right’ or if a computer arm plugs into that eccentric and just does it. I WANT to think it’s the latter, and I’m sure if it’s not, it will be one day soon.
Athanasius Kirchner ·
Damn, that must've been rough. I wanted to hear your impressions on the lens, too.
I'm interested in your hypothesis regarding Canon's computerized adjustment. Do you think that Canon have developed a fully-automated testing and adjustment setup for lenses? Or maybe the software just tells a human operator "tighten this screw three turns, and loosen the other half a turn"?
Roger Cicala ·
My best guess, and it's just that, is each subassembly gets put on a jig and measured by computer. Not sure if it tells a tech '60 degrees right' or if a computer arm plugs into that eccentric and just does it. I WANT to think it's the latter, and I'm sure if it's not, it will be one day soon.
Andreas Werle ·
Thanks for Posting this, Aaron and Roger!
Always a pleasure to read your Blog-Post. This barrel-to-barrel-junction did remind me to a pretty expensive Sony lens, which happens to break just over there. Obviously Canon wanted to prevent anything like this. And alas, the heat-gun (melt or die) offers a cheap replacement of the filter-ring! And after all the flex-anarchy we indeed have some soldered flexes – greetings from Nikon! 😀
Wonderful, much enjoyed it!
Andreas
Andreas Werle ·
Thanks for Posting this, Aaron and Roger!
Always a pleasure to read your Blog-Post. This barrel-to-barrel-junction did remind me to a pretty expensive Sony lens, which happens to break just over there. Obviously Canon wanted to prevent anything like this. And alas, the heat-gun (melt or die) offers a cheap replacement of the filter-ring! And after all the flex-anarchy we indeed have some soldered flexes - greetings from Nikon! :-D
Wonderful, much enjoyed it!
Andreas
Vladimir Gorbunov ·
Great article!
I’m really intrigued to hear your best estimations of repair bill for scratched front element. Is it still lower than the cost of the lens itself?
Roger Cicala ·
Vladimir, I’m guessing $400 or more, but it’s just a guess. We don’t have a parts price yet.
geekyrocketguy ·
Ha, back around 2012 Canon quoted me $120 to replace the AF/MF switch of my $80 50mm f/1.8. I literally started laughing and pointed out that I could replace the entire lens for cheaper than that. The tech went and spoke to the supervisor, then said they would do the job for $100. I walked out.
Olandese Volante ·
I pity the tech, because I happen to fix stuff for a living and I know that with the hourly rates I have to charge to make ends meet, plus the often absurd cost of spares, repairs on most low cost gear just aren’t worth the trouble.
Vladimir Gorbunov ·
Great article!
I'm really intrigued to hear your best estimations of repair bill for scratched front element. Is it still lower than the cost of the lens itself?
Roger Cicala ·
Vladimir, I'm guessing $400 or more, but it's just a guess. We don't have a parts price yet.
geekyrocketguy ·
Ha, back around 2012 Canon quoted me $120 to replace the AF/MF switch of my $80 50mm f/1.8. I literally started laughing and pointed out that I could replace the entire lens for cheaper than that. The tech went and spoke to the supervisor, then said they would do the job for $100. I walked out.
Olandese Volante ·
I pity the tech, because I happen to fix stuff for a living and I know that with the hourly rates I have to charge to make ends meet, plus the often absurd cost of spares, repairs on most low cost gear just aren't worth the trouble.
JosephAndrews ·
Roger and Aaron:
Thanks for this update…allowing for my imagination to move in a fun direction (away from COVID et al).
Although part of the fun is knowing that I’m not the one doing what you two are doing, which requires skill and patience that I sometimes do not possess.
As I’ve posted previously, I always marvel at the reduction in the length of time it takes to take apart (and then reassemble) a laptop or a phone…the second (or third) time I do it.
The first time…with an unfamiliar device…is always a special challenge.
I also appreciate so much…the unvarnished truth that you described: the lens didn’t work after reassembly.
D’oh!
When I have a need (and I will) I’m going to rent the Canon 11-24 lens from your company for a week or so, Roger…in part as thanks for these wonderful articles.
