Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Strange Canon 100-400L Problem  
User currently offlineJohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1655 posts, RR: 2
Posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5739 times:

I haven't seen an issue similar to this posted, and was wondering if anyone has experienced it. I was up at BOS on Thursday with my Canon 100-400L (on a 40D body), and for the very first set of shots the image in the lens shook rather vigorously. The effect was similar to the IS "shake" that some Canon lenses produce, but it was more pronounced and lasted a lot longer. It would clear up intermittently to allow me to take a shot, but ultimately ended up with the camera giving me an "error code 1". I reseated the lens, and while the error code cleared the intermittent shake continued. Turning the IS off or changing its mode had no effect on the problem.

When I got home I found the metal lens mounting ring on the camera was pretty dirty and cleaned it up. I'm not sure if the problem still exists or not; for the first use after I turn on the camera after it's been left alone for awhile the lens will give me a couple of quick jumps, then settle down to operate normally.

The lens is still under warranty (until July), but the camera is not. Do you think the problem was caused by the dirty mounting ring or is this something more serious? Doing a Google search on this problem doesn't yield any matches that sound like what I'm experiencing, so it doesn't look like a common problem.

Thanks,

John

16 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSamuel32 From Switzerland, joined Jun 2005, 141 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 5681 times:

If you've cleaned out the lens mount and contact points thoroughly and it still shows up I'd send it in.

You've guys got the best Canon service on the planet so I wouldn't think twice about sending it in, especially if its still under warrenty. Send it to the Canon Center in New Jersey (forgot exactly what the center is called). You guys are lucky to have such a great service in the US. It's a mob here in Switzerland. Warranty is pretty much useless here. They will always find a way to charge you.

Sam,


User currently offlineFly-K From Germany, joined May 2000, 3149 posts, RR: 51
Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5643 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I've had a "shake problem" with the IS on a different Canon lens (17-55/2.8) that was similar to the one you describe. The IS had to replaced which wasn't cheap (the lens wasn't under warranty anymore). As the lens eventually had other issues which would have required another pricey repair, I eventually replaced it with a different one.

On my 100-400L the IS has worked well for 9 years now.

So I would recommend seeking Canon service's advice.



Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been...
User currently offlinemoose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2294 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5630 times:

John, if you are having any problems with it, especially since it is still under warranty, let Canon take a look at it. You can call their Factory Service Center in New Jersey to arrange shipment. Phone number is 732-521-7007 (I'm sure they have a toll-free, I just don't have it handy). A couple of weeks ago, I brought in my 5-year-old 28-200mm that wouldn't lock focus - since I was in NJ, I dropped it off on a Monday afternoon. Wednesday at 9am they called to say it was ready. Since it was long out of warranty, it cost about $100, but they replaced the AF motor and gave it a thorough checkout.


KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 5630 times:

This is a problem with the IS module - not common, but not that unusual with the 100-400 (which has one of the earliest - possibly first - implementations of IS). Replacement is the only option.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 5604 times:

My first 100-400L (I was second time lucky with this lens) had a very similar problem with its IS, and I sought a replacement. Using mode 2 the IS would constantly jump and judder, so panning was pretty much out of the question.

Karl


User currently offlinen314as From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 5587 times:

Folks, to be a good photographer, you do not need all this autofocus image stabilizing baloney. They add all those features and they are useless. Good pro level aviation photographers have never used any of that.

1. Pan an area to shoot the action shot (fly by or approach) about 30 degrees of shooting area.
2. Manually focus on that location and keep it there.
3. Now you are clear to shoot the plane as it goes by in that location and all you have to worry about is the width
of the plane.
4. Remember to shoot prop action at 1/250 or less speed.

Image stabilization is a gimmick that will add $200-$3000 per lens depending on which top level lens you buy.

It is not needed for aviation photography if you have the right touch. I have been doing this, even with L and older top level FD Canon lenses for over 35 years and usually never a problem. The results have been fine even in poster shots (slide and digital).


User currently offlineJRowson From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 351 posts, RR: 12
Reply 7, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5547 times:

I had a similar fault when I got my 100-400 back in 2004. It was 6 months old when the IS failed, doing a similar thing to what you have described. I sent it into Canon who replaced the IS free under the warranty. Put me off the lens a bit though, especially when a year or so later I had AF problems and bluriness appear on the left side. A costly out of warranty fix though this time. I eventually got rid of the lens in favour of a 70-200 + 1.4x combo which has been far more reliable.


James Rowson. Canonite and lover of all things L. JAR Photography.
User currently offlinetimdegroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 65
Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 5524 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting n314as (Reply 6):
Folks, to be a good photographer, you do not need all this autofocus image stabilizing baloney.

It helps though 



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineJohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1655 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 5435 times:

Thanks for the feedback. I'm going to do another outing with the lens to see if it's still giving me trouble - I suspect if the problem can't be reproduced I won't get far with the service folks. I also might try to pair it up with my old 300D to rule out problems on the camera end. We'll see how it goes. I guess I'm spoiled; my cheap Canon non-L 75-300mm has performed well since I bought it in 2003.

User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 5359 times:

Quoting n314as (Reply 6):
Folks, to be a good photographer, you do not need all this autofocus image stabilizing baloney. They add all those features and they are useless. Good pro level aviation photographers have never used any of that.

