Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Another 'Canon 100-400mm L Problem'  
User currently offlineKelvinCJ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2012, 34 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 10133 times:

Hello,

Recently I decided to purchase a new Canon 100-400mm l lens, but since its arrival have only been disappointed with it.
Unfortunately, I fear it may be something internally wrong with the lens. I have compared it against my Tamron 70-300mm USD and can literally see no difference, at all, in terms of quality or sharpness. I have tried different apertures to no avail and am thinking perhaps a visit to the Canon service centre is best?

I will have it for the next 2 weeks regardless of hoping to send it in for repair or not - and was hoping in that time to be able to test it further. Unfortunately at the moment I am unable to post examples - it just seems to me that the entire focal range is soft, no matter what I try. I have heard of some lenses having misaligned inards due to the design / shipping process but have not heard of any actual individuals affected by such an issue?

Some people I have observed find the difference when using a filter; I have tried with and without and have unfortunately observed nochange in image quality.

Thus leading me to believe that it is something with the lens? It seems to focus okay however I have not tested this fully yet.

I wanted to post here to ask if anyone has had any similar issues and their course of action?

Finally, I know I could be at fault here, as indeed some have claimed their lenses faulty then had good shots with it etc. after a few outings - which is why I wanted to allow a 2 week 'testing period' to ensure it is the lens and not myself at fault?

47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinehrtsfldhomeboy From Djibouti, joined Oct 2007, 73 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10127 times:

something is wrong with your lens. canon didn't make the 100-400 a popular lens cause it poduced the same quality as a lens 1/5th the value.

FedEx that puppy to a canon service center. Include your warranty information too.


User currently offlineKelvinCJ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2012, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 10113 times:

Thank you for the reply.

I am hoping to send both the lens and my camera in for repair should it come to that. Unfortunately, by having a 500D and no micro focus adjustment that is another downfall I fear.

The best example I can give, of what I see is from: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/598361

The best I have obtained is the first examples at f5.6 and f6.3. I have been unable to achieve anything close to the filtered f7.1 or f8.0, let alone the non-filtered images.


User currently offlineRCoulter From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 536 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 10068 times:

The best results with my and a lot of other 100-400's are in the F/8-F/10 range in my experience without a filter.

User currently offlineaddew1 From Sweden, joined Mar 2010, 13 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10049 times:

Quoting RCoulter (Reply 3):

Totally agree with RCoulter. My 100-400 performs at its peak at the same settings without filter


User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 713 posts, RR: 16
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 10048 times:

I think the first thing to establish is whether the lens is damaged in some way, or if it (or the camera!) simply need calibration. Here's how I'd go about it (and get rid of the filter, it will only confuse things!)

First, make sure IS is turned off! - this is a potential problem, so eliminate it from the test.

1 - put the lens on a tripod (needs to be unmoved) and focus on a target - at around miday distance. (neither too close nor at infinity

2 - turn AF off, and focus on the target manually - you will need good light to do this accurately.

If the results from 2 are better than one, then the lens simply needs calibrating. Not a big deal. Otherwise you have a problem with the elements in the lens. Fixable, but more pricey.

If both sets of results look OK, perhaps the problem was with the IS unit. Repeat the tests above, except this time take alternate shots with the IS on and off. If you see a difference, the IS unit needs replacing.

To be throrough you probably need to repeat the testing at different zoom settings, though your problem sounds severe enough that it will be apparent at any focal length.

Finally, it is worth considering whether your technique is at fault (not knowing your range of experience). The lens is much bigger and over twice the weight of your Tamron. Shutter speeds which worked for you with the Tamron may not be fast enough for sharp images from the Canon just yet. Again, the tripod test will help determine if this is the case.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineKelvinCJ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2012, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 10033 times:

Thank you all for the replies.

I have undertaken the Colin test and can report that I did not really see any difference - the only difference found between 2 and 1 was that via my manual focus I could read the text surrounding the area of interest a little easier.