Bravo!
JosephAndrews ·
Roger and Aaron:
Thanks for this update...allowing for my imagination to move in a fun direction (away from COVID et al).
Although part of the fun is knowing that I'm not the one doing what you two are doing, which requires skill and patience that I sometimes do not possess.
As I've posted previously, I always marvel at the reduction in the length of time it takes to take apart (and then reassemble) a laptop or a phone...the second (or third) time I do it.
The first time...with an unfamiliar device...is always a special challenge.
I also appreciate so much...the unvarnished truth that you described: the lens didn't work after reassembly.
D'oh!
When I have a need (and I will) I'm going to rent the Canon 11-24 lens from your company for a week or so, Roger...in part as thanks for these wonderful articles.
Bravo!
Dragon ·
So now you have to wait until next year to find out if it takes decent pictures :-). If Canon MTF charts include diffraction, then the chart is almost identical to the 100-500 except for f number. I suspect that with a little extra sharpening it will produce very nice images for the money and the weight. The 100-500 is also quite light for its reach, so if you have the money, one of those with a 1.4 extender would be the more flexible choice. The 800 f/11 is maybe the more interesting one of the pair. When are you going to have an MTF jig for the R system?
Dragon ·
So now you have to wait until next month to find out if it takes decent pictures :-). If Canon MTF charts include diffraction, then the chart is almost identical to the 100-500 except for f number. I suspect that with a little extra sharpening it will produce very nice images for the money and the weight. The 100-500 is also quite light for its reach, so if you have the money, one of those with a 1.4 extender would be the more flexible choice. The 800 f/11 is maybe the more interesting one of the DO pair. When are you going to have an MTF jig for the RF system?
H.A. ·
Are the traces perhaps done that way to work with the extending barrel?
H.A. ·
Are the traces perhaps done that way to work with the extending barrel?
cpt kent ·
In my mind, someone somewhere in a design meeting exclaimed “not that way, that’s what they’re expecting!”
cpt kent ·
In my mind, someone somewhere in a design meeting exclaimed “not that way, that’s what they’re expecting!”
Jay Kaye ·
Who can even imagine the engineering of such devices?
Jay Kaye ·
Who can even imagine the engineering of such devices?
Jean-François Alexandre ·
To make a long story short, can we say that these two new f/11 telephoto lenses are irreparable?
DrJon ·
I suspect the Canon repair centre have a magical object called a “repair manual”… says stuff like “make sure this switch is to the left before disassembly”… also how to centre the elements…. 🙂
Olandese Volante ·
Centering not only involves a manual but also a test jig, or rather a series of test jigs, which I suspect would be a rather substantial investment.
DrJon ·
Canon repair centres are full of bits of kit. The sensor in my 5Dsr (and one other camera, can’r remember which) can’t be safely cleaned by hand, so they have a machine for it. Also a machine to check for dust on sensors to know they are clean, etc. etc.
(Just examples I know.)
Olandese Volante ·
Lens test jigs are in a whole different league of equipment.
DrJon ·
Roger sends a bunch of stuff they can’t do to Canon US and says they are good…
Olandese Volante ·
People tell me Canon has the best service of any brand of photographic equipment, at least in the US. But probably, Roger deals with Canon USA directly and not with some local service center.
Roger Cicala ·
We actually deal with a lot of service centers. With Canon USA, they are so good we just send what we can’t do to them. Some other brands, we get much better results with service centers we know than with factory service.
Roger Cicala ·
Jean-Francois, they are certainly repairable. Two points: First, we were finding our way around this and it was clumsy. When Aaron redid the disassembly to fix it it was much quicker. However, once you get into the inner mechanism with the complex flexes, etc. it would be very time consuming and probably not worth the cost. I suspect that entire inner assembly, basically the working parts of the lens, is one part.
So I think it would be worth the cost to do outer barrel replacements, filter assembly replacements, but most other repairs will be ‘replace the entire inner barrel assembly’ which probably would cost as much as a replacement lens. There are a number of lenses that are already that way.
