EF 70-300 official Service Notice [ e.g. - RECALL ! ]

[ibdb]

Let me start by saying that I love the potential of my 70-300 IS lens. Used in the landscape orientation, the lens has been fantastic for me. Used in the portait orientation, however, from 200-300mm my results (http://dbberg.googlepages.com/ibdb%27sphotooftheweekarchive32) exhibit the lack of sharpness and contrast that fStopJojo and others have documented.

Unfortunately, I didn't buy my lens until nearly the end of the rebate period, and didn't detect the problem until after my UPC had been removed and my rebate submitted. It is entirely my own fault for not testing more thoroughly immediately after purchase, but in my defense, I expect more from Canon at this, or any price. Removal of the UPC meant that I couldn't return my lens to my place of purchase for exchange for a lens that might not exhibit this flaw.

I didn't want to be without a telephoto zoom with my kids entering the spring sports season, so I've limped along with my 70-300 IS, waiting for a chance to send it in to Canon for service. I just purchased a 70-200 f/4L, so the time has arrived for me to put Canon to the test. I'll document my experience as I work toward resolution of this problem with Canon. I hope that my experience will be a positive one, and one that will be valuable to anyone else out there with this problem.

Here's how things have gone so far: First, I contacted Canon through the e-mail support option at http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=SupportDetailAct&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922. I promptly received the following response:
Thank you for contacting Canon product support. We value you as a Canon customer and appreciate the opportunity to assist you with your lens inquiry.

Regrettably, Canon has not released any service notices in relation to the issue you have presented. I am sorry for any inconvenience.

I recommend forwarding the lens to our factory for evaluation.

Second, this morning, I shipped my lens to the Canon Irvine Service Center. I'll update this thread when Canon receives the lens.

[Jon]

Others have reported this. Here's a thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=127848) from fstopjojo, on the issue.

[StealthLude]

worst lens ever

[FlashZebra]

worst lens ever
In another thread you indicate the Canon 75-300mm F/4-5.6 IS is the "Worst Lens Ever" (see link below).

But in this thread you indicate the Canon 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS is the "worst lens ever".

Since these are two distinct lens designs, how can they both be the "worst lens ever".

See:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1419919#post1419919

Enjoy! Lon

[ibdb]

Others have reported this. Here's a thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=127848) from fstopjojo, on the issue.
I followed fStopJojo's thread with interest. His story is also summarized on his site (http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/verticalprob). Unfortunately for me, I'm not close enough to Irvine to be able to try seven lenses, as he did. His resolution involved the purchase/exchange/return of three lenses, and trying four of Canon's in-house lenses. That's not an option for me.

I'm hoping that Canon will be able to resolve this issue for me quickly -- two trips to the shop for one of fStopJojo's lenses resulted in no improvement. I'll let you know how it goes -- but for now I'd have to agree with the advice to try this lens out at 300mm portrait and landscape THOROUGHLY before taking it home with you. If it doesn't work for you, get a new copy. When it's good, this lens is worth it.

[MCB]

I've been thinking about getting one of these, but am having second thoughts after reading some of the problems people are having. I would rather not deal with multiple returns looking for that magical unit that works as advertised.

What would you guys recommend as a good alternative? I like the idea of the IS with the 300mm zoom. Is the IS really worth it, so should I just look at a cheaper Sigma?

thanks.

[FlashZebra]

I've been thinking about getting one of these, but am having second thoughts after reading some of the problems people are having. I would rather not deal with multiple returns looking for that magical unit that works as advertised.

What would you guys recommend as a good alternative? I like the idea of the IS with the 300mm zoom. Is the IS really worth it, so should I just look at a cheaper Sigma?

thanks.
If you are considering one of the inexpensive 70ish to 300mm zooms, chew on this.

You might find this helpful.

Here are several info links and my take on the inexpensive 75-300mm or 70-300mm landscape for Canon 1.6 crop DSLR bodies.

This class includes the following lenses:

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
Tamron AF 70-300mm f4-f5.6 LD Macro 1:2
Sigma AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG macro

User testimonials for the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=2
I could not find a Imatest review of this lens, but not many users are keen on this lens, especially above 200mm.

Imatest results for Tamron AF 70-300mm f4-f5.6 LD Macro 1:2
http://www.eospix.com/content-25.html

User testimonials for the Tamron AF 70-300mm f4-f5.6 LD Macro 1:2
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=43&page=1

Imatest results for Sigma AF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO DG macro
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len..._456/index.htm
There are no user testimonials at FredMiranda.com for this lens.

All of these relatively inexpensive lenses have meaningful performance issues. But based on this info, and other info, I purchased the Tamron AF 70-300mm f4-f5.6 LD Macro 1:2.

It seems to be the only one that works over the entire focal length range with acceptable center and edge sharpness. Admittedly, you really have to really stop the Tamron down to get it to cooperate (at all focal lengths), but at some lens setting, even at 300mm you can get a significantly sharp image at both the center and the edge.

The Sigma has very good performance at 70 to 200mm, at almost any aperture, but at 300mm the edge sharpness is very marginal at all apertures. At 70 to 200mm it seems to be a better lens than the Tamron, especially at wider lens openings. But at or near 300mm the center is sharp, but there is no aperture that will give you even modest edge sharpness.

The Canon seems to provide a reasonable performance at 70 and 200, just not as good as the Sigma, but like the Sigma it is very marginal at 300mm.

Others will likely look at this same info and data and make a much different purchase decision, based on what might be important to them.

One other factor, the Tamron is by far the least expensive lens of the three, especially since the lens hood is included, that increases the value, and were compromises must be made, as with this class of lenses, value seems very appropriate to insert into the mix.

As a side note, moving up to the much more expensive Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM lens does not change this much.