The problem I seem to be getting is that noise and grain, together with,'soft' text which makes for a less than appealing image. I can say, however, that by removing the filter images appear less blurred and text is slightly clearer. However, I do not seem to be anywhere near the clarity expected. To me, it seems to work fine but the optics (camera or lens) are the letdown.

In simple terms it seems like viewing an image with no quality filtering such as no anisotropic filtering. It just does not seem sharp regardless of the focal length or aperture. I would consider myself a novice however.

The company I ordered from have no more in stock so I cannot easily return for a replacement.

It just seems to lack the HD factor.

[Edited 2012-06-15 09:54:44]

User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 713 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 9961 times:

Quoting KelvinCJ (Reply 6):
The problem I seem to be getting is that noise and grain, together with,'soft' text which makes for a less than appealing image.

Noise/grain is a different matter altogether, which would not be related to poor focus. However it is possible that a defective lens is not responding to exposure data sent by the camera resulting in underexposure.

But without examples, its a bit hard to diagnose.

Essentially, if you have carried out the tests I suggested and no images are sharp, the lens would appear to be defective and needs to be replaced, rather than calibrated.

The fact that the company had no more in stock makes me a little suspicious (this isn't a rare lens). Perhaps you've been sent an old returned item. Personally I would request a refund and buy elsewhere.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinejaktrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9954 times:

If you bought online the seller should offer a 30-day, no qualms refund policy if you aren't happy with the item. I purchased my 100-400 from Park Cameras (London) and returned the first example as it was very soft one side towards the extreme telephoto end. Its replacement (my current 100-400) arrived without fuss and is absolutely amazing; come winter it takes over the job of primary lens from my (ultra-sharp) 70-200 f/4.

A lot of bad experiences with the 100-400 come from either crap filters or people expecting it to produce wonderfully sharp images at 400mm over a distance of two miles at mid-day in Bangkok in summer! Of course in your case it genuinely appears that there is some sort of fault, so for peace of mind I'd just get it replaced. It is your entitlement and when paying over £1,000 for a lens one expects it to do the task for which it was intended!

Karl


User currently offlineKelvinCJ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2012, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 9935 times:

Thank you for the replies.

I trust the retailer and would rather send it to Canon - afterall, the retailer has done nothing wrong and Canon are at fault here not the retailer. They said they would have more stock in about 2 weeks.

The lens itself is only a few months old - manufactured in March of this year.

I really do not know what the problem is? From the LCD screen I see no difference between the quality at any aperture at the same focal length - the whole image appears almost blurry. In fact, the LCD portrays this kind of quality:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...1019&message=41394076&changemode=1

For the initial non serviced shots.
I think I will keep trying for 2 weeks anyway, but at the same time doubt it will resolve itself.

It seems as if it might be something as simple as the focus but as my 500D has no micro focus adjustment I would need to send it for repair anyway.

Thank you all for your help and advice.


User currently offlineclickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9601 posts, RR: 69
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 9914 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting KelvinCJ (Reply 9):
I think I will keep trying for 2 weeks anyway,

No offense, but this the absolute wrong thing to do. If the lens is broken, box it up and send it back to the retailer. They can deal with Canon. After all, isn't that what their job is?

If you keep the lens you risk damaging it.

Rereading your story does not seem to make much sense, actually. If you bought the lens, retail, and it is duff, send it back. Get a refund.

If you want to rule out your camera, try the lens on another body. Take it to the shop and ask them what they think. Pretty much do *anything* except what you are saying you are going to do.


User currently offlinejaktrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9900 times:

Couldn't have put it any better myself Royal.

If you bought a car that claimed to do 100mph but only did 20mph would you continue to 'try' and get it to go 100mph? Or would you return it sharpish?

I know what I'd do.....

Karl


User currently onlineaussie18 From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 1731 posts, RR: 9
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 9895 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Quoting KelvinCJ (Reply 6):

The company I ordered from have no more in stock so I cannot easily return for a replacement.

Did you order it online and does it come with warranty,I know you can buy discounted new camera gear and lenses online which come with no warranty or short term warranty which doesnt cover certain things.It can be the risk you take for a cheaper price.