Jean-François Alexandre ·
Thank you very much, Roger, for that clarification.Take care of you. Best regards.
Henry Winokur ·
Any thought that Canon might do a “trade-in” of the entire inner barrel assembly? That is the customer pays a fee–that is significantly less than than the cost of a new lens–and then Canon uses the old parts to make a “new part” to do the same thing down the road when the next lens comes in for repair?
Roger Cicala ·
Henry, I think a trade in of the inner barrel is certainly likely, but I question that it will be significantly less than the cost of a new lens. Canon has usually been good about keeping repair costs somewhat reasonable, but with some other manufacturers who do ‘optical assembly replacement’, the repair cost is within 10% of a new lens cost. Often they say something like ‘we can repair it for $1200, or will sell you a refurbished lens for $1000’.
Tom Cass ·
I’m sure it’s repairable but it may cost more to repair it than the lens is worth. I can’t help but think a Sony RX10iv would out perform a camera with this lens attached. Most of the samples I’ve seen are quite soft and because the f11 on this lens is a full 3 stops slower than the f4 of the RX10iv it probably won’t be any better at high iso even on a FF camera. In addition the lens on the RX10iv zooms from 24-600. Sorry this lens makes no sense to me other than it’s cheap.
What about the Tamron 150-600? It’s $1000 at B&H and is f6.3 at 600mm. Of course it is much bigger and heavier but is saving size and weight that important when you sacrifice so much IQ wise?
Jean-François Alexandre ·
To make a long story short, can we say that these two new f/11 telephoto lenses are irreparable?
DrJon ·
I suspect the Canon repair centre have a magical object called a "repair manual"... says stuff like "make sure this switch is to the left before disassembly"... also how to centre the elements.... :-)
Olandese Volante ·
Centering not only involves a manual but also a test jig, or rather a series of test jigs, which I suspect would be a rather substantial investment.
DrJon ·
Canon repair centres are full of bits of kit. The sensor in my 5Dsr (and one other camera, can'r remember which) can't be safely cleaned by hand, so they have a machine for it. Also a machine to check for dust on sensors to know they are clean, etc. etc.
(Just examples I know.)
Olandese Volante ·
Lens test jigs are in a whole different league of equipment.
DrJon ·
Roger sends a bunch of stuff they can't do to Canon US and says they are good...
Olandese Volante ·
People tell me Canon has the best service of any brand of photographic equipment, at least in the US. But probably, Roger deals with Canon USA directly and not with some local service center.
Roger Cicala ·
We actually deal with a lot of service centers. With Canon USA, they are so good we just send what we can't do to them. Some other brands, we get much better results with service centers we know than with factory service.
Roger Cicala ·
Jean-Francois, they are certainly repairable. Two points: First, we were finding our way around this and it was clumsy. When Aaron redid the disassembly to fix it it was much quicker. However, once you get into the inner mechanism with the complex flexes, etc. it would be very time consuming and probably not worth the cost. I suspect that entire inner assembly, basically the working parts of the lens, is one part.
So I think it would be worth the cost to do outer barrel replacements, filter assembly replacements, but most other repairs will be 'replace the entire inner barrel assembly' which probably would cost as much as a replacement lens. There are a number of lenses that are already that way.
Jean-François Alexandre ·
Thank you very much, Roger, for that clarification.Take care of you. Best regards.
Tom Cass ·
I'm sure it's repairable but it may cost more to repair it than the lens is worth. I can't help but think a Sony RX10iv would out perform a camera with this lens attached. Most of the samples I've seen are quite soft and because the f11 on this lens is a full 3 stops slower than the f4 of the RX10iv it probably won't be any better at high iso even on a FF camera. In addition the lens on the RX10iv zooms from 24-600. Sorry this lens makes no sense to me other than it's cheap.
What about the Tamron 150-600? It's $1000 at B&H and is f6.3 at 600mm. Of course it is much bigger and heavier but is saving size and weight that important when you sacrifice so much IQ wise?