Imatest results for the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...56is/index.htm and
http://www.eospix.com/content-28.html

User testimonials for the Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III USM
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=2

The much more expensive Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM (note that this lens has a 70mm at the low end not a 75mm like the oter Canon IS lens) seems to be quite a different story, as everyone loves this lens and it has very good test results at all focal lengths. But it also cost 3 to 5 times that of the three cited at the begining of this post.

Imatest results for the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len...56is/index.htm

User testimonials for the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=2

Enjoy! Lon

[Tee Why]

My feeling from reading fstopjojo's experience is pretty much Canon saying "what do you want for a $600 lens?" Which to me is totally unprofessional. A $200 Sigma 70-300 I had never had such a problem and for Canon to say that is just wrong.

What I think they will do is quietly make update to the design to prevent this while not accepting responsibiity for this poor design. I guess you have to spend $1200 before Canon fesses up and repairs the lens like they did with the 24-105L's flair issue.

Shame on Canon

[cjm]

My feeling from reading fstopjojo's experience is pretty much Canon saying "what do you want for a $600 lens?" Which to me is totally unprofessional. A $200 Sigma 70-300 I had never had such a problem and for Canon to say that is just wrong.

What I think they will do is quietly make update to the design to prevent this while not accepting responsibiity for this poor design. I guess you have to spend $1200 before Canon fesses up and repairs the lens like they did with the 24-105L's flair issue.

Shame on CanonBut how can there be anything to fix if they made all their lenses this way? Its like everyone has L fever, including Canon. That if its not a L it should be junk(ed). Simply not true. Sure there should be a difference between L and nonL but Canon and any other lens maker should not make crap simply because of the price tag. $600 is a lot for someone new to photography or on a budget. In Canada this lens is near $1000 CAD with Tax! Shame on Canon if this is indeed true.

That's the problem with these "cheap days". Remember before the wal marts and the dollar stores on every corner, before everything was made in China and when a nice shirt cost more then $10? Back when they had quality control? Seems like that no longer exists at all in anything. From my dad buying a fireplace with a giant crack in the chimney to these lenses. No quality control, its make it and ship it, if the customer has a problem? Better return it. Back when warrenties were more then 1 year, this would not have happened I suspect.

Man this is the same reason I got rid of my 75-300mm IS lens. After 200mm it got soft. I bet the glass is the same, the construction is very similar and the only "improvement" was a faster focus. It is terrible and I hope for everyones sake that these problems we are hearing are just the odd lemon instead of an entire lemon tree problem.

[kvdnberg]

cjm, I have not seen the 75-300 but from the reviews it is obvious that the 70-300 (vertical issue aside) is much better, particularly in the 200+ range where it is not soft.

Here's a crop of a shot taken at 300mm (click for 100% version of the crop)

http://www.karinvandenberg.nl/coppermine/albums/userpics/10001/normal_cropflower.jpg (http://www.karinvandenberg.nl/coppermine/albums/userpics/10001/cropflower.jpg)

And this is just by a novice (me) in a range of first test shots. Now, I'm just a novice but I don't think that is soft.

The 70-300 IS is a great lens apart from the vertical issue, that is said by reviewers as well as fstopjojo who has documented this issue so well.

[ibdb]

Is the IS really worth it?
If you've never used IS, you'll quickly be spoiled by it. I could regularly shoot crisp (landscape orientation) shots at 300mm with shutter speeds of 1/100, and thought nothing of it. And I'm not that practiced at it, yet. A little more practice, and I'm sure that could go much, much slower. I know that I'm very comfortable handholding my 17-85 IS lens at 1/4 and have gone slower with excellent results at times.

The stability that IS provides quickly levels the playing field with a faster lens -- but you do lose the shallow depth of field that a 2.8 lens can provide.

For me, I chose the 70-300 IS initially because I plan to use it on some whale watching trips, in crowded conditions where a tripod or monopod are not practical, and shooting on the go (I have three boys under 7 -- I'm on the go a lot :lol: ).

[Neilyb]

I am seriously considering the 70-300 as a replacement for my now (error99 causing) Tamron 70-300. The rang is good although I am tempted by Sigmas offerings as they offer superior IQ, but withough IS....IS at the long end would be a god send, especially now I have used it on the 17-85. Trouble is I like shooting in portrait mode..... :|

[farrukh]

although I am tempted by Sigmas offerings as they offer superior IQ, but withough IS....

Not much sense in spending $600 on a consumer lens just because if IS.
So I went with the IQ (Sigma) for just $200.

[Neilyb]

What we need is a TC with built in IS....! Now theres an idea for the Sigma bods!

[farrukh]

What we need is a TC with built in IS....! Now theres an idea for the Sigma bods!

Yes thats solid idea, may be IS TC's from Sigma are just around the corner. thats why Sigma didnot make any more OS lenses after 80-400 OS :-)

[Neilyb]

That would be cool but it might be bulky, thinking about it. Still we (who buy consumer lenses) can but hope....

[farrukh]

I guess they will be called "ISC" (IS convertors) and not necessarily Tele magnification in them.

[ibdb]

Canon now has my lens, but no word yet on what they plan to do.

[ibdb]

Today marks one week for my lens at Canon.

[MrChad]

Today marks one week for my lens at Canon.

My experience with Canon would suggest 5-7 business days for them to get the lens in the system. Another 7-10 business days to repair the lens. So give or take 2-3weeks to repair a lens.

[ibdb]

My lens arrived on Tuesday, was logged into the system by Wednesday, by Friday they'd examined the lens and wrote the following:

Portrait orientation style photos are not sharp. Lanscape (sic), in contrast, seems fine. Check all. Clean all and adjust to best focus.
So far, so good.

[Neilyb]

But surely Best Focus already works in landscape? I hope they don't set the focus somewhere between the two...... :(

[ibdb]

I just got off the phone with the Canon Service Center. They're going to swap out my lens for a new copy. They report that a new batch of lenses is on the way, and that they expect them to arrive in New York in about two weeks. As soon as they have the new lenses in, they'll be sending me a new copy to replace my defective one.

