Lens variation

Hello everyone. I'm contemplating buying a used 100-400 L lens but I keep reading about a lot of "sample variation" with this particular one.

I'm still going to buy one and will get it from a company with a returns policy but then I wondered if it was better to buy one from ebay much cheaper and if its a duff copy just use the savings to send it to Canon for adjustment if not up to speed.

I'm assuming that getting one sorted to standard would be a more foolproof way of doing things than keeping sending back and forth until you get a good one.

Of course I know these things are often internet blown up out of proportion, and I'm hoping the one I buy will be just fine

Thanks for your help

Cross your fingers as every single lens ALWAYS someone will complain about it.

Buy from a reputable dealer. You can take it back if it isn't right. Mine is as good as it gets wide open at 400mm. Be advised, there is a learning curve to using this lens effectively. If you first images at 400mm are not good, it may be you, not the camera. It does take some practice.

YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16372332
Buy from a reputable dealer. You can take it back if it isn't right. Mine is as good as it gets wide open at 400mm. Be advised, there is a learning curve to using this lens effectively. If you first images at 400mm are not good, it may be you, not the camera. It does take some practice.

Hmmm....I can understand a "learning curve" on a camera since it has so many bells & whistles and the controls are changed from previous models, but on a lens? I mean you put the center focus point on the subject and push the shutter.

I guess there is more to it that I know. What is the learning curve on this lens? I have considered buying one, and still haven't completely ruled it out, so I would be interested in this info.

guntoter wrote in post #16372348
Hmmm....I can understand a "learning curve" on a camera since it has so many bells & whistles and the controls are changed from previous models, but on a lens? I mean you put the center focus point on the subject and push the shutter.

I guess there is more to it that I know. What is the learning curve on this lens? I have considered buying one, and still haven't completely ruled it out, so I would be interested in this info.

The learning curve is being new to a lens with 400 mm with an early version of IS. You will need to use enough shutter speed to get sharp photos

blueM wrote in post #16372363
The learning curve is being new to a lens with 400 mm with an early version of IS. You will need to use enough shutter speed to get sharp photos

I see. OK that makes sense.

EDIT: Sounds like it is time for Canon to update the IS on this lens.

Thanks for the replies people and sorry not to have responded sooner. I have been pretty tied up this week. As it happens I bought one from a good dealer and it is a good one. All seems well at every focal length

Thanks again

guntoter wrote in post #16372581
I see. OK that makes sense.

EDIT: Sounds like it is time for Canon to update the IS on this lens.

There's more to it than just choosing the correct shutter speed.

Someone with a screen name "Guntoter" should have a pretty good idea what some of them are...

With any long lens you also need to pay a bit more attention to good handholding techniques (a solid stance, timing your breathing, elbows tucked, etc.) or use some sort of support: a monopod or a tripod, perhaps with a gimbal head if shooting moving subjects. And you need to get in the habit of "squeezing the trigger", not stabbing at it and causing unnecessary camera movement. IS is great, but can only do so much. A lot of it is similar to target shooting, actually. Think of the difference in accuracy between a sort of gritty, sloppy factory trigger with 7 lbs of pull versus a gun that's had a trigger job to smooth things out and "break like glass" with a 3 lb pull.

Someone who hasn't used long IS lenses before also has to learn that it takes a moment for IS to do it's thing, so one might want to get in the habit of starting it and letting it "settle", a half second before taking your first shot. It's not a long delay, actually is about the same amount of time as and concurrent with the lens achieving focus. You can see IS cause the image to "snap" into steadiness, in the viewfinder.

Further, the 100-400 has the type of IS that needs to be turned off manually when there is no movement... Such as when the lens is locked down on a tripod. If there is no movement, the IS actually can go into sort of a feedback loop that creates movement and causes some image blur. If you handhold the lens really, really steady this can happen, too, but it's rare to be able to hold it that steady.

Also with IS, every once in a great while you get a shot where the IS seems to cause problems rather than solve them, for somewhat unexplicable reasons. I think it's just that IS happened to be in mid-correction when you tripped the shutter, or something unavoidable like that. I just chalk it up to bad luck the occasional lost shot. It is a pretty rare occurance.

IS is great... best thing since sliced bread as far as I'm concerned. But it has its limits and takes a little practice to learn to use it really well.

And, modern zooms are mostly varifocal designs, I think including the 100-400. That means you need to refocus (or use continuous AI Servo focus) any time you change the zoom's focal length, or it will be out of focus. Back in the days of manual focus only, more zooms were parfocal designs, that maintained focus when zoomed, but makes for a more expensive design and additional adjustments that need to be set and maintained. With today's AF systems that can correct focus on the fly, simpler and less finnicky varifocal designs can be used without a lot of concern... but the user has to be aware of it and sure to refocus any time they change focal length.

