Dear Canon, back to the drawing board re Lens Caps.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19488715
.
Hmmmmmm.

If losing a lens cap is the worst thing that can happen, then wow. . Just wow.

I got a call this week saying that my $8,000* Sigma 300-800mm cannot be repaired and is pretty much only good as a paperweight ..... and there are many things that could be much worse than that.

Fortunately, Jeff, the 60-600mm that you sold me is working well, and allows me to keep shooting even though my main lens is dead forevermore.

Somehow I just don't see how losing a lens cap is so bad.

*$8,000 is what they retailed for new. I got mine used several years ago for $5555, and the current resale value would be about $2,700 if it was in good working condition. I got a lot of use out of it so having it be useless isn't really a big blow - I certainly got my money's worth out of it over the last 9 years.

.

Well it seemed bad at the time LOL

I am glad that the 60-600 is working well, it was just way to heavy for me!

Jeff USN Photog 72-76 wrote in post #19488718
.
Well it seemed bad at the time LOL

I am glad that the 60-600 is working well, it was just way to heavy for me!
.

.
I get that. . I can handhold it when shooting for short periods of time, but it is uncomfortable to carry around, so I got a monopod so I can put the whole works over my shoulder when walking long distances ..... makes it easier to carry that way.

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19488715
.
Hmmmmmm.

If losing a lens cap is the worst thing that can happen, then wow.

Don't know if I mentioned this before but one time when I was a US Navy Photographer I always used a Leica M2, loved it, well I was changing lenses I think it was a 50mm to a 135mm (not sure about the mm) but I dropped the 135.

I DID catch it on the first bounce off the steel deck! But it wouldn't focus anymore and when I took it in the camera repair when they took it apart it went egg shaped!

The important thing was to bring the gear back, it you dropped a camera out of a chopper you better jump after it LOL and as the Chief said if you had a choice between falling out or losing the camera well the camera wins

AntonLargiader wrote in post #19488574
That last bit you misread; I said "turn the camera off the lens" as in leave the lens standing there while I remove the camera from it.

Never heard of, or thought of, that action. I always hold the body, rotate the lens— for 48 years.

AntonLargiader wrote in post #19488574
.
..... "turn the camera off the lens" as in leave the lens standing there while I remove the camera from it. .

.

mcluckie wrote in post #19489499
.
Never heard of, or thought of, that action. I always hold the body, rotate the lens— for 48 years.
.

.
Have you ever used any truly big lenses?

With a huge lens that weights 12 or 13 pounds and is a foot and a half or two feet long, it is normal practice for many to leave the lens stationary and turn the camera body to get the camera off of the lens. . I'm talking about lenses like the 600mm f4, 300-800mm f5.6, the old style (heavy!) 400mm f2.8, etc.

Often this is done when the lens is on a tripod - leave the lens mounted to the tripod, unscrew the body from it, put a different body on it. . Then you keep shooting with the same lens, but with a different body attached to it. . This is how we can best take advantage of different sensor sizes - by leaving the lens alone, but switching from full frame to 1.3 crop factor to 1.6 crop factor.

With little lenses like a 100-400 zoom, or a 70-200mm f2.8, then of course it wouldn't make sense to do it this way. . But when you have a big lens, it is a heck of a lot easier and quicker to unscrew the 3 pound camera body than it is to unscrew the 12 pound lens.


.

I guess you’re right. Shooting the pga tour in the early 80s I had an 800mm 5.6 on a monopod. I vaguely remember twisting bodies off. Thanks for reminding me of 40 years ago.

mcluckie wrote in post #19490254
I guess you’re right. Shooting the pga tour in the early 80s I had an 800mm 5.6 on a monopod. I vaguely remember twisting bodies off. Thanks for reminding me of 40 years ago.

Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Travino......

chuckmiller wrote in post #19490346
Nicklaus, Palmer, Player, Travino......

Yep. Those guys. The Walrus, the Shark, Seve. I had a personal run-in with Travinos caddy. Some big partiers.

Think I had a 1000mm, but an f8, mirror reflex. I also shot one event with an ELM with like a 350mm howitzer.

I bought a well used Canon 135 f2 years ago from a pro who said the front element had a few scratches because of lens the lens cap falling off in his lens bag .... seemed possible. So whenever I pick up another lens I always make sure I have a lens filter that will fit so I have something to protect the front element if the lens cap falls off. I never shoot with the filter in place, it's there for protection only.

Yeah, it's a bit annoying removing a lens cap and a filter before attaching the hood but it's better than having the front element damaged which usually kills resale value.

Just my $.02

bogeypro wrote in post #19490878
I bought a well used Canon 135 f2 years ago from a pro who said the front element had a few scratches because of lens the lens cap falling off in his lens bag .... seemed possible. So whenever I pick up another lens I always make sure I have a lens filter that will fit so I have something to protect the front element if the lens cap falls off. I never shoot with the filter in place, it's there for protection only.

Yeah, it's a bit annoying removing a lens cap and a filter before attaching the hood but it's better than having the front element damaged which usually kills resale value.

Just my $.02

you might be onto something there - get an el-cheapo filter for each lens cap, remove the glass & superglue the cap to the ring. Presto! screw-on lens cap....

.

joeseph wrote in post #19490888
.
you might be onto something there - get an el-cheapo filter for each lens cap, remove the glass & superglue the cap to the ring. Presto! screw-on lens cap....
.

.
Why go thru all that hassle to make one when you can just buy a screw-on lens cap for a few bucks?

.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19490891
.

.
Why go thru all that hassle to make one when you can just buy a screw-on lens cap for a few bucks?

.

do they proudly display the Canon logo?

Going back a few posts to the "Park your lens before removing it" thing, I am DEFINITELY going to try to be more disciplined about this. The other day I took the 300 off and set it down (standing on end of course!) and the wobbling of the IS element was very clear to see through the mount end. If I jostled it I would see it again. I remounted the lens and turned it off properly (I think with the camera power) and took it off again. No wobbling. I noticed the exact same effect with the 70-200.

So, in the name of keeping that element from being able to bang around as the lenses are handled, I am going to try to remember to power down the IS before removing those lenses.

I think there is a similar phenomenon with the AF on some lenses, too, like the 100-400.