They did not specify, and I didn't ask, exactly what was different about the new batch, but he sounded very confident that the new lenses would correct the problem.

So...if you have a copy of the lens with this issue, and you'd like to get the problem resolved, send it to your nearest Canon Service Center and get in line for replacement. I'm first in line at the Irvine Service Center. :D

[Bakewell]

Interesting...Since I live in Irvine I hand carried my 70-300 to the Canon service center today. I asked them if they could take a look at the lens since there appears to be a focus issue when in the portrait...before I could finish he stopped me and said they were aware of the problem. All of these lenses had the issue and was not related to a certain production run...some more severe than others. Their techs were working on a possible solution, however at this time there was none...maybe in a couple of weeks. They did not offer to replace the lense. I should check back every week or so to see if they had a solution. They did offer to calibrate the lens for me but that would do nothing for the focus issue.

[ibdb]

I'm not sure why they wouldn't give you the chance to get on the waiting list for a replacement by handing over your lens. If you need the lens during the next few weeks, you might want to hold onto it and try again later (I'll be sure to update this thread with anything new I hear, and when my new copy arrives). If you don't anticipate using it, I'd try contacting Canon again and see what they can do to accomodate you.

[Bakewell]

I do plan on using it in the near future and I'd just as soon continue using it untill they devise a remedy. It's really not much of an issue unless you produce a rather large print (at least 8x10 or larger). I'll continue to call every few weeks to follow up. I really do like the lens and to be honest, never noticed this till it was brought up in this forum and I ran some tests.

[nicshow]

I have sent my 70-300 to Canon's Service Center in NJ. It has not arrived there yet but I will also keep folks posted on my experience!

[ibdb]

My new lens just arrived about 15 minutes ago. I'll take and post some test shots soon, but it may take until tomorrow.

There's definitely something to the new build theory -- the new lens serial number ends in 00003. :D

[nicshow]

Based on your experience, do you think I need to call the NJ Service Center and talk to them about a replacement? Mine has arrived but I've not heard anything yet. Or does it seem to you like their standard response will be to send out a replacement? Did you have to ask, beg, plead or did they offer easily?

Thanks,

Nic

[Bakewell]

Again, interesting. I just got off the phone with the same service rep I personally spoke with when I walked into Canons service center here in Irvine. Same story - no solution and don't know when they'll have one. He thought that any possible solutions would involve a repair...not a replacement.

[ibdb]

Based on your experience, do you think I need to call the NJ Service Center and talk to them about a replacement? Mine has arrived but I've not heard anything yet. Or does it seem to you like their standard response will be to send out a replacement? Did you have to ask, beg, plead or did they offer easily?
I originally e-mailed through the website, mentioning that I was aware that I was not the only person having this problem. That's when Canon requested I send the lens in for service. When I sent the lens in, I followed up with a second e-mail saying that I'd be documenting my service experience in this thread.

The service center repair request form I sent in included links to my test shots, and also referenced the excellent work done by fStopJojo.

At no time did I demand a replacement, nor did I call Canon to apply any additional pressure. I did say in my original e-mail that I was hoping the problem would be resolved in one try, as I wasn't looking forward to having to repeat the process of sending the lens in for service multiple times. They contacted me by phone (left a message at my house, and reached me directly on my cel phone) about a week and a half after my lens arrived. The person who called (can't find his name at the moment, but I've got it somewhere) told me they'd be swapping out the lens. I expressed my gratitude, since what I'd read from fStopJojo's experience was that repair was unlikely to give me the results I was hoping for.

Today, three days before I thought I might hear anything new -- let alone get a new lens, the new lens arrived.

I'm as puzzled as anyone about the lack of a consistent story from Canon with regards to this issue. From what I've read, some lenses exhibit the problem more severely than others, so maybe my lens tested out particularly poorly. That still doesn't explain why some people contacting the same service center are getting such a different answer, unless they're limited in their ability to respond until they get the lens in the shop themselves. :confused:

My suggestion at this point would still be to send your lens in for service if you can part with it. You'll be no worse off (other than the time without the lens), and could find yourself in my situation.

Of course, all of this commentary assumes that my new lens performs as I hope it will -- I still haven't had a chance to put it to the test. :lol:

[WildWolf]

I was in the NJ Canon service center Monday dropping off my lens and asked about the problem with the 70-300 IS. The girl at the desk looked at me like I had 2 heads. She said she was aware of the flair problem with my 24-105 but never heard anything about the portrait issue with the 70-300. :shock:

[cinci-photo]

I am absolutely puzzled by this thread. I've had my 75 - 300 IS for just about a year and I couldn't be happier with it. As a matter of fact, I shot my sons baseball game tonight and at first glance, the pictures turned out great. I've had absolutely no problem, whether it's landscape or portrait.

[johnnybfan]

I've had mine for a year and a half and have had no problems at all. For under $300.00 after rebates this was a great buy!! :):)

[Bakewell]

I am absolutely puzzled by this thread. I've had my 75 - 300 IS for just about a year and I couldn't be happier with it. As a matter of fact, I shot my sons baseball game tonight and at first glance, the pictures turned out great. I've had absolutely no problem, whether it's landscape or portrait.

I think you're talking about a different lens...you have the 75-300 not the 70-300 IS USM which this thread is about. This lens is currently on sale for $535 after rebate from B&H.

[Bakewell]

I've had mine for a year and a half and have had no problems at all. For under $300.00 after rebates this was a great buy!! :):)

I believe this lens has only been out for around six months. Again maybe we're talking about a different lens and I don't believe it ever sold for $300.

[StealthLude]

In another thread you indicate the Canon 75-300mm F/4-5.6 IS is the "Worst Lens Ever" (see link below).