As Royal mentioned above I would agree that you should take it back and either get a refund or replacement depending how long you have to wait for it,I would either go out if you have time over the weekend and take some shots(If weather is good) and if there is no improvement than send it back straight away next week.

You paid for a brand new lens so it should be in good condition,It shouldnt be your responsibility to send it to Canon and pay for it to be re-calibrated or repaired.

Cheers Mark


User currently offlineKelvinCJ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2012, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9831 times:

Thank you all for the replies.

After reviewing others' images etc. I am sure my problem is similar to whatever Ryan (Silver1SWA) encountered.

I saw on Ryan's profile the two different bird images and must admit, the kind of quality I see is the same as in the worst example. Last night I tried some jpeg with camera sharpening and the images appeared closer to the better image example.

Furthermore I looked at some 738 comparisons and can only note at full crop or there abouts that the windows appeared slightly sharper on my LCD screen.

I will try some more tests today but RAW images look like they were taken from my Tamron. Using jpeg did improve quality somewhat using in camera sharpening but I have not yet tested jpeg against the Tamron. I can try and post some examples of the screen later today as I presently do not have computer access.

[Edited 2012-06-16 06:02:15]

Sorry I forgot to add it does come with a warranty and was indeed bought online. Another slight issue I imagine is that the warranty card states 'USA and Canada Only' but from what I have read online Canon UK or Europe can / will still service it under warranty as it is only currently 3 months old out of the 12 for warranty anyway? - Perhaps that is incorrect?


[Edited 2012-06-16 06:13:07]

User currently offlinejaktrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 9802 times:

Irrelevant. Just take it back to the shop. As the seller it is partly their responsibility.

Or you can keep testing it 'til the 30 day 'cooling-off' period is over.......

If there's any doubt just take it back. You obviously aren't a novice and it's not that complicated a piece of equipment.

Karl


User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4738 posts, RR: 26
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 9767 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KelvinCJ (Reply 13):
After reviewing others' images etc. I am sure my problem is similar to whatever Ryan (Silver1SWA) encountered.

I saw on Ryan's profile the two different bird images and must admit, the kind of quality I see is the same as in the worst example. Last night I tried some jpeg with camera sharpening and the images appeared closer to the better image example.

The shots of the bird posted in my profile were for a thread comparing my results using the 100-400 vs the 70-200 2.8 ISL + 2x teleconverter. The poorer examples you refer to are from the 70-200 + TC combo. That's not a good sign if that's how your shots are looking.

Please post samples at full resolution. That's really the best way for us to make any kind of judgement.

As I've made clear in this forum many times, I have a love-hate relationship with that lens. I was initially unhappy with my copy and went back to the camera store where I purchased it and they let me try out a few different copies to run some tests. There was no conclusive evidence that I had a bad copy and even though they were willing to swap it out for a new one, I opted to keep my copy thinking maybe I either had high expectations or my issues were related to user error.

Some things I have learned using that lens...

Air quality and temperature is extremely important. At 400mm you are peering through a lot of air and distortions due to things like heat haze will ruin your day, even if heat haze isn't obvious with the naked eye.

At the long end, you really need to stop down for best results and your subject will need to be close enough to full the frame. Cropping power at 400mm is weak. At 400mm, my best results are at f/11. At 100mm-250mm f/6.3-f/8 is the sweet spot and results will be sharpest.

I have gotten in the habit of setting in camera sharpening at the highest setting, I think 7. I shoot raw so this can be adjusted later, but especially for reviewing on the LCD, in camera sharpening all the way up helps.

The lens struggles to lock focus when shooting burst in servo when the subject is changing it's distance from you. Not sure if that's my lens, or the just the 100-400 and it's older technology.

With all that said, I'm now selling my 100-400. I've had had some good times with it, some bad...but it's just not needed anymore and I want to upgrade to full frame. It's time to go...



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineKelvinCJ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2012, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 9739 times:

Thank you Karl and Ryan for the replies.

I'm sorry to drag you both into this - but I do greatly appreciate your time and information.

I think given my present situation - while returning the lens is the easiest option, it could also be the wrong option.

