Red-Ringed Tuppertub Party with Tin Foil Tiaras (9)

Permagrin wrote in post #5540288
yes, there was a difference. I could not get one of them at all to be sharp on 400mm. The canon reps told me they don't have any QC issues with it and I said that I was sorry but I've had too many personal experience (my own and friends) who've had issues with this lens.

Another piece of reliable proof of inconsistencies in the lens. I talked to a service supervisor who claimed he can count on one hand how many they have had sent back. Heck I can think of dozens of unhappy users from POTN alone that have sent them back. I think people see the L and high price and assume there is no way they could be less than magical. The same goes for high end rifle scopes and binoculars as far as differences copy to copy.

aussieskier wrote in post #5539976
SO, never go to the camera store after payday... you might come back with something you don't really need. Especially when the Canon people are there.

.
Hey - the M2n is over here

Permagrin wrote in post #5540039
Moo all

I've been baaaaad today (tms'd.....I blame the 102 degree weather).

Oh no...

aussieskier wrote in post #5540054
Well, it all started when I saw the 1dsMkIII and the 85 1.2

Hah - which means you bought something related to film...

SuzyView wrote in post #5540092
Sounds like some guys here are nostalgic. Film is fun, though, just not practical. Not too many labs around here that develop film anymore.

Film is practical - you shoot less, make more "planned" shots

Permagrin wrote in post #5540143
somewhere btw. moderately bad and ouch.

I bought a lens. One I've hated in the past. Pro photo hates me now because I made them bring out a bunch so I could test it at the long end. So with all the clues, want to guess which one I bought?

Permagrin wrote in post #5540177
1-4

So.... you and Dan have:
300 f/4
300 f/2.8
400 f/5.6
and 100-400... plus multiple TCs...

Quite a lot of glass in the same focal length.... what was your reason for buying the 100-400?

timbernet wrote in post #5540344
.
Quite a lot of glass in the same focal length.... what was your reason for buying the 100-400?

Zoom

aussieskier wrote in post #5540396
Zoom

yeah that. And we are selling the 300 f4IS

QUESTION: Is the 100-400 supposed to be sharp at 5.6? This one is really sharp at 7.1 and on but a little soft at 5.6. It's not miss focusing that I can tell.

Permagrin wrote in post #5540498
QUESTION: Is the 100-400 supposed to be sharp at 5.6? This one is really sharp at 7.1 and on but a little soft at 5.6. It's not miss focusing that I can tell.

One would think for the cost it would be sharp through it's whole range or what good is it? That said most lenses are sharpest in their mid range up as compared to wide open.

Permagrin wrote in post #5537232
speaking of the tax rebate...we filed electronically (meaning ours should have been deposited today) but we found out last night that ours will be mailed because we elected to have the "fees for our processing taken out of our rebate"....so basically they've decided on a loop hole in order to delay our refund 2 (count 'em) 2 MONTHS!

At least you get one. Apparently I'm not qualified to stimulate the economy.

aussieskier wrote in post #5537893
We are pushing 93 at my house under the veranda. Ugh, back to work I go.

The thermometer in the Tahoe hit 101 on my way to the softball game this afternoon.

aussieskier wrote in post #5539976
SO, never go to the camera store after payday... you might come back with something you don't really need. Especially when the Canon people are there.

Permagrin wrote in post #5540039
Moo all

I've been baaaaad today (tms'd.....I blame the 102 degree weather).

Uh oh!

aussieskier wrote in post #5540054
Well, it all started when I saw the 1dsMkIII and the 85 1.2

Uh oh!!

Permagrin wrote in post #5540143
somewhere btw. moderately bad and ouch.

I bought a lens. One I've hated in the past. Pro photo hates me now because I made them bring out a bunch so I could test it at the long end. So with all the clues, want to guess which one I bought?

1-4 even without reading ahead!

Permagrin wrote in post #5540159
Does it help to say that Chris will never let me hear the end of re-buying this lens?

I knew it!!

Permagrin wrote in post #5540282
you're so funny....I'm testing it...I took it out for about 10min (all I could stand in the weather) and I don't know what I think. It seems very sharp (that much I tested in the store) but I'm unsure if it's back focusing. Dan told me to do the ruler test so I'm going to do that later. It was so hot today that it could have been user error (since there was nailed focuses in the batch as well...which goes against the back focusing thing). SO I'm going to do something I've never had to do and test the lens I'm super picky (and cynical when it comes to this lens)

Glad you could try out several copies. Which body did you use?

Permagrin wrote in post #5540288
yes, there was a difference. I could not get one of them at all to be sharp on 400mm. The canon reps told me they don't have any QC issues with it and I said that I was sorry but I've had too many personal experience (my own and friends) who've had issues with this lens.

Their lips were moving, right? That's how you can tell when Salesman is lying.

Permagrin wrote in post #5540498
yeah that. And we are selling the 300 f4IS


QUESTION: Is the 100-400 supposed to be sharp at 5.6? This one is really sharp at 7.1 and on but a little soft at 5.6. It's not miss focusing that I can tell.

I think mine is pretty consistent throughout. But you know me, I'm no pixel-peeper.

If you decide to off-load the 2.8, I call dibs!

T.D. wrote in post #5540545
At least you get one. Apparently I'm not qualified to stimulate the economy.

Everyone else in the family has received theirs... I just got a letter today saying that it should show up by the 23rd...

When did you file?

timbernet wrote in post #5540563
Everyone else in the family has received theirs... I just got a letter today saying that it should show up by the 23rd...

When did you file?

I filed quite awhile back. But that doesn't matter, I didn't qualify.

Permagrin wrote in post #5540498
yeah that. And we are selling the 300 f4IS
QUESTION: Is the 100-400 supposed to be sharp at 5.6? This one is really sharp at 7.1 and on but a little soft at 5.6. It's not miss focusing that I can tell.

I'm happy with my 100-400.

100 - 400mm at 400mm 1/500 s at F 5.60 with ISO 400

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

T.D. wrote in post #5540571
I filed quite awhile back. But that doesn't matter, I didn't qualify.

Are we talking tax rebate or stimulus check

aussieskier wrote in post #5540585
Are we talking tax rebate or stimulus check

Stimulus check.

Ok, I am forcing myself to use my camera more even with all the work I am doing... I am going to take pictures everyday! I don't need to go anywhere special, there is lots of neat stuff around the house I decided.

Anyways, here are a couple from today.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

aussieskier wrote in post #5540585
Are we talking tax rebate or stimulus check

No rebate for me -- I paid Uncle Sam

I'm returning the 100-400. I've taken a bunch of shots...I don't like how it looks. I wouldn't be happy with it.

aussieskier wrote in post #5540607
Ok, I am forcing myself to use my camera more even with all the work I am doing... I am going to take pictures everyday! I don't need to go anywhere special, there is lots of neat stuff around the house I decided.

Anyways, here are a couple from today.


I kinda want to clone out the telephone pole, but I don't know.

I like the last two.