But in this thread you indicate the Canon 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS is the "worst lens ever".

Since these are two distinct lens designs, how can they both be the "worst lens ever".

See:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1419919#post1419919

Enjoy! Lon

I mention worst lens ever, because it IS the worst lens ever. Canons 70-300 / 75-300 "series" of lenses after generation and generation of "improvements" still yeild terrible results. I owned BOTH, and multiple copies of each in hopes there was difference. NONE. now i own a 70-200 and NEVER looked back.

The lens is SOO soft at 300mm, its not worth even shooting at that focal length. And if your not gona shoot at that focal length, why even buy the lens? For IS... I rather get a lens with sharp optics and a constand f/4 apature.

I cant speak for the DO series of the lens, because I havent used it..

but IMHO, worst lens ever. For the hard earned money of a consumer, there are much better alternate options for this focal length and lens.

[Bakewell]

I mention worst lens ever, because it IS the worst lens ever. Canons 70-300 / 75-300 "series" of lenses after generation and generation of "improvements" still yeild terrible results. I owned BOTH, and multiple copies of each in hopes there was difference. NONE. now i own a 70-200 and NEVER looked back.

The lens is SOO soft at 300mm, its not worth even shooting at that focal length. And if your not gona shoot at that focal length, why even buy the lens? For IS... I rather get a lens with sharp optics and a constand f/4 apature.

Wow, interesting, and you've used them all? and they're all soft at 300mm? Just googled the lens, 70-300 IS USM, and came up with numerous (5 or 6) reviews talking about how good the lens is - one even called it "the hidden L lens" or something to that effect. The only real negative mentioned was the build quality but all refered to the lens as having execellent IQ. I'm not sure what all this has to do with the subject matter of this thread but just wanted to try to get everyone on the same page regarding this particular lens. I must admit I have no knowledge whatsoever of the rest of "The Series".

[WildWolf]

Stealthlude has no idea what he is talking about. The 70-300 is a fantastic lens when looking at image quality. There are only two negatives- some have the portrait problem and the lack of "L" build quality.

Why doesn't Stealth show us some of his personal examples (pictures) with this lens??!!!

[FlashZebra]

I mention worst lens ever, because it IS the worst lens ever. Canons 70-300 / 75-300 "series" of lenses after generation and generation of "improvements" still yeild terrible results. I owned BOTH, and multiple copies of each in hopes there was difference. NONE. now i own a 70-200 and NEVER looked back.

The lens is SOO soft at 300mm, its not worth even shooting at that focal length. And if your not gona shoot at that focal length, why even buy the lens? For IS... I rather get a lens with sharp optics and a constand f/4 apature.

I cant speak for the DO series of the lens, because I havent used it..

but IMHO, worst lens ever. For the hard earned money of a consumer, there are much better alternate options for this focal length and lens.
The 75-300mm and 70-300mm Canon lenses are distinct lens designs. Any "series" designation would seem to me to be an arbitrary one created by yourself.

But, as a minimum if you decide to inflict definitive declaration "sound bites" on this forum, at least you could be precise. If you meant "series" (and not a singular lens design) I recommend that you at least state that.

In addition, it is very unlikely the significantly under performing Canon 75-300mm lens is the "worst lens ever". There have been thousands of lens designs; I will assure you that it is extremely unlikely this is the worst lens ever.

Hyperbole seems to be innate in your delivery. I suggest you consult a dictionary and review the definitions of the words "worst" and “ever”.

Enjoy! Lon

[BobOh]

As long as the discussion has turned to symantics and dictionary consulting, perhaps Lon should check out "hyperbola" in the dictionary. Also check out "hyperbole".

[ibdb]

Everyone -- please behave.

As the originator of this thread, my intent was to document how Canon responded to a known issue in a manner that would prove helpful to others who own this very popular consumer lens. If you'd like to continue to take pot shots at each other, please find another place to do it.

It's clear from my experience, and the current experiences of others, that Canon doesn't yet have one single way of dealing with this issue. Assuming the tests I'm going to try to run shortly work out, I will have found a successful resolution to my story. Others who are just starting this process may be able to learn from my experience and use it to their advantage. It would be great if we didn't have to worry about this issue at all, but since we do, lets try to do it in a constructive manner that will benefit those who find themselves in the same position I was (am?) in.

We now rejoin our regular programming, already in progress. . . ;)

[Tee Why]

Looks like it may have been a problem with a bad first batch or something.
It's nice to see that they are replacing them.
Looks like with the problem fixed, it should be a good lens to recommend again.

[ibdb]

Quick test shot, resized for web. 100% center crop. 300mm, f/5.6, 1/1250, ISO 400, IS on, handheld.

[ibdb]

And a second: Quick test shot, resized for web. 100% center crop. 300mm, f/5.6, 1/1250, ISO 400, IS on, handheld.

[ibdb]

So, which one was portrait, and which was landscape? I can't tell! :D :D :D

While this was not an ideal test to compare sharpness from edge to edge across the frame, I can say that both orientations were consistent across shared areas. I'm very happy with what I've seen so far.

[Bakewell]

And a second: Quick test shot, resized for web. 100% center crop. 300mm, f/5.6, 1/1250, ISO 400, IS on, handheld.

bottom is portrait (vertical)...based on softness

[evandavies]

err... they both look portrait from here too...

[WildWolf]

You can't look at center crops......the problem is with the upper or lower portion of the picture in portrait mode. The center is usually in focus with bad copies.

[ibdb]

You can't look at center crops......the problem is with the upper or lower portion of the picture in portrait mode. The center is usually in focus with bad copies.
That's not what I experienced with my original lens, nor is it what fStopJojo reported in his findings (I linked to his tests and findings in post 5 earlier in this thread). Dead center right on the focus point exhibited the portrait softness problem with my first version. It didn't worsen toward the edges; it was consistently a problem throughout.

