Lens weight capacity of the EF mount

[Kevin D'Haeze]

Does anyone have any official "recommended max weight" stats on the EF mount? In other words, how heavy a lens can be safely mounted under "general" shooting conditions before needing to add a lens support on rails? For example, a Canon 70-200 2.8 IS comes in at about 3.28 lbs... which is almost as much as the camera body itself. Is that too much stress on the EF mount?

 

[mike zorger]

I was wondering the same thing. The 70-200 is a great piece of glass and I always mount the lens to the tripod when shooting with my 5d. Id like to put a rail system on the Raven. Anyone know of any that won't break the bank?

 

[Darryl Harris]

I was wondering the same thing. The 70-200 is a great piece of glass and I always mount the lens to the tripod when shooting with my 5d. Id like to put a rail system on the Raven. Anyone know of any that won't break the bank?

http://woodencamera.com/red-weapon-raven-camera-accessory-kit-pro-19mm-configuration-guide.html

 

[Kevin D'Haeze]

I was wondering the same thing. The 70-200 is a great piece of glass and I always mount the lens to the tripod when shooting with my 5d.

Yes, that's an easy choice with the 5D... it's 1.89lbs, and the lens is 3.28lbs. So it makes sense to tripod mount the 70-200. With the Raven it's more or less a weight wash on either side of the EF mount, so the question remains what the safe limit is.

The most information I've found thus far involves a similar conversation on another site that asks the same question relative to the Canon C100. Here's a snip of their conversation with a Canon rep:

Rings once, "Thank you for calling Cinema EOS, your call may be recorded..." I get Allen.

Me: "Hi- are there specs for maximum unsupported lens weight on a C100? I've looked everywhere."
Allen: (not even a microsecond of hesitation) "No"
Me: (brief pause, I'm slightly taken aback) "No kidding...Well, I have a 300 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L, I can't imagine it's OK to have the 300 (5.17 lbs) unsupported"
Allen: "If you hold, I can ask..."
Me: "OK, also ask if you can hang the body off the back of a lens, DSLR style"
Allen: "OK sir, please hold..."
Hold Music ..............................................more music........................................more music......................................
Allen: "Hello sir, there is no spec on that....but you should be OK with the 70-200"
Me: "No kidding."
Allen: "Now for the Canon Cine Lenses, the picture of the 30-300 (12.79 lbs) shows rods, support and follow focus."
Me: "Now there's a surprise..."
Allen: "I have a 5D and there's no problem having an unsupported 70-200. Obviously, you'd want to support the 300."
Me; "Obviously. But the mount is strong enough for an unsupported 70-200 2.8?"
Allen: "Yes. Actually the mount is stronger than on the 5D."
Me: "No kidding"
Allen: "Yep"
Me: "What about hanging the body off the back?"
Allen: "No problem. If you use the 300, support the lens, but the body's OK on the back."

So there you have it. Allen at Canon says it's OK to have an unsupported 70-200.
Or a supported lens with the body hangin off the back...
​

This was taken from this thread. I'm not sure how relative this is to the Raven, but it's something.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

What needs to be taken under consideration here is also if the operator is on firm ground standing still while operating the camera with a lens as long as the 70-200...

Why?

Because if the operator is moving, say atop a vehicle, and especially so when on a Safari...

Well, then all bets are off, as I have seen personally damage on both the Mount and the Lens.

Other then that I did also have the 200 1.8 monster off any of my Canon cameras (Mostly 1D/1Ds bodies) with no issues in the years, but I also always had my left hand on either the Zoom or Focus, so it was some what supported.

So, if you are standing still, or the camera is on a tripod then no problem even with a 5 pounds lens, but as soon as you start moving all bets are off even with the 70-200.

Take it from some one that is know to hung huge heavy lenses unsupported...

If you are talking about RED cameras only, then is a different story, RED's EF mounts are stronger especially if you go Ti, which offers a different tolerance also to extreme weather changes without loosening or tightening.

 

[Kevin D'Haeze]

So, if you are standing still, or the camera is on a tripod then no problem even with a 5 pounds lens, but as soon as you start moving all bets are off even with the 70-200.

Thanks for the insight on this... appreciate it. I can imagine how gut-wrenching it must be at that moment the mount fails from weight overload... talk about a show-stopper.

 

[AndreeMarkefors]

It's my impression that RED's own EF lock mount is substantially stronger than Canon's basic mount.

I'm sure a 70-200L 2.8 IS II would be OK on RED's mount from a structural point of view. But that alone might not change the fact that balancing the camera might be awkward if there is only a single point of contact under either the camera or the lens (off center so to speak).

 

[Owen Rennie]

I hang the 70-200 off my dragon small day everyday.. Always handheld or tripod. No problems here

 

[Kevin D'Haeze]

It's my impression that RED's own EF lock mount is substantially stronger than Canon's basic mount.

I'm sure a 70-200L 2.8 IS II would be OK on RED's mount from a structural point of view. But that alone might not change the fact that balancing the camera might be awkward if there is only a single point of contact under either the camera or the lens (off center so to speak).

It does seem ironic that Canon could learn a thing or two from Red about how to implement a Canon EF mount. Thanks for the input, guys. I love the quality from the 70-200 IS II and am feeling better about using it even when trying to keep the rig small (i.e., no rails/lens support).

You guys are a great resource here. Appreciate it.