There are also nuances of particular lenses...

The 100-400mm is somewhat unusual among today's zooms, with it's push/pull zoom design. Some people really like that design for the speed possible when using it. Others don't care for it. I'm one of the latter. I've used push/pull zooms in the past and always had trouble getting steady shots with them. I prefer a second ring for zooming, that I rotate with the hand I'm using to cradle the lens. But that's just me. Other folks have better luck with the push/pull design.

Also, the 100-400mm is known to "not play well" with filters. Virtually any filter on it is likely to degrade (soften) images. Many users have noted a big IQ difference between the lens with and without a filter on it, no matter how high quality the filter.

amfoto1 wrote in post #16400469
Also, the 100-400mm is known to "not play well" with filters. Virtually any filter on it is likely to degrade (soften) images. Many users have noted a big IQ difference between the lens with and without a filter on it, no matter how high quality the filter.

Now that is something that sounds wrong to me. I cannot see how it can possibly make sense. However, it does seem that it might be true with this lens. I had a few test shots with the one I bought and was not very happy with it's performance at the longer end, though at shorter lengths it was fine. I was on the verge of sending it back when I realised I had a filter on it. This was a good quality filter but nonetheless I decided to try without it before I made up my mind to return it, and lo and behold the results were excellent.

Now it could be I was getting used to the lens ( there were a couple of days between tests ) but I'm sort of leaning towards the filter making a difference here.

Have you any explanation of why a good quality filter would affect a lens at all and if so why this one more than others and why at longer focal lengths?

I agree with Mr. Myers' assessment of the 100-400L. It is a fantastic-for-the-price lens. My learning curve comments were directed at using the IS at 400mm. On a crop camera, 1-stop means you can get the shutter speed down to 1/320 and still have some hope of a sharp shot. That takes some getting used to. For me, two stops (1/160) is completely out of the question. With this lens, ISO is your friend.

I find that I use the lens mostly at 400mm and mostly at nephews/nieces sporting events. That means I am shooting moving targets. It also means I shut off the IS. The lens focuses faster with it shut off. And at 1/640 to 1/1000 is isn't doing much anyway.

Another part of the learning curve is the trombone zoom, coupled with the size and weight of this lens. I grew up with trombone zooms, and usually have no problems with them. The 100-400L puts so much weight out so far from the camera body that it becomes cumbersome. You WILL have to adjust your technique to use this lens effectively at the long end of its range. It just gets awkward.

I have commented before about filters on this lens. I think I paid $139 for my B&W CPL. This lens does not like it. It works fine on my other lenses so I know it is not the filter. On my first outing I was convinced that my lens was a lemon. Taking the filter off made a huge difference. Getting used to the lens made even more difference.

Ok, with all that out of the way... I bought my 100-400 before the introduction of the 70-300L. That lens is well regarded and most certainly confuses the issue. I also bought my 100-400L before acquiring my 70-200 2.8. Sometimes I wish I'd have gotten the 400 5.6 instead. But, I am kind of a zoom guy,and I don't always use the 100-400L at 400mm. Woulda, coulda, shoulda!

I also have the 70-200 f2.8 IS. I wanted longer up to 400mm. The zoom flexibility of this lens and the IS was a worthwhile addition for me. I had the 400mm f5.6 a few years back and got rid because it wasn't getting enough use, so the learning curve apart from the zoom mechanism doesn't apply to me. I can only really assume the filter made the difference in my experience.

I still would like someone to try and give an explanation of why this should be the case with this lens.

I responded to the filter issue with this lens in a completely different way. I didn't care about why. I just figured if the filter was doing that to my 100-400L, it wasn't helping any of my other lenses. I haven't used a protective filter since. I did go out and buy hoods for all my other lenses, though. I will use a CPL, ND or GND as needed, otherwise my lenses go commando. Opinions on this do tend to vary a bit.

willie45 wrote in post #16400630
I still would like someone to try and give an explanation of why this should be the case with this lens.

I don't fully understand it myself, but my own experience amply bears out other views here. The lens does not like filters.

Madweasel wrote in post #16401143
my own experience amply bears out other views here. The lens does not like filters.

Interesting. So does mine. My other lenses seem fine though. I have hoods on them all so I could do without I suppose, but I really have only found this issue on my new 100-400 and then only at longer focal lengths.

Is this focal length difference the same for you guys or not?

I avoided buying any zoom until recently. I bought the 100-400L specifically for my recent trip to Botswana and Zambia. I was afraid it would show poorly next to my 300 f4L IS and 500 f4L IS lenses. After micro-adjusting, I was quite pleased with its sharpness performance in Africa.