[WildWolf]

How bout posting some pics of the upper and lower portions of the picture;)

[FlashZebra]

As long as the discussion has turned to symantics and dictionary consulting, perhaps Lon should check out "hyperbola" in the dictionary. Also check out "hyperbole".
Thanks for the spelling correction. I have corrected my deficient post.

Enjoy! Lon

[ahh]

So, which one was portrait, and which was landscape? I can't tell! :D :D :D

While this was not an ideal test to compare sharpness from edge to edge across the frame, I can say that both orientations were consistent across shared areas. I'm very happy with what I've seen so far.

So which one was it? I am not able to tell. Have you done any more tests? Pls advise as I am itching for this problem to have been resolved, as I want to buy this lens.

I am debating between the 70-200 f/4 L and the 70-300 IS. I would prefer the extra reach of the latter, but don't want to have to deal with the portrait orientation issue.

[Neilyb]

I have just recieved mine from Kerso (speedy thanks!), haven't had chance to test thoroughly yet due to rain but would like toknowbefore i do if this problem exists out of the box, or has anyone noticed the lens getting softer with time?

[obsessed]

I just bought the 350D with kit lens. Never owned an SLR or film before but have used the 300D with 70-200 f2.8 for a day. Quite amazing. This 70-300mm IS was my first lens purchase. Liked the idea of IS and the FL, mainly wanted to use as a walk around nature and wildlife pics. Just got mine 2 days ago and found the same problem with portrait orientation. In actual view from 200-300mm the picture is blurry compared with landscape. Although I was aware of this problem from forums, I decided to gamble since I love the concept of this lens and all that it has to offer. Unfortunately no go with this one. :cry:

Called canon service center and spoke to someone right away (at least that was good). He noted that others had complained about it (no surprise there). He put down my complaint and told me as of May 1, 2006 Canon has not found a solution to the problem but are investigating. Gave me the option of sending it in for repairs and advised me that it may take a while since there is no real fix yet. I told him I would rather return it since it is only 2 days old and maybe consider asking for a replacement (I doubt will do) or just get my money back. He took my information and told me they will email me when there is a solution. I am going to the zoo this weekend and I really wanted it to work. Sucks. Oh well maybe fate wants me to get the 70-200 f2.8 IS :lol: Maybe I will use it in landscape before returning it. Afterall the shipping I paid is the same as the rental price.

[Bakewell]

I just bought the 350D with kit lens. Never owned an SLR or film before but have used the 300D with 70-200 f2.8 for a day. Quite amazing. This 70-300mm IS was my first lens purchase. Liked the idea of IS and the FL, mainly wanted to use as a walk around nature and wildlife pics. Just got mine 2 days ago and found the same problem with portrait orientation. In actual view from 200-300mm the picture is blurry compared with landscape. Although I was aware of this problem from forums, I decided to gamble since I love the concept of this lens and all that it has to offer. Unfortunately no go with this one. :cry:

Called canon service center and spoke to someone right away (at least that was good). He noted that others had complained about it (no surprise there). He put down my complaint and told me as of May 1, 2006 Canon has not found a solution to the problem but are investigating. Gave me the option of sending it in for repairs and advised me that it may take a while since there is no real fix yet. I told him I would rather return it since it is only 2 days old and maybe consider asking for a replacement (I doubt will do) or just get my money back. He took my information and told me they will email me when there is a solution. I am going to the zoo this weekend and I really wanted it to work. Sucks. Oh well maybe fate wants me to get the 70-200 f2.8 IS :lol: Maybe I will use it in landscape before returning it. Afterall the shipping I paid is the same as the rental price.

Pretty much the same story here. Just got off the phone with Irvine. They checked their log files and said said they are not and have not sent out replacement lens for this problem. I'll check again in a week.

[drbenjamin]

This is the worst part for me - I really want this lens but not until I'm sure that the copy I buy is free of portrait-orientation blurriness. Looking over my photos, I'd say about 1/3 are in portrait. But unless Canon issues a formal statement, I'm concerned that I'll get an "Old stock" copy.
Please keep us posted!

D

[ed rader]

In another thread you indicate the Canon 75-300mm F/4-5.6 IS is the "Worst Lens Ever" (see link below).

But in this thread you indicate the Canon 70-300mm F/4-5.6 IS is the "worst lens ever".

Since these are two distinct lens designs, how can they both be the "worst lens ever".

See:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=1419919#post1419919

Enjoy! Lon

maybe he updated his list :D .

ed rader

[ibdb]

How bout posting some pics of the upper and lower portions of the picture;)
I've not yet had a chance to take some test shots of something that would really give a good look at edge to edge sharpness. My preliminary tests were looking primarily at center sharpness, as that's where I'd always seen the problem personally, and in most other complaints. I still hope to do a more thorough test, but I can't say for certain when I'll be able to complete it.

My initial shots were taken on a 45 degree angle, with a depth of field such that both the right and left sides of the image would be out of the range of focus, and poor candidates for an accurate review of their sharpness.

The first was landscape, the second was portrait. There was no sharpening done during post processing, and both were saved at about 70% for jpg compression. That makes them poor copies to use for doing a full and complete evaluation of the lens, but I think makes them good enough to compare against each other. Viewing the originals, I was quite pleased. I also didn't want to make those of you who were watching how this would turn out wait any longer than you had to.

I remain puzzled by the lack of answers being received by others here. My thought is that putting the lens in their hands puts the pressure on them to "put up or shut up," and simply inquiring without handing them the lens gives them an out. :confused:

[nicshow]

My lens has been at the NJ service center for 10 days now and I've heard nothing, other than they have received it.

I'm curious as to whether your replacement lens looks different, as though a new design has been employed? Does the box it came in have any different notation on it or does the lens and box look exactly the same?

