Clunky focus on 70-300

[Mortgage101]

Just curious I am borrowing my friends 70-300 USM IS and the focus on this thing seems confused half the time and just seems twice as clunky as my 17-85 USM IS. Both are similar F range. I HEARD there was something about a recall on these lenses? Or is this clunky back and forth focus on a stationary object a good reason to never own this lens?

[cdifoto]

Are you sure it's not just the "clink" of the IS kicking in that you hear?

I'm not sure what you mean by clunky if you really do mean the focus. :confused:

[Jon]

What do you mean by "clunky"? Noisy? Is it hunting? The recall had nothing to do with focus or IS; it was due to unusual bad lens flare in particular conditions.

[runninmann]

Just curious I am borrowing my friends 70-300 USM IS and the focus on this thing seems confused half the time and just seems twice as clunky as my 17-85 USM IS. Both are similar F range. I HEARD there was something about a recall on these lenses? Or is this clunky back and forth focus on a stationary object a good reason to never own this lens?The recall was for softness in portrait orientation. The current 70-300 f/4.0-5.6 USM IS is a generally very well-regarded lens. I owned one and was never dissatisfied with its AF capabilities.

[Mortgage101]

Very litterally the gears seem far louder than on my 17-85 and 70-200F4L. Both of the other lenses have IS and USM. This one seems to be "searching" alot more than the other lenses are.


Perhaps it's this lens or simply I'm getting a bit harsh. It is a larger focus lens than the other 2 it just seems Noticeably louder and almost loose in the movement of the AF.

[LightRules]

What do you mean by "clunky"? Noisy? Is it hunting? The recall had nothing to do with focus or IS; it was due to unusual bad lens flare in particular conditions.

Jon, I think you have the 24-105L and 70-300IS "recalls" mixed up. The former had the flare issue while the latter was the vertical orientation softness issue. But you're allowed one error per year. ;)

[SimonG]

... But you're allowed one error per year. ;)
Sure, but it's pretty early in the year to be using it up... :p

[TimOLondon]

I used my version of this lens today after a gap of about a month and would completely agree - its clunky. My lens has been returned to Canon for the vertical orientation issue, and it had this clunky charcteristic before and after, so I guess its within acceptable design limits. In more detail I do find the focus with this lens tends to hunt a lot more than my other lens, especially at the 300 mm end - but this isn't what I mean by clunky. The clunk feels like a lot of glass slamming about within the lens while it's trying to focus, and is very disconcerting to start with. However - I regard the optical performance of this lens as really quite good, given the cost of the lens (i.e. cheap). As long as I have the time to get over the hunting and the clunking I've got some great results. I dont need to do sports or fast moving stuff, if I did I'd be less happy with the lens.

[iplayazi]

Try putting a tele on it :) It will sound like a machine gun! It works well though but I dont use it very much. I dont want to be hard on the lens.

[Mortgage101]

That's what I thought. My 3rd attempt to pay for the order bid pay has declined it (I have ample funds in the account) so I'm thinking it's telling me something.

[iplayazi]

Dont get me wrong it is a fine lens!

Mine very rarely rarely if not dosent hunt outside the house. Just in low light and it is not a low light lens

Example with 70-300 WITH kenko tele


http://www.pbase.com/iplayazi/image/76855466/original.jpg