I think I have a good chance of being called the boy who cried wolf, especially as I have not yet viewed any images on my computer.

I have read most people start off feeling disappointed with this lens - after-all, I am merely basing my opinion and view on what my 500D lcd screen is showing me. While some people claim having theirs serviced made all the difference, as I have no others to presently compare to - making all of this fuss could be a red-herren.

I like the retailer I dealt with and would loose money by sending the lens back - with no guarantee of getting a better one either.

I think all-in-all I should wait a while or get some camera shop staff to take a look at it. I will of course be happy to post evidence of what I have been mentioning here - when I can get access to my computer again.

In summary, at the present I feel a little let down by the complete lack of clarity, sharpness and in general difference that I was expecting to see on the lcd screen of my 500D between using my Tamron and the Canon L glass, especially at full crop. I think perhaps the problem could be with me pinning my
interpretation on a 3 inch screen rather than a monitor and specialist software.

I would like to thank you all for your contributions and assistance.


User currently offlineKelvinCJ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2012, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 9721 times:

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 15):

Thanks for the tip Ryan - I have just tested in camera sharpening at 7 ( originally at 3 ) while shooting RAW and it has made a significant difference to the readability of text. I did not think it would have any effect as I was not using jpeg but it has certainly enhanced the image I was seeing in the lcd screen. Thank you.

[Edited 2012-06-16 15:08:06]

User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9704 times:

Quoting KelvinCJ (Reply 16):
I think given my present situation - while returning the lens is the easiest option, it could also be the wrong option

I'm not sure why you would come to such a conclusion. If I buy something I'm very disappointed with, my instinct that there's a fault is usually right and I don't hesitate in returning the offending item. I don't see what's wrong with returning it and trying another one; when you spend such an amount on a lens it needs to do what you want it to do properly.

Even if there is no fault, it's obviously not delivering the results you desire and you are quite within your rights to return it, claiming dissatisfaction.

Incidently, I was very impressed with my current 100-400 when I first used it, and the clarity is good even when in-camera sharpening is set to 0.

Go with your instincts as hanging around until it's too late will do you no good. I'm not sure what else you want any of us to say - most people have voiced similar opinions to me.

If the next one is just as bad, you can safely say it's either down to your camera or your technique. At least you'll know and have peace-of-mind.

Karl

***EDIT***

Just to add.....

You say a lot of people feel disappointed with this lens at first. This is usually down to poor technique - folks thinking they can shoot across huge distances in humid air and still get crisp, sharp results. It won't happen, whatever lens you use! Any lens must be used within environments limitations to achieve successful results.

[Edited 2012-06-16 15:51:09]

[Edited 2012-06-16 15:52:38]

User currently offlinedazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2825 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 9703 times:

Quoting KelvinCJ (Reply 16):
especially as I have not yet viewed any images on my computer.

Before you do anything else, I suggest you do just that. You can't really form an opinion until you've got all the information you need. The small LCD screen on your camera is only a preview really.

Quoting KelvinCJ (Reply 16):
I think all-in-all I should wait a while or get some camera shop staff to take a look at it.

That needs to be done sooner rather than later, ie Monday morning! You don't need to take it in to a shop to do that either. Post a photo or two here. There's enough experience and expertise here to know a duff lens when we see one. It's an expensive piece of kit you're dealing with. If you aren't happy with it, get it looked at.

Quoting KelvinCJ (Reply 16):
In summary, at the present I feel a little let down by the complete lack of clarity, sharpness and in general difference

You've answered your own question really, you need to get it sorted.

Darren



Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
User currently offlineKelvinCJ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2012, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 9600 times:

Thank you for the replies.

Karl - I can confirm that my situation seems like your first 24-105mm l predicament. All my images appear soft and almost out of focus as well. I do not know how they can call these L glass lenses?!

I will try the retailer for a refund as the lens is defective and would rather order from elsewhere - such as Park Cameras.
Failing that, if I cannot get a refund / replacement I will send it to Canon.

Thank you all for your help and advice. When my computer is working again I will be sure to post examples here illustrating the problem experienced.


