Has this happened to your supertele?

I doubt it!

I was out shooting today with the 500mm on a monopod. Suddenly it dropped at the front and the foot was hinged. What has happened is that 2 of the screws have popped out. The result is this

Hope they repair it quickly and free. Hang onto that lens, instead of the monopod only. If it makes you feel better, or worse, I have never heard of this happening before.

Oh don't worry I was holding it. It didn't fall or anything (thankfully). I'm glad it wasn't on the tripod at the time.

Looking at the first shot it looks like the thread has been stripped in top right as though it has been cross threaded at some stage.

Its pretty obvious from the shots that thats cast aluninum. That's dissapointing to see that from Canon as much as those lenses cost. I had hoped they would have made that out of a forged block of material and CNC machined with Heli-Coil inserts (high tensile steel thread inserts) to beef up the threads, but that's just me. I tend to be a little more critical over failures like this since I work for a company whose clients include Boeing, Raytheon and the U.S. Navy so I get spoiled being around the 1st class stuff.

Not here.....scary thought though...

Very scary. I consider myself lucky. Had the lens been on a tripod it would have gone for a swim as I was shooting waterfowl at a nearly loch.

What foot did you have attached, didn't you buy an Arca-Swiss style one from the USA.
Don't want this happening to mine if that's with the Canon foot attached.

i'd be afraid that it could happen again. even if you used loctite, it wouldn't prevent the metal part from cracking and screws falling out. let us know what canon ends up doing and if they just replace it with the same thing or what.

Yeah I'll keep the thread updated. Handed it in today and was told 10-14 days. I'm gonna email the regional CPS rep and see if they can speed it up a bit. I didn't send it to the main CPS service centre due to 1. cost and 2. Mail strikes starting soon,

thanks

Neil

Never happened with me, but I'm always paranoid that it will. I use a neckstrap on my 600 and have it around my neck all the time when I'm out with that lens.

seeing this, however makes me wonder as was stated why they wouldchimp on such a lens, instead of having forged metal. when you are spending this much on a lens, it should be forged. i wonder if this is a scandal in the making.

Moschero wrote in post #8801293
Its pretty obvious from the shots that thats cast aluninum. That's dissapointing to see that from Canon as much as those lenses cost. I had hoped they would have made that out of a forged block of material and CNC machined with Heli-Coil inserts (high tensile steel thread inserts) to beef up the threads, but that's just me. I tend to be a little more critical over failures like this since I work for a company whose clients include Boeing, Raytheon and the U.S. Navy so I get spoiled being around the 1st class stuff.

RiaGurl wrote in post #8810412
seeing this, however makes me wonder as was stated why they wouldchimp on such a lens, instead of having forged metal. when you are spending this much on a lens, it should be forged. i wonder if this is a scandal in the making.

Do you really think this is necessary?

When I look at the available bearing surface and the fact that the interface is, for the most part, subject to static loads, I would expect this design to be sufficient unless the lens is subjected to a severe bump exposing the foot to shear loads.

Perhaps it was a faulty casting - voids, or thin walls on the threaded bosses, or undersized tapped holes resulting in undue stresses in the bosses, or oversized screws, or.... Well, there are numerous potential causes that I would look for before I changed the design and significantly increased the cost; especially after, I'm sure, multiple design reviews, extensive FEA, FMEA and confirmation testing.

I would suspect that if this were, in fact, a design defect, we would have heard of more than one instance.

runninmann wrote in post #8810649
Do you really think this is necessary?

When I look at the available bearing surface and the fact that the interface is, for the most part, subject to static loads, I would expect this design to be sufficient unless the lens is subjected to a severe bump exposing the foot to shear loads.

Perhaps it was a faulty casting - voids, or thin walls on the threaded bosses, or undersized tapped holes resulting in undue stresses in the bosses, or oversized screws, or.... Well, there are numerous potential causes that I would look for before I changed the design and significantly increased the cost; especially after, I'm sure, multiple design reviews, extensive FEA, FMEA and confirmation testing.

I would suspect that if this were, in fact, a design defect, we would have heard of more than one instance.

I agree..it does look cheap, but as you said, This part isnt designed to be say, used as a door handle or locking mechanism...

Keep in mind the locking pins and mechanisms on the 747 and the DC-10 cargo doors looked worse and less secure than this, and the amount of force they had to deal with was a lot higher

I've never seen this happen, id just say its a defective part, im sure it happens even with the most expensive items...