Tord55 ·
Some time back I read about a guy who made a lens out of a Canon 500D (77mm size) and a plastic tube, and the remains of an extension tube (for the mount) that worked great. No IS/OS/VR though, nor AF!
That was also a f/11.0 lens!
One wonders when close-up lenses (aka filters) will start using Fresnel elements?
Spamspam Gringo ·
Actually, that would be more of a 500mm f/6.6, so much faster than f/11. Would be cool for ultra large format projections, for some nice crazy wide FOV shallow DOF look.
Tord55 ·
Some time back I read about a guy who made a lens out of a Canon 500D (77mm size) and a plastic tube, and the remains of an extension tube (for the mount) that worked great. No IS/OS/VR though, nor AF!
That was also a f/11.0 lens!
One wonders when close-up lenses (aka filters) will start using Fresnel elements?
Spamspam Gringo ·
Actually, that would be more of a 500mm f/6.6, so much faster than f/11. Would be cool for ultra large format projections, for some nice crazy wide FOV shallow DOF look.
Tord55 ·
Forgot: Great entertainment!
Tord55 ·
Forgot: Great entertainment!
Ernst Müller ·
Roger and Aaron:
As a physicist, the documentation and discussion of „diffraction optics“ always leaves me with a doubt: 1) is it really based on diffraction as the name and text indicate, meaning interference of waves passing through a diffraction lattice (may be a
curved and segmented one)? This would make sense because of the inverse dispersion (dependency on wave length) compared to refraction. Or 2) is it just a Fresnel lens based on refraction and the refractive index of the element, just more compact than a normal lens, as the picture in your article shows it and some comments mention? I suppose that you understand the fundamental difference.
Roger Cicala ·
Sorry, Ernst, I replied yesterday and apparently didn’t hit send. There’s a great discussion on DPR in the comments section of their repost of this article between some optical physicists. It’s a semantics issue to some degree, but I think the takeaway is it’s a diffraction grating on the curved surface of an optical element.
Ernst Müller ·
Roger and Aaron:
As a physicist, the documentation and discussion of „diffraction optics“ always leaves me with a doubt: 1) is it really based on diffraction as the name and text indicate, meaning interference of waves passing through a diffraction lattice (may be a
curved and segmented one)? This would make sense because of the inverse dispersion (dependency on wave length) compared to refraction. Or 2) is it just a Fresnel lens based on refraction and the refractive index of the element, just more compact than a normal lens, as the picture in your article shows it and some comments mention? I suppose that you understand the fundamental difference.
Roger Cicala ·
Ernst, there's a much better discussion than I can give between some optics experts on DPR here: https://www.dpreview.com/ne... I think the takeaway is "diffraction grating superimposed on an optical element".
Roger Cicala ·
Ernst, there's a good discussion between some optical folks with better training than I at the end of these comments (30 posts or so) https://www.dpreview.com/ne... I think the bottom line is there's some semantic differences in the term between optical designer folks and others, but the meaning "a diffraction grating superimposed on a regular lens surface" seems to be most accurate.
Roger Cicala ·
Sorry, Ernst, I replied yesterday and apparently didn't hit send. There's a great discussion on DPR in the comments section of their repost of this article between some optical physicists. It's a semantics issue to some degree, but I think the takeaway is it's a diffraction grating on the curved surface of an optical element.
GulliNL ·
With Canon building such great lenses (and with great I mean; relatively ease to repair) one would almost think Canon designed the optical part and have someone else design the barrel and the electronics for them. This is three steps back from what we can expect and I am not confused this is just their way of saving money.
GulliNL ·
With Canon building such great lenses (and with great I mean; relatively ease to repair) one would almost think Canon designed the optical part and have someone else design the barrel and the electronics for them. This is three steps back from what we can expect and I am not convinced
fusedthis is just their way of saving money.Craig ·
Roger – I’m extremely curious to know why that switch is there inside
a lens and why it would have a non-functioning position. Is it some
kind of mechanical fuse function?
Craig Johnson, sometimes proofreader
Roger Cicala ·
It’s the ‘extension lock’ switch, basically reports to the camera that the lens is extended and locked.