Thanks for your help with this!

[nicshow]

Update - I just checked on Canon's site and it says repairs to my lens have been completed and I should receive it within 4 business days. So, I'll let you know next week what they do in my case.

[nicshow]

I phoned Canon this morning to ask what was done to my lens. "Cleaned and adjusted focus..."

It's due back to me today. I will take test shots in order to verify that cleaning and adjusting the focus will not solve the vertical problem.

I'm getting frustrated with Canon's response to this issue.

[obsessed]

I am curious if your focusing issue gets solved. I am debating on whether to send it back in for refund since I have one more week to get money back or send it to canon to see if repair is worthwhile. I would rather have the lens and work properly. Seems like if there are lens out there that have no issue from the box that it is a correctable situation. Maybe it just requires individual lens attention and if Canon tells that to people then everyone will send their lens in and overwhelm them.

[nicshow]

Here are 100% Crops taken after the lens was calibrated and adjusted:

Is it obvious which is taken in vertical and which is taken in horizontal?

http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a135/nicshow/Test%20Photos/IMG_2625.jpg
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a135/nicshow/Test%20Photos/IMG_2624.jpg

The first image is the vertical and the 2nd is the horizontal. I still see a pretty signficant difference - how about you?

[20D_Newbie]

I guessed right. I see a difference.

[mlim650]

Nicshow, will you send your lens back to Canon again? I'm sure this is frustrating for you. There are others like myself waiting for Canon to find a solution to this problem before purchasing.

[obsessed]

Nicshow sorry to see it did not work out with the repair. I can just imagine your frustration. I sent mine back to adorama where I initially bought it. Asked them to replace it. The lady on the phone told me they will try to give me a "good" one. Will see. I think if the problem still exists I will just return it and wait for them to find a solution or release of an updated lens. I am sure Canon probably knew this problem existed and figured there will be way too many sales and not enough people who would care since most take in landscape orientation to justify putting a full working product since they did not know how to fix it. Just goes to show how over priced their lens are for what you get. For what they charge across the board you would expect consistent product. It is so frustrating spending hours of time for this instead of enjoying the pureness of shooting away.

[nicshow]

Now Canon is sending me a prepaid mailing label to look at the lens again. Just what I wanted.

I'm not sure I will send it in. Maybe I just need to wait until/if anyone finds anything more definite about the situation.

[ibdb]

I have to say I'm quite puzzled by the range of responses people are getting. I would definitely send your lens back in -- they haven't fixed the problem, though there may have been some improvement. Keep the pressure on them to make it right.

I guess I was quite fortunate to have received the level of service that I did, but I don't think I did anything extraordinary to get that type of response.

[Greg P.]

worst lens ever

which is why you have a 10-22 and a tamron 28-75, both absolute GARBAGE, and neither have IS or USM.

[LightRules]

which is why you have a 10-22 and a tamron 28-75, both absolute GARBAGE, and neither have IS or USM.

Actually, the 10-22 has USM. And optically, those are 2 fine pieces of glass.

[LightRules]

BTW, I now have the "Horizontal Orientation" problem... http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/image/60072411/original

:D :razz: :grin: :-P ;-) 8-) :-o :wink: :p :-P [See my comments at the bottom of the link's page. The lens is very good optically, and I tend to grab it more than my 7-2IS and 1-4IS, if only bc it's so small and delivers excellent IQ.]

[nicshow]

I just talked to the Midwest Service Center. They were very helpful and said there was no service bulletin on this lens, yet. (Someone on DP Review reported yesterday that there was a service bulletin offering 2 options: 1) Get a full refund for the lens or 2) Get on a list to be notified when a fix becomes available)

He did say they had received an email which basically said that technicians were investigating the problem and options for resolution. He said that to his knowledge there is no list to subscribe to or a refund option at this point.

[nicshow]

I made another call to NJ Service Center yesterday (May 23, 2006) and happened to get a guy who was very helpful. He read to me some, if not all, of the memos that Canon has issued to their service techs.
They are acknowledging an issue with this lens. They are working on a fix. They would hope and prefer most customers would hold onto their lens for now while a fix is being researched. There IS a list on which you can put your name in order to be notified when the fix becomes available. IF you are very angry and you are severely debilitated by this issue, you can initiate a refund process which requires a supervisor and who knows what.
I had a lengthy conversation about why Canon doesn't put this on their support page for this lens and why you have to make several phone calls in order to get accurate and helpful information. He, of course, didn't know reasons for why Canon is slow to make the information widely available.
He was reassuring that in previous cases like this Canon has taken their time and in the end made it right. Let's hope that's true!

[LightRules]

Canon has officially acknowledged the problem and has posted it here http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922 . End of June is when they intend to have a fix.

[Ross McT.]

Excellent!! (in my best Mr Burns voice)

Hopefully the service centers dont get to backlogged with thousands of these lenses on July 1

[ibdb]

Canon has officially acknowledged the problem and has posted it here http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922 . End of June is when they intend to have a fix.
Interesting they mention the edge of frame when clearly your experience and mine went well beyond that. Still, nice to see an official statement.

[verT]

Looks like I won't bee looking at getting this lens now....

[vjack]

This link has been buried in other threads so far, but I figured it was important enough to have its own: http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922

I wouldn't think it makes sense to buy this lens until the problem is resolved.

[ahh]

I was unable to see a similar service report on Canon's UK website.

[Bakewell]

This link has been buried in other threads so far, but I figured it was important enough to have its own: http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922

I wouldn't think it makes sense to buy this lens until the problem is resolved.

Hogwash...It's a great lens that most people would never know there was a issue. Great reviews by "Professional" reviewers and they never saw this resolution problem. Unless you print monster (11x14 and maybe even larger) prints in vertical mode without any post processing I doubt anyone would ever notice.