Of course you don't need them. Nor do you need computers, refrigerators or any one of a million technological developments. Frankly, anything other than an 8x10 view camera with glass plates is a gimmick.  

Seriously, everyone would do well to look at the work of Charles E. Brown - fantastic photographer, and much of his work was done on 5x4 view cameras on sheet film.

But, I don't see this as a reason to ignore technology. AF and IS etc. without a doubt help get shots that would otherwise be impossible (for me at least). The problem is when you become dependent on the technology.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1977 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 5350 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ckw (Reply 10):
The problem is when you become dependent on the technology.

Reading glasses are also technology. Nothing wrong with being dependent on them, is there?

Some people have steady hands, some don't.

I met this photographer at an airshow, a young bloke who complained that he has very shaky hands and can't shoot without IS. Meanwhile he is a pretty successful aviation photographer, runs a business selling prints of military aviation; some of them are nothing short of stunning.

Without the technology however he wouldn't be able to pursue his passion.

n314as above has expressed his view on the subject. It works for him, and it is fine. Other people may have other opinions, and it is also fine.

I still remember the time when it was said that 'real photography' is done on film, and that 'real pro photographers' don't use all that digital 'baloney'. Wasn't that long ago, actually, within a decade.

Andrei


User currently offlineJohnJ From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 1655 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 5338 times:

Well, fir this particular problem it doesn't matter whether I need the IS or not... The lens came with it like it or not, it's apparently malfunctioning and causing problems whether or not it's switched on, moot point.

User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4764 posts, RR: 26
Reply 13, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 5327 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting n314as (Reply 6):
Folks, to be a good photographer, you do not need all this autofocus image stabilizing baloney. They add all those features and they are useless. Good pro level aviation photographers have never used any of that.
Quoting n314as (Reply 6):
Image stabilization is a gimmick that will add $200-$3000 per lens depending on which top level lens you buy.

I'm not really sure how your post is relevant.   Modern DSLRs and many high quality lenses come with autofocus and image stabilization. As far as I know, the 100-400L doesn't come with an option without IS, so if you want that lense (excellent lens), you get IS. In this particular case, the owner of the 100-400L is having a problem with his lens.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 730 posts, RR: 16
Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 10 hours ago) and read 5313 times:

Quoting Chukcha (Reply 11):

Reading glasses are also technology. Nothing wrong with being dependent on them, is there?

Well, as a glasses wearer, yes there is - though there is little I can do about it! They are a pain (I have to keep taking them on and off when shooting), and if I forgot them or break them it is extremely inconvenient. I can't get by without them, hence for me this dependence is a problem.

Note that I didn't say it was wrong to be dependant on the technology, but any dependency tends to be restricting in some way - if you can learn to work without it you may find you are more versatile, flexible and above all less vulnerable - anyone not been caught out by flat batteries? Technology can be enabling and should be embrassed as, if you like, an extension to your abilities. But it should not be used as a subsitute for aquiring a good basic skill set - like relying on Photoshop to fix dodgy exposures.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineChukcha From Australia, joined Mar 2006, 1977 posts, RR: 7
Reply 15, posted (3 years 3 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 5272 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting ckw (Reply 14):
Well, as a glasses wearer, yes there is

Yes, but what if you were told, "Forget glasses, a good reader can go without"?

The example I brought up was case in point - the guy can't go without IS.

My point is - everyone can deside for himself to what extent to use technology. But in any case, it is great that it is available.


User currently offlineDehowie From Australia, joined Feb 2004, 1057 posts, RR: 33
Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 months 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 5215 times:

Quoting n314as (Reply 6):
Folks, to be a good photographer, you do not need all this autofocus image stabilizing baloney. They add all those features and they are useless. Good pro level aviation photographers have never used any of that.

LOL...gathering you have never used it so therefor how can you say its a bunch of baloney??????
Mmmm zone focusing died 15 years ago along with the art of manual focus...thank god.
Now its off to my "The Earth is flat" club meeting" guess i'll see you there.... 



2EOS1DX,EF14.2.8LII,17TS,85/1.2,16-35L,24-70LII,24L,70-200F2.8LII,100-400,300/400/500/800L
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Canon 100-400L Fogs Up After Cleaning posted Sun Aug 29 2010 14:27:37 by United_fan
Looking For Refurbished Canon 100-400L Is posted Sat Mar 7 2009 17:38:29 by Devildog2222
Canon 100-400L Is USM Aperture Question posted Sun Aug 10 2008 08:51:35 by Ag92
Sigma 50-500 Or Canon 100-400L Is posted Mon Jul 10 2006 07:52:38 by Franzloew
Canon 100-400L Is Is Toasted posted Fri Aug 19 2005 06:41:41 by N317AS
Yay! Just Got My Canon 100-400L Is Lens posted Thu Jul 28 2005 23:23:51 by Fly747
Wanting A Canon 100-400L? posted Mon Jun 13 2005 03:31:27 by DLKAPA
Canon 100-400L Is posted Sun Jun 12 2005 21:50:12 by TFSPhoto
Canon 100-400L Non Aviation Photography posted Fri Apr 29 2005 00:23:24 by Dullesguy
Canon 100-400L posted Sat Mar 19 2005 01:57:03 by Atomother