Craig ·
Roger - I'm extremely curious to know why that switch is there inside
a lens and why it would have a non-functioning position. Is it some
kind of mechanical fuse function?
Craig Johnson, sometimes proofreader
Roger Cicala ·
It's the 'extension lock' switch, basically reports to the camera that the lens is extended and locked.
Eric Bowles ·
Ouch – Throughout the description of your tear down I kept thinking that at $700 for a new lens, with a complicated design like this you could not afford to pay for a repair of any type. Buy the extended warranty and get a new lens if there is a problem.
Thanks for sharing your miserable idea of fun.
Eric Bowles ·
Ouch - Throughout the description of your tear down I kept thinking that at $700 for a new lens, with a complicated design like this you could not afford to pay for a repair of any type. Buy the extended warranty and get a new lens if there is a problem.
Thanks for sharing your miserable idea of fun.
Franz Graphstill ·
Is it possible the long flex runs are because the barrel extends?
Roger Cicala ·
I’m sure it is, although it’s just weird for a Canon lens.
Franz Graphstill ·
Is it possible the long flex runs are because the barrel extends?
Roger Cicala ·
I'm sure it is, although it's just weird for a Canon lens.
yukosteel ·
What an enjoyable read! Thanks for sharing this valuable experience and detailed steps of accurate exploration strategy. Great article!
yukosteel ·
What an enjoyable read! Thanks for sharing this valuable experience and detailed steps of accurate exploration strategy. Great article!
Freejay ·
I really don’t understand why your expectations are so low: ‘acceptable for internet’?
This lens – at least my copy – is tack sharp! Ok, I didn’t look much at the corners, because usually that’s not where my visual point of interest lies, but I’m pretty sure that it is at least decent. And I’m already planing to print some of these pictures with more than 40:30 inch on canvas. I love this lens: Size, weight, sharpness, IS. The cons are of course F11, build quality and center-area-only AF. But for this price?
GulliNL ·
I’m confused looking at the pictures. I would assume the lens extends by turning the zoom dial and then the narrow part would be pushed out of the front. But when I look at the lens caps it looks like it’s the other way around. That the narrow part attaches to the camera and you move the broader part forwards and back to zoom (which seems weird because you have all the dials on the moving part then). Like I said, I’m confused. Could you enlighten me?
Olandese Volante ·
No zooming involved, the lens has a fixed focal length. But Canon made it collapsible so it fits in the average bag, and it must be extended to its full length before it can be used.
GulliNL ·
D’oh! That makes so much more sense than what I had in mind. Forgot it was a prime.
Roger Cicala ·
Freejay, set low expectations and I’m likely to be pleased 🙂
Freejay ·
Fair point. 😀
Jan Steinman ·
Remember, this is from the guy who said something like, “Expectations are the seeds of disappointment.” 🙂
Freejay ·
I really don't understand why your expectations are so low: 'acceptable for internet'?
This lens - at least my copy - is tack sharp! Ok, I didn't look much at the corners, because usually that's not where my visual point of interest lies, but I'm pretty sure that it is at least decent. And I'm already planing to print some of these pictures with more than 40:30 inch on canvas. I love this lens: Size, weight, sharpness, IS. The cons are of course F11, build quality and center-area-only AF. But for this price?
GulliNL ·
I'm confused looking at the pictures. I would assume the lens extends by turning the zoom dial and then the narrow part would be pushed out of the front. But when I look at the lens caps it looks like it's the other way around. That the narrow part attaches to the camera and you move the broader part forwards and back to zoom (which seems weird because you have all the dials on the moving part then). Like I said, I'm confused. Could you enlighten me?
Olandese Volante ·
No zooming involved, the lens has a fixed focal length. But Canon made it collapsible so it fits in the average bag, and it must be extended to its full length before it can be used.
GulliNL ·
D'oh! That makes so much more sense than what I had in mind. Forgot it was a prime.