User currently onlinestealthz From Australia, joined Feb 2005, 5610 posts, RR: 45
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 9592 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KelvinCJ (Reply 16):
I think I have a good chance of being called the boy who cried wolf,

Highly likely, as you...

Quoting KelvinCJ (Reply 16):
have not yet viewed any images on my computer.

Relying on what you see on the camera viewfinder is hardly going to enhance your status as an expert witness.

Quoting KelvinCJ (Reply 20):
I will try the retailer for a refund as the lens is defective

Not absolutely convinced we have established that!!

Quoting KelvinCJ (Reply 20):
and would rather order from elsewhere

From your earlier comments regarding the retailer, what you may lack in photographic expertise you make up for in your mastery of the art of mixed messaging!



If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
User currently offlineJakTrax From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 4936 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 9588 times:

If your issue is anything like my first experience with the 24-105 f/4 L then you have a defective lens and must return it as soon as possible. You really do, however, need to look at the results on a large screen before you can be sure of a fault; although having said that I occasionally find images that looked sharp on my camera's LCD screen are somewhat soft.

The difference therefore is that I looked at the images my 24-105 was producing very closely on a larger screen, and in no situation was the lens producing sharp images. My second example was nowhere near as bad but was very soft left-hand-side, so I (reluctantly) tried a third and it was fine. Perfect in fact!

That's why I recommend you try another example - if not from the same retailer, from somewhere else (Park aren't quite the cheapest but their after-sales service is pretty good).

Karl


User currently offlineKelvinCJ From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2012, 34 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 18 hours ago) and read 9587 times:

Quoting stealthz (Reply 21):your mastery of the art of mixed messaging!


Finally - something I am good at for a change! - I do of course apologise for this.

I know it may seem silly but given what I have seen and have not seen - namely any improvement between the two lenses, and perhaps the repeated messaging about returning for a refund - it all seems to have made me decide to pursue a refund.

Furthermore - reading Karl's post about his 24-105mm L experience seemed to confirm my suspicions. I seem to be getting the same results as he and he found it to be defective - so by my line of reasoning: if my results appear similar and his lens was indeed at fault - then it is highly likely my lens is the culprit here.

[Edited 2012-06-17 08:48:32]

In all seriousness I do greatly appreciate all the help and advice you all have given me.

I know without looking at the images on the computer it may be risky and indeed not at fault. But it seems that way to me.
It is certainly a lot poorer than I was expecting and I have unfortunately found no image close to the 'worst' 100% crops I have seen and I have found no sharp images from it at all - no matter the focal length, aperture or object of interest. Every image appears soft.


[Edited 2012-06-17 08:57:41]

[Edited 2012-06-17 09:00:38]

Either way I will not be doing anything until tomorrow.

I know that if I return it I can always try again from elsewhere - which seems the better option to me. I could of course simply send this lens in for repair at Canon if it is indeed at fault as I suspect - but I do not know how that would pan out, especially given the USA and Canada only warranty card.

Based on what I have seen from my camera - I either have an extremely soft copy of the lens or it is defective.


[Edited 2012-06-17 09:16:43]

[Edited 2012-06-17 09:18:32]

[Edited 2012-06-17 09:22:00]

User currently offlineSilver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 4738 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 1 week 17 hours ago) and read 9570 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KelvinCJ (Reply 23):

I honestly don't know how you can claim the lens is defective without seeing the images on the computer. You can do whatever you want, but I wouldn't take any action until the shots can be reviewed on a computer first. I'm sure Canon and/or the retailer would prefer that as well.



ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
25 Post contains images vikkyvik : I use the LCD on my camera ONLY to do a quick check of if I'm in the right ballpark for exposure, and to see if sharpness is either terrible or possi
26 KelvinCJ : Thank you for the replies. Unfortunately it does not seem likely that I will be able to view the images on my computer, before the timescale for a ref
27 JakTrax : While LCD screens are not particularly useful for guaging the quality of an image, it stands to reason that if an image looks terrible on such a smal
28 Post contains links and images sovietjet : I usually have in camera sharpening and noise reduction off, as I find dedicated software such as photoshop can achieve better results and gives you m
29 Silver1SWA : Wasn't that with a 5Dmk2? Regardless, that's quite impressive but I'd consider that an exception not the rule. There is no way I could crop that much
30 sovietjet : Indeed it was, but don't forget that even though the 7D has a few less megapixels to crop from it also has the 1.6x sensor so if you were standing ne
31 stealthz : Tend to doubt Sovietjet and his 5d could either if it was a 737 or 320 at LHR or SYD. No disrespect to Sovietjet, I look forward to his pics of rare(
32 KelvinCJ : Thank you all for the replies. It would seem to be an autofocus issue that has caused these problems. While I am still no wiser as to the quality aspe
33 JakTrax : I'll say it one last time..... Take it back and get the shop to replace it. It's their responsibility, not yours. If that doesn't work (God knows why
34 clickhappy : What's with the "woe is me, I got a bad lens, so I guess I will just hope for the best" routine? Do you think the shop will somehow be out your money
35 Post contains images GPHOTO : He's British, what do you expect? We are not traditionally good at complaining about poor goods or service. But back to the matter in hand! I've had
36 Silver1SWA : You absolutely nailed it with your assessment. I discovered every point you covered through trial and error and once I learned how to use the lens, m
37 Post contains links and images KelvinCJ : Thank you all for your responses. I decided to hold on to the lens as I got a good deal and did not want to ruin that, coupled with the advice of view
38 sovietjet : Shooting at f5.6 with this lens will almost always give you soft results. I tend to avoid that aperture unless I REALLY need the extra 1/3 stop. Frank
39 RCoulter : Same thoughts here, I even rarely am below f7.1... Also, make sure you are using just the center focus point, sometimes the camera will pick the wron
40 Silver1SWA : If you look back to my post early in this thread, I explained that you must stop down with this lens especially at 400mm. I'm not convinced that anyth
41 KelvinCJ : Thank you for the replies. I had bared all that was said in mind. I was shooting at f5.6 because anything above and especially at f8 was blurry / out
42 JakTrax : That Eurofly image isn't bad for 400mm at f/5.6 and 1/500th. The engine and gear door look a little soft but I'd say that's about right given the cond
43 KelvinCJ : I would tend to agree. I think it is great when used via the Live View (after editing those pictures in Photoshop) - but I have had far too many issu
44 KelvinCJ : Well, I have heard back from the repair centre today. I apologise to those of you who wish not to read this - however I want to update this thread wit
45 vikkyvik : I'm a bit confused - it seems you bought this lens somewhere around a month ago; isn't it under warranty?
46 JRowson : ^^ This A brand new lens should have at least a manufacturers warranty which should entitle you to get the lens fixed free of charge if it has any fa
47 KelvinCJ : Thank you for the replies. Indeed, it is a new lens - however, the fault is my own regarding payment. Though I have not damaged it and would like to
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 100-400mm Mk II? posted Tue Sep 20 2011 05:10:50 by NZ107
Strange Canon 100-400L Problem posted Sat Apr 16 2011 07:37:28 by JohnJ
Canon 100-400mm Grain Problems posted Sun Jul 4 2010 09:26:28 by SAA738
Canon 100-400mm Problems posted Tue Apr 20 2010 06:50:09 by SAA738
Canon 100-400mm Dusk Specks posted Thu Dec 17 2009 09:30:31 by EMA747
Canon 100-400mm L Is USM Lens With 1.4 Times Conve posted Thu Aug 27 2009 04:11:21 by Snecma
Canon 100-400mm Is Lens Filter Help posted Wed Jul 4 2007 13:18:22 by Davejwatts
Canon 100-400mm Is Lens Problems posted Fri Jun 8 2007 01:41:56 by Opso1
Canon 100-400mm Is At Airshows posted Wed Jun 29 2005 18:40:19 by Soren-a
Canon 100-400mm Sweet-spot, F7-F11? posted Wed Jan 26 2005 14:37:38 by Maiznblu_757