Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

  

Archive 2011 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality
  
 
mptnest
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality


Some lenses have a preferred age vs. image quality. For example, some claim the 100-400 made in the last two to three years have a little bit better IQ on the long end than those a little older. With that in mind, Is there any optical or mechincal advantage associated with the age of a 500/4 IS? As long as the lens was handled, stored and cared for properly, are there any advantages of a two or three year old 500/4 vs an eight to ten year old 500/4?


Dec 31, 2011 at 01:41 AM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality


mptnest wrote:
... As long as the lens was handled, stored and cared for properly, are there any advantages of a two or three year old 500/4 vs an eight to ten year old 500/4?


Not that I'm aware of. Mine was born in 2010. Her reputation far preceeds her age. Her performance exceeds my expectations.

mptnest wrote:
... some claim the 100-400 made in the last two to three years have a little bit better IQ on the long end than those a little older


I just ordered a new 100-400L. I'll let you know what I think about it, in a few weeks. Of course, it's my first 100-400L, so I can't compare with older ones.

OTOH, I think that the possible improvements that you're asking about are probably really small in comparison with the difference between the performance of these lenses and the 'alternatives'.



Dec 31, 2011 at 02:35 AM
PetKal
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality


Yo Al, what's happening, man ?
Getting tired of TCs ? Lookin' to upgrade to 500 ?

I am on my 3rd 500 f/4 copy since 2006. Can't tell them apart....they have all been excellent.
That reinforces my belief that manufacture date alone plays no factor in their IQ.
Just look at the lens mount as well as the flocking inside the hood......the condition of those should tell you how much a lens has been used.



Dec 31, 2011 at 03:20 AM
mptnest
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality


Yo Al, what's happening, man ?
Getting tired of TCs ? Lookin' to upgrade to 500


Hey Peter (Jim, and all) Happy New Year! Thanks for looking after me here. To answer your question, well...no. I'm having too much EOS fun, and looking for more. I thought a 500 would be a nice addition to the arsenol. I've just come to my senses that if I want to grab onto a 500 without doing a second mortgage, I better get on the ball. I have a shot at an older 500 IS (around year 2000), local sale, extremely reputable deal, at a...well...as good as it gets price. I even have an offer to try before you buy. So it's all great news for me, especially since the misses is being very supportive. I just want to make sure an older 500 will deliver like a newer one and money is being wisely spent. (that line will get me in trouble )

Thanks again,
Al



Dec 31, 2011 at 03:33 AM
jcolwell
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality


mptnest wrote:
..."that line will get me in trouble"


Not here.



Dec 31, 2011 at 03:36 AM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality


mptnest wrote:
Some lenses have a preferred age vs. image quality. For example, some claim the 100-400 made in the last two to three years have a little bit better IQ on the long end than those a little older. With that in mind, Is there any optical or mechincal advantage associated with the age of a 500/4 IS? As long as the lens was handled, stored and cared for properly, are there any advantages of a two or three year old 500/4 vs an eight to ten year old 500/4?


There is no difference in the 500/4 IS that I know of other than the possible cosmetics of the IS and AF slide switches. In fact some people were complaining about 5 years ago that the newer lenses did not seem to be as good as the earlier ones, but I think that was a change in user expectations as digital needs changed. I'd rather have a nice clean 500/4 IS from 2000 than a well used one from 2010.

EBH


Edited on Dec 31, 2011 at 04:07 AM · View previous versions



Dec 31, 2011 at 04:06 AM
PetKal
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality


jcolwell wrote:
Not here.





Dec 31, 2011 at 04:07 AM
dehowie
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality


Got my 500 in 2095 and it's stellar to this day...
Fully sick lens..



Dec 31, 2011 at 04:28 AM
mptnest
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality


Got my 500 in 2095 and it's stellar to this day...

I think the new year celebration has begun . Australia's, clock is a little ahead. lol



Dec 31, 2011 at 04:32 AM
big country
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality


do you have proof about your 100-400 statement or is that more internet hype?


Dec 31, 2011 at 04:41 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



mptnest
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality


do you have proof about your 100-400 statement or is that more internet hype?

Please note the original post
For example, some claim...

this thread is not intended to "stir the pot", but thank you for joining us.

BTW, Happy New Year!!!


Edited on Dec 31, 2011 at 04:55 AM · View previous versions



Dec 31, 2011 at 04:44 AM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality


big country wrote:
do you have proof about your 100-400 statement or is that more internet hype?


I bought three 100-400s in 2000, 2003 and 2007. The first one was not good and the last one is better than the second. My limited use of a 2010 lens was about same as my 2007, certainly not any better. (I know that is still a very small sample.) One issue to consider is that the 100-400 has a complex mechanical design and older, more heavily used examples may suffer from degraded alignments. It is not a lens I'd buy used without testing first or having a return policy.

EBH



Dec 31, 2011 at 04:54 AM
EB-1
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality


dehowie wrote:
Got my 500 in 2095 and it's stellar to this day...
Fully sick lens..


A sick lens is stellar in the future?
I don't understand the logic of either sentence.

EBH



Dec 31, 2011 at 04:57 AM
PetKal
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality


Since I've begun following the FM Canon Gear forum, I recall only two instances where 500 f/4 owners have reported problems with their lenses: one was the AF calibration which Canon remedied under warranty. The other one might have been a camera AF problem as well, but I never learned what the closure was.

All in all, practically everybody you speak to seems very happy with their 500 f/4.
I like to think of 500 f/4 as a "gold standard" of wildlife photography, and the only Canon lens which IMO performs a bit better is 400 f/2.8 IS (MkI and MkII).



Dec 31, 2011 at 05:05 AM
Imagemaster
Online
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality


dehowie wrote:
Got my 500 in 2095 ..


I think you have been sniffing to many aviation fumes.



Dec 31, 2011 at 06:22 AM
Liquidstone
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality


PetKal wrote:
I like to think of 500 f/4 as a "gold standard" of wildlife photography, and the only Canon lens which IMO performs a bit better is 400 f/2.8 IS (MkI and MkII).


+10^1000



Dec 31, 2011 at 08:20 AM
dehowie
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality


Lol yep im a little ahead and not just by the date line!!!


Dec 31, 2011 at 01:30 PM
mogud
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality


My 100-400 is a UZ date code and I was pleasantly surprised at how sharp this lens was. Whether my experience with a 2011 version equates to "newer is better" or I just got a "good one" is debateable.

BTW, hope everybody shoots sharp, clean and great pictures in 2012.



Dec 31, 2011 at 06:25 PM
gdsf2
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · 500 f/4 IS age vs. image quality



Well don't forget about the 600mm f/4. Just as good as the 500mm and longer...but heavier as well.

Jerry

I like to think of 500 f/4 as a "gold standard" of wildlife photography, and the only Canon lens which IMO performs a bit better is 400 f/2.8 IS (MkI and MkII).



Dec 31, 2011 at 06:37 PM





FM Forums | Canon Forum | Join Upload & Sell

    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password