Roger Cicala ·
Freejay, set low expectations and I'm likely to be pleased :-)
Freejay ·
Fair point. :D
Jan Steinman ·
Remember, this is from the guy who said something like, "Expectations are the seeds of disappointment." :-)
Henry Winokur ·
I love reading your stuff, Roger, particularly your type of smart-ass humor, which fits squarely with mine! 🙂 Hope you had a good vacation even without the lens. Guess you’ll have to go back for a real test!
Roger Cicala ·
Thank you, Henry!
Roger Cicala ·
Thank you, Henry!
Chik Sum ·
Hi Roger one more question.
I remember seeing a post from you back in 2015 or so about the 5D III/ II having a lot of video time fails a lot more, so now it’s 2020 and an obvious era of mirrorless cameras and these Focus by wire designs which makes tracking focus unimaginable, can you comment about maybe not only from limited Canon/Nikon history, but say Sony, Olympus or Fuji systems how well their camera and lens focus units lasts? back then investing $10k in purchasing a few quality lens and a great body makes you no need to spend extra for say 10-15 years without handling accidents, but with MILC and their lenses I am a bit skeptical about longevity
YS ·
Hi Roger one more question.
I remember seeing a post from you back in 2015 or so about the 5D III/ II having a lot of video time fails a lot more, so now it's 2020 and an obvious era of mirrorless cameras and these Focus by wire designs which makes tracking focus unimaginable, can you comment about maybe not only from limited Canon/Nikon history, but say Sony, Olympus or Fuji systems how well their camera and lens focus units lasts? back then investing $10k in purchasing a few quality lens and a great body makes you no need to spend extra for say 10-15 years without handling accidents, but with MILC and their lenses I am a bit skeptical about longevity
Roger Cicala ·
Henry, I think a trade in of the inner barrel is certainly likely, but I question that it will be significantly less than the cost of a new lens. Canon has usually been good about keeping repair costs somewhat reasonable, but with some other manufacturers who do 'optical assembly replacement', the repair cost is within 10% of a new lens cost. Often they say something like 'we can repair it for $1200, or will sell you a refurbished lens for $1000'.
A Canuck ·
This was by far the most painfully humorous “teardown” yet. Thanks. PS: What the hell was Canon thinking?
A Canuck ·
This was by far the most painfully humorous "teardown" yet. Thanks. PS: What the hell was Canon thinking?
JimnJax ·
I am 79 years old and have some serious health issues, including 3 ruptured disks and severe spinal stenosis. I switched to the Canon R last year and have been paring down my equipment over the past few month. I purchased the 600mm f11 a couple of weeks ago and have taken it out a couple of times. Since I am not independently wealthy this lens seems to be the right thing at the right time. We are heading out in late September for a 19 day driving tour of South Dakota and Yellowstone. I had decided to rent a long lens from lensrentals.com and now I don't have to do that. I have been very pleased with the images so far. My only caveat is this lens is for someone who knows photography, it is not for the person who has their camera set on Auto all the time and has never taken the time to learn the Exposure Triangle.
Urbex Mark ·
So I take it the troublesome switch is actuated by extending / retracting the barrel?
Urbex Mark ·
So I take it the troublesome switch is actuated by extending / retracting the barrel?
Andrew Leonard ·
I’ve been trying to find a tripod foot that will fit this and the new 800mm (looks like the same foot socket to me). Nothing that seems to match. Anyone have any luck with this?
Andrew Leonard ·
I've been trying to find a tripod foot that will fit this and the new 800mm (looks like the same foot socket to me). Nothing that seems to match. Anyone have any luck with this?
Traveler ·
Roger, I can’t help thinking that the lens could be done much thinner, what are your thoughts on that? Seems like the sides of it are just too masive for no reason. Look at the 70-300 kit lens. Very similar lens diameter, it also extends but it’s much more compact. I get the lenght but not the diameter. Thanks a lot for this article!
Traveler ·
Roger, I can't help thinking that the lens could be done much thinner, what are your thoughts on that? Seems like the sides of it are just too masive for no reason. Look at the 70-300 kit lens. Very similar lens diameter, it also extends but it's much more compact. I get the lenght but not the diameter. Thanks a lot for this article!