Is calibration worth it ?

Hi chaps, I have a 100-400mm and am pretty happy with it though it's a little soft at the long end, I bought it 'used' and it's in v-good condition but wondered if it was worth having it calibrated. Canon have quoted me £60 which I think is a pretty good price but am I just throwing the money away, would be interested in anyone's experiences.

Thanks

Roger

Before you have it calibrated, try taking the filter off (if it has one.)
100-400's are prone to not responding well to UV filters, especially cheap ones.

Thanks for the tip Phil - yes it had a filter on, quite a good one as it happens but I removed it .. still a tad soft. Of course, having heard some horror stories there's always the chance it could come back worse ... life is difficult sometimes.

rogertb wrote in post #13548177
Hi chaps, I have a 100-400mm and am pretty happy with it though it's a little soft at the long end, I bought it 'used' and it's in v-good condition but wondered if it was worth having it calibrated. Canon have quoted me £60 which I think is a pretty good price but am I just throwing the money away, would be interested in anyone's experiences.

Thanks

Roger

You must have a CPS gold/platinum account if they're only quoting that much. It should be at LEAST twice that much for a 100-400L calibration.

For that much, definitely worth it for long range. Personally, if it goes soft better to just get rid of it immediately and buy a sharper one. A soft 100-400L doesn't really take a hit in value

Speaking of...I have an old Canon 300mm f/2.8 non-IS, bought it recently, anyone know of a good place to send it to be cleaned/calibrated? Seems to work ok, but it's got some dust, and based on the age and condition of the barrel, it's obviously been used and abused, so it probably makes sense to have it cleaned up and checked.

rogertb wrote in post #13548177
... wondered if it was worth having it calibrated. ...

It can be depending on why it is soft. I too had a 100-400 that I was not happy with as it was soft on the long end. I had sent it to Canon twice for adjustment as i bought it new and they did the work under warranty. Both times there was some improvement but not that much. It took a body with micro-focus adjustment to get it as sharp as other lenses I have seen. Below is a compilation. the pic on the right is the 100-400 at 400 without any adjustment. The overall pic was pretty good but as you say, a little soft. Once adjusted the change was dramatic.

So, if it is a little off and Canon can bring it into spec, you may see a significant difference. If it's a mismatch between the lens and body, (both in spec but at opposite ends of the allowable tolerance), you may not see much improvement until you get a body that allows MFA.

For way more info on copy variation and soft lenses check out this page.
http://www.lensrentals​.com …0/the-limits-of-variation

Interesting comments chaps, the mismatch between lens and body is something that confuses me, I've had my 550d and 24-105 L cleaned and calibrated before, if the body and lens are 'matched' what happens when they 'match' that body with my 100-400mm ? does it then cease to be 'matched' to the 24-105 ? - this is almost certainly a stupid question but I'm not bright enough to be able to work it out !

Interesting link JJ

Roger

rogertb wrote in post #13548740
... if the body and lens are 'matched' what happens when they 'match' that body with my 100-400mm ? does it then cease to be 'matched' to the 24-105 ?

When Canon does their calibration I do not think they calibrate the two together but bring the body and the lens within spec. When the MFA feature is used (on bodies that support the feature) you are making an adjustment to the camera itself specific to that lens. When another lens is attached the previous adjustment value is discarded and the new one specific to the new lens is used.