RF 50mm/F1.2 teardown at lensrentals

[kvbarkley]

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2018/12/disassembly-of-the-canon-rf-50mm-f1-2l/

Very different from the EF lenses they have taken apart.

(If the link gets excised, google "lensrentals disassembly canon rf 50mm"

[MikeSowsun]

---

@kvbarkley wrote:

(If the link gets excised, google "lensrentals disassembly canon rf 50mm"

---

Yes, often I see my links are removed. Does anyone know the criteria they use that gets 3rd party links removed from this site? 

"We may remove posts that could be considered":

• "Promotion of third party products, promotions, websites, organizations, goods or services".

[RobertTheFat]

---

@MikeSowsun wrote:

---

@kvbarkley wrote:

(If the link gets excised, google "lensrentals disassembly canon rf 50mm"

---

Yes, often I see my links are removed. Does anyone know the criteria they use that gets 3rd party links removed from this site? 

"We may remove posts that could be considered":

• "Promotion of third party products, promotions, websites, organizations, goods or services".

---

Even when those third-party vendors have had a long-term symbiotic relationship with Canon. Go figure.

[ebiggs1]

The elephant in the room is, Canon owns and operates this site.  They can do as they see fit.  Remember they are called "guidelines" not laws.

"... follow our guidelines regarding the use of or participation in the Canon Forum. Canon reserves the right to modify these guidelines at any time without notice."

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

The elephant in the room is, Canon owns and operates this site.  They can do as they see fit.  Remember they are called "guidelines" not laws.

"... follow our guidelines regarding the use of or participation in the Canon Forum. Canon reserves the right to modify these guidelines at any time without notice."

---

Nobody here argues that Canon doesn't have a right to do as they please with their site. But it's perfectly legitimate to question their judgement regarding what rules they adopt and/or how they enforce them.

[Waddizzle]

---

@RobertTheFat wrote:

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

The elephant in the room is, Canon owns and operates this site.  They can do as they see fit.  Remember they are called "guidelines" not laws.

"... follow our guidelines regarding the use of or participation in the Canon Forum. Canon reserves the right to modify these guidelines at any time without notice."

---

Nobody here argues that Canon doesn't have a right to do as they please with their site. But it's perfectly legitimate to question their judgement regarding what rules they adopt and/or how they enforce them.

---

Using the forum is a privilege, not a right.  I do not think you have a right to question anything.  They have “terms and conditions of use” that you agreed to.  As long as the same rules are applied equally to everyone, you have no argument.

[ebiggs1]

"But it's perfectly legitimate to question their judgement regarding what rules they adopt and/or how they enforce them."

No it is not.  You may do so but they do not have to explain or reason why or why not.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"But it's perfectly legitimate to question their judgement regarding what rules they adopt and/or how they enforce them."

No it is not.  You may do so but they do not have to explain or reason why or why not.

---

I don't recall saying that they have to explain or reason why or why not. But I continue to stand by what I did say. You and Waddizzle are obviously free to disagree.

[ebiggs1]

Actually you did Robert!

""But it's perfectly legitimate to question their judgement regarding what rules they adopt and/or how they enforce them."

You can't question someone without expecting a reply. Whether you get one or not but your statement implies you want one.

"You and Waddizzle are obviously free to disagree."

I don't read Wadrizzle so I don't care what he does.

[RobertTheFat]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

Actually you did Robert!

""But it's perfectly legitimate to question their judgement regarding what rules they adopt and/or how they enforce them."

You can't question someone without expecting a reply. Whether you get one or not but your statement implies you want one.

"You and Waddizzle are obviously free to disagree."

I don't read Wadrizzle so I don't care what he does.

---

I'm done arguing. I think my position is clear and that what I said speaks for itself.