Date code difference

Are there any significant differences of the 100-400L lens with different date codes? I'm apprehensive about purchasing one with an early 2000 date code compared to one with a few years old or newer.

Thank you

Call me old fashioned, but I prefer older equipment, but I think if it's the same lens and same series, I doubt there's a difference.

Usually no exception being the 50L 1.2 when it was first released. seemed to be plagued with an AF issue but was fixed and I assume recalls were made for the lens with a older date.

AFAIK, there were never any changes made during production of the 100-400.... so one from 2000 might be exactly the same as one made yesterday. Of more concern would be how much use it's had, how much wear and tear it shows. The age may be a good negotiating point, though.

Some other lenses have been revised over time... The earllier EF-S 17-55mm seemed to be more prone to getting dust inside, it's possible that Canon improved sealing because we don't hear as much about that anymore. I know for a fact that a year or two into production the 70-200/2.8 IS "Mark I" had a revision in the IS module... It didn't make it perform any differently or even improve durability... According to Canon at the time, it was merely a change to make the lens more easily serviced or more efficiently manufactured.

There have been other notable changes, "silent upgrades", etc. over the years... but I've never heard of anything being done to the 100-400.

The date code on a lens only indicates when it was made. Apparently, because too many consumers were making such a big deal about it, Canon has recently stopped putting date codes on their lenses.

In actuality, a date code is similar to the model year of a car. Is a 2000 model year Chevy any better or worse than a 2005? or 2012? There may have been some problems in specific model years that are corrected later on, and similarly, with lenses. But because of the exact precision manufacturing necessary for making a lens, I'm guessing lens problems (other than dust issues indicated above) are generally quite rare.

Like a car, the critical factor is mileage driven. In looking at used Canon EF lenses, I look at 3 critical issues. Overall condition (dings, dents, looks like new), condition of the contacts at the rear of the lens (if well worn, (high mileage!) it's been on and off the camera too many times for me to buy it), and if there are any visible scratches or other problems in/on the glass itself.

Watch out for 1999 date codes. That was a bad year. Most of the lenses died on the vine.

Canon do introduce silent updates to lenses during their lifetime, mostly due to sourcing parts or long term reliability (see 17-55 IS mechanism) .

But generally an older lens is just as likely to be as good as a newer one.

I had use of a 2003 100-400L and it was fine.

Once out of warranty, they would both cost the same to repair...

Mike Deep wrote in post #14994043
Watch out for 1999 date codes. That was a bad year. Most of the lenses died on the vine.

2012 is no better, all the rain has meant the season is some 12 months (or more in some cases) late. In some cases, the Canon lens bushes never fruited and have had to be ploughed up.

Its a problem that Nikon seem to have avoided. Maybe they use greenhouses?

2012 was a lot better than 2011, an early frost killed off all of the flourite flowers before they could pollinate.