[KevinG3]

Cool, I am glad that they have not only recognized it but are vowing to fix it. I think I will go ahead and purchase this lens as I originally intended. I was thinking of spending more on the 100-400 but I really don't want to spend that much more $$ right now. Maybe, I'll luck out and get one without the issue to begin with. :-)

[Shiftcontrol]

I was unable to see a similar service report on Canon's UK website.
Yep there is the same one on there.

[ahh]

On the contrary, I will be getting this lens now, because I know that if I get a bad copy, Canon will hopefully fix it (as soon as they have a fix).

[forsakenme720]

So would it be safe to buy it now rather than wait a month to see what they decide? They wouldn't screw over the people that already bought it, would they? It's summer time and that one month is a heck of a lot of bird shots that I would miss if I waited to buy it.

[ibdb]

If you have any concerns about how Canon might handle your lens purchase/service, I'd suggest contacting them through the information in their posting about the problem. While it hasn't always been as easy to get an answer about this issue as it should have been -- at this point Canon seems to have turned a corner on how they are handling the issue. You've got nothing to lose in contacting them to ask the question, and may have quite a few nice shots to gain if you get the reassurances you seek.

[jaymrobinson]

This message was posted on Canon's Japan web site about the EF70-300 IS lens. Here is a translation.

"Thank you for using Canon's products.

We have confirmed a problem that was pointed out by users in the EF70-300mm F4-5.6 IS USM lens which went on sale in Sept. of last year. When shooting in portrait(vertical) orientation near the 300mm end, there is a problem with a lack of resolution in some parts of the image. We are currently considering ways to correct the problem and we will update you via this web site as soon as we find a solution (we hope around the last week or so of June).

We once again apologize for the inconvenience, and ask for you to wait a while longer until we find a solution."

Here is the web site address:
http://cweb.canon.jp/e-support/info/ef70-300.html

[bokeh'ed]

Don't know if this been posted before, anyway, here goes:

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922


To Customers Who Use the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens:
Thank you very much for your patronage of our products.
We have recently become aware of a phenomenon in which some images captured by the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens appear in insufficient resolution. This phenomenon may be seen at the edge of the frame at the 300mm setting when the camera is held vertically. We have been studying the symptoms of this phenomenon in order to determine its precise cause and to develop an appropriate remedy. We will inform you on this Web site as soon as this remedy has been decided, which, at this point should be by the end of June 2006.
We are very sorry for the inconvenience this phenomenon represents for customers who use this lens and appreciate your patience as we work to resolve it.
Contact Information for inquiries
Call Center
1-800-828-4040 (toll free)
8AM to Midnight - Monday to Friday
10AM to 8PM - Saturdays
Email: carecenter@cits.canon.com

[roli_bark]

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922

[morehtml]

The old 75-300 cursed with being a horrible lens, the replacement cursed with a recall.

[obsessed]

There IS a list on which you can put your name in order to be notified when the fix becomes available.
I had a similar experience with the canon service center. They asked me if I wanted to get on a list to be notified when a fix is available. They would notify me via email. I did return my lens for a replacement. I think if the problem still exists I will keep it since they seem confident in arriving at a fix.

[TrainRider]

Oh this is great. I just got one of these lenses and haven't had a chance to really test it out yet.
I guess I will have to wait 'till the end of next month to see what they are going to do with these.

[05Xrunner]

Glad I went with the 70-200f4 over this lens when i was choosing.
Good to see canon is looking to fix it asap though

[forsakenme720]

Glad I went with the 70-200f4 over this lens when i was choosing.
Good to see canon is looking to fix it asap though

IMHO, I don't think it's a big enough problem to decide against it. Even if you get a bad copy of the lens and want a vertical shot, just shoot it horizontally and crop it vertically.

[vjack]

Previous announcement thread is here: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=173492&highlight=70-300

[PJ Mullin]

Has any called the 800 number in the service notice? I heard they will take your info and send out a shipping kit when a fix is released.

[vjack]

So would it be safe to buy it now rather than wait a month to see what they decide? They wouldn't screw over the people that already bought it, would they? It's summer time and that one month is a heck of a lot of bird shots that I would miss if I waited to buy it.

I think you'll have to decide if you want it that bad. Personally, there is no way I would buy it until this is resolved. I would want to wait and make sure they resolved it better than they did the 20D battery grip flex issue.

[rogernoel]

My apologies if this has been posted previously, but I just ran across this information. I have the lens, and to date have not experienced the problem.

Service Notice: EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens May Result in Insufficient Resolution

To Customers Who Use the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens:

Thank you very much for your patronage of our products.

We have recently become aware of a phenomenon in which some images captured by the EF 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens appear in insufficient resolution. This phenomenon may be seen at the edge of the frame at the 300mm setting when the camera is held vertically. We have been studying the symptoms of this phenomenon in order to determine its precise cause and to develop an appropriate remedy. We will inform you on this Web site as soon as this remedy has been decided, which, at this point should be by the end of June 2006.

We are very sorry for the inconvenience this phenomenon represents for customers who use this lens and appreciate your patience as we work to resolve it. Contact Information for inquiries

Call Center
1-800-828-4040 (toll free)
8AM to Midnight - Monday to Friday
10AM to 8PM - Saturdays
Email: carecenter@cits.canon.com

Does everyone have this problem, or is it limited to only some of the lenses. Roger

[Nigi]

Yep there is the same one on there.
Could you post a link? I can't find it as well. :confused: Thank you.

[Nigi]

IMHO, I don't think it's a big enough problem to decide against it. Even if you get a bad copy of the lens and want a vertical shot, just shoot it horizontally and crop it vertically.
That's what I do now but where are my megapixels?:rolleyes:

[Littlefield]

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=PgComSmModDisplayAct&keycode=2112&fcategoryid=216&modelid=11922


Thought this was important to see. Regards

[willg]

good to hear they are coming up with a solution. I am interested to see what the official problem is

[mrklaw]

https://self-service-kb.canon-europe.com/srvs/cgi-bin/webcgi.exe?New,KB={45005F30-B77F-4206-9179-7809AF3D01EA},Company={5D57C876-253A-4B01-B12F-134801A1F92F},Question=ref(SEK):::CSCBNSSBNJ,Quest ion=ref(UT):::EU1,VARSET_LANG=en,VARSET_COUNTRY=UK ,VARSET_PRODID=153858,TemplateSet=Canon_SServe_Cus t,VARSET_URLLOC=self-service.canon-europe.com/uk/pages/ss_Layout.cgi,Case=obj(26855)

[Tee Why]

KevinG3,
Why not wait a bit till June (perhaps that's what you are intending) as they say the fix for this should be in by then?

[forsakenme720]

KevinG3,
Why not wait a bit till June (perhaps that's what you are intending) as they say the fix for this should be in by then?

I plan on buying this lens as well and I was debating waiting until they find a fix; but I'm going to go ahead and buy it now because we don't know for sure that they will have a fix by the end of June. That's just what they are hoping for. Personally, I figure that at least I'll have it now to use and whenever they find the fix, I'll send it in then.

Also, even if they did find a fix by the end of June that doesn't mean that the new copies would be ready right away. It could take a week, month, 2 months to actually produce the new ones. Just my two cents.

[RonTyler]

I have the exact lens and have been using it since it first came out three years ago. No problem what so ever, best 70-300mm lens I have ever used. Works great with my Digital 350DXT Rebel. Go ahead and buy it. You will never see the problem with the naked eye. I also use the 28-135 IS lens that canon makes as well. Also one of the best lens to use as well.

[Jon]

I have the exact lens and have been using it since it first came out three years ago. No problem what so ever, best 70-300mm lens I have ever used. Works great with my Digital 350DXT Rebel. Go ahead and buy it. You will never see the problem with the naked eye. I also use the 28-135 IS lens that canon makes as well. Also one of the best lens to use as well.No. The lens that's been getting problem reports is the new (announced Feb. 2006) 70-300 IS. You have the 70-300 DO IS. That's not been reported to have any problems.

[KevinG3]

I can't wait because I'm going on a trip in July and I need a telephoto lens to take with me. After researching this issue extensively, I decided that it was worth it to go ahead and get it now and if it has the portrait issue, I will have Canon take care of it when they get a resolution to the problem. Some have said that their lens did not have the issue and others have said that unless you are blowing the images up after shooting them in portrait at 300mm - you won't even notice it. So, that is why I am buying it now. Already ordered it from Adorama and the salesperson there said they haven't had any come back with this issue in a while now.

Thanks.

[vjack]

From what I have been reading here, the portrait issue is not one of those things where you can simply do an initial test of your lens and then rest easy. I have seen reports of this problem developing in lenses that did not initially have it. Therefore, if you buy a lens before the fix, you might want to plan on periodic testing.

[KevinG3]

Oh I defi9nitely will. I also plan to send it to Canon when they come up with a fix, but at least I will have it for my trip. I will just try to avoid taking portrait type pics at 300mm, or I think someone said above 220mm.

[obsessed]

Already ordered it from Adorama and the salesperson there said they haven't had any come back with this issue in a while now.

Kevin, I just sent mine back for the problem to adorama last week. They told me a replacement was mailed yesterday. I am hoping I get a good copy this time. But having used it recently at the philadelphia zoo I really liked it. I will likely still keep it and send it in for repairs if I get another "bad" copy once a solution is available. I am going to Africa in July and would like to take this lens.

[nicshow]

I received a call from Canon today just to touch base on the lens issue. He said they were making contact with everyone who was on the list for this issue. There is no fix and no new timeframe. I told him that in my experience, the softness extends over the whole image and not just the edges as is noted in the service bulletin. He made notes and gave me contact information and was reassuring that Canon would make this right.

I hope so.

Props to Canon for at least making the effort to stay in touch with dissatisfied customers!

[KevinG3]

I received my 70-300 USM IS lens yesterday and was able to take some pics in both orientations and I did not notice the issue. The lens came from Adorama. I will be taking more pictures this weekend and looking closely to see if the issue exists. If it does I will probably just wait for Canon to issue a fix and send it to them for the repair.
The pics I took looked great in landscape and portrait. They were pics of books on a bookshelf taken at 300mm. When I get the chance I will post them for all to look at. Maybe the problem exists and its just not obvious to me. I'll try to post them this week some time.

Thanks and good luck to all that are having this issue.

[AdamJL]

I really do want this lens, but thank God there are problems with it (unlucky for you all though) as it's saving me much needed short-term cash.

Do you think Canon will just replace the model? They'll also probably charge more for it as well :D
conspiracy!

[KevinG3]

Nah, I think it is more likely to be recalled and fixed by Canon once they come up with a solution.

[boboy888]

My was one of those with the unfortunate serial number. So I sent it in and received it back today and their resolution they stated in the letter was " replaced inner lense unit" . What I did notice is that the lense doesnt slide out anymore if I forget to put the switch to lock. Also I had a small scratch on the front lense (very small u would have to look carefully) and its gone now? I'll be taking some test shot later ...im staying inside ....its freaking hot today.

[Myles7]

Hmm, I have one of these lenses in the affected serial number range - UK stock. Just run some test shots after seeing some of the examples in this thread - and yep, mine is very noticeable.

I've always been somewhat worried about how wobbly this lens is in construction terms - I've added a 70-200 f2.8 IS L to my kit - but would still like to keep the 70-300 as a lightweight, inconspicuous lens for my second body...

[Bakewell]

I believe the problem is solved - see the sticky above...

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=186187