Canon 100-400 Version II? - FM Forums

Register · Software · Search · Image Upload · Buy & Sell · Reviews · Hosting

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload
1

2

mark maulden
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #1 · Canon 100-400 Version II?

where does one find the date code of the 100-400?

Apr 06, 2008 at 07:50 AM

Colin Key
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #2 · Canon 100-400 Version II?

Take a look here:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Lens-Aging.aspx

Colin

Apr 06, 2008 at 08:56 AM

mark maulden
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #3 · Canon 100-400 Version II?

how was the "UVxx" code decided upon? Mine's a UU..............

Apr 06, 2008 at 05:29 PM

yauyi
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #4 · Canon 100-400 Version II?

my UW0217 (2008 Feb) is razor sharp wide open and very contrasy. I love this lens, check out my brief review here:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/627973/0#5555932

Apr 06, 2008 at 06:25 PM

Colin Key
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #5 · Canon 100-400 Version II?

mark maulden wrote:
how was the "UVxx" code decided upon? Mine's a UU..............

Don't really understand your question, but a lens code beginning with "UUxxxxx" was manufactured in 2006.

Colin

Apr 06, 2008 at 07:27 PM

mark maulden
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #6 · Canon 100-400 Version II?

Trench Monkey wrote that a date code of UV04 and after have good chances of being good copies. How did he arrivve at that particular date code as a "line in the sand"?

Apr 06, 2008 at 09:30 PM

Mihail
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #7 · Canon 100-400 Version II?

My List improvements for 100-400:

1) Digital Coating
2) Not flimsy hood
3) IQ at 5.6 like 400 5.6L has

4) Better IS?....

I agree with some orator here about 500/5.6 or 600/5.6 even without IS, that will be simply awesome!

Apr 06, 2008 at 11:01 PM

ICQ

PetKal
Online
Image Upload: On

p.2 #8 · Canon 100-400 Version II?

mark maulden wrote:
Trench Monkey wrote that a date code of UV04 and after have good chances of being good copies. How did he arrivve at that particular date code as a "line in the sand"?

Frenchmonkey must have had a reason for saying that.
On the other hand, I did find two soft lens copies which were made in the 2nd 1/2 of 2007. However, the third copy which I kept, made in the same period, was (is) great.

Edited on Apr 06, 2008 at 11:08 PM

Apr 06, 2008 at 11:08 PM

yauyi
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #9 · Canon 100-400 Version II?

Mihail wrote:
My List improvements for 100-400:

1) Digital Coating
2) Not flimsy hood
3) IQ at 5.6 like 400 5.6L has

4) Better IS?....

I agree with some orator here about 500/5.6 or 600/5.6 even without IS, that will be simply awesome!

What I would like to see being improve on mine is:

1)faster AF motor
2)circular blades
3)Newest gen IS with 4 stops
4)Weather sealed

I would gladly pay extra for those features

Edited on Apr 06, 2008 at 11:21 PM

Apr 06, 2008 at 11:19 PM

python2000
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #10 · Canon 100-400 Version II?

PetKal wrote:
mark maulden wrote:
Trench Monkey wrote that a date code of UV04 and after have good chances of being good copies. How did he arrivve at that particular date code as a "line in the sand"?

Frenchmonkey must have had a reason for saying that.
On the other hand, I did find two soft lens copies which were made in the 2nd 1/2 of 2007. However, the third copy which I kept, made in the same period, was (is) great.

Frenchmonkey, Trenchmonkey, Wrenchmonkey must all be brothers.

He's normally spot on, so I am waiting impatiently to learn of his source info. The 100-400 is next on my list, although the Sigmas look pretty good.

Apr 06, 2008 at 11:58 PM

EB-1
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #11 · Canon 100-400 Version II?

Oh please. I bought 3 of the 100-400s over the years and still have two of them. Although newer lenses my be on average a bit better, IQ does not necessarily depend on the phase of the moon when the lens was manufactured.

EB

Apr 07, 2008 at 12:33 AM

Venus
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #12 · Canon 100-400 Version II?

there is a distinct possibility that the AF on that sigma 120-400 is gonna faster than that of the canon 100-400 l, snapping on instantly rather like that of that prime canon 400 f5.6. now this is gonna to be interesting next is the IQ... what will it be?

Apr 07, 2008 at 05:53 AM

Pixel Perfect
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #13 · Canon 100-400 Version II?

My USxxxx dated 100-400L is very sharp and so I'd not really consider replacing it with the Sigma 120-400, but if the Sigma 150-500 is optically excellent ie sharp wide open, great colour and contrast, has AF at least as fast as the 100-400L, then it might become my ultimate lightweight birding lens for the 40D when I don't want to haul the 500 f/4 around.

I think the 100-400L could still be improved and I'd like to see it evolve into a 125-500 f/4-5.6L IS, with sealing, spectra coatings, 4 stop IS and much faster AF and a MFD similar to the Sigma's 2.2m for excellent close-up ability. Price at $1999 and make sure weight is under 2kg and it'd be a stellar seller.

Apr 07, 2008 at 08:10 AM

Colin Key
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.2 #14 · Canon 100-400 Version II?

mark maulden wrote:
Trench Monkey wrote that a date code of UV04 and after have good chances of being good copies. How did he arrivve at that particular date code as a "line in the sand"?

Oh, I see - sorry, I'd missed that. I can only imagine that it is "feeling" gained from lots (and there are LOTS) of reports on various forums about this lens. Given Canon's recent example of playing cards close to their chest they are hardly likely to say "right lads, post UV04 lenses are fine, earlier ones could be a bit iffy".

On the other hand, Petkal's experience seems to disprove this "line in the sand" (two out of three post UV04 copies not good.

Colin

Apr 07, 2008 at 08:12 AM

trenchmonkey
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.2 #15 · Canon 100-400 Version II?

trenchmonkey wrote:
Why fix what ain't broke. Great lens just like it is. Take away user error and score a
UV04xx or newer date code and your chances of getting a good copy are very good.
QC seems to have tightened up recently. Improving one's long lens technique won't hurt
either, I'm enjoying sharp images 100 thru 400mm and gorgeous IQ...and I'm not alone.

Line in the sand

Well, no...not exactly. Having had 1/2 a dozen copies myself
and friends with several in recent years my post was an observation and not a guarantee
Canon's cranking out consistent winners. (we know better) Older ones I've had were
great to say 380mm wide open then stopping down some were ok at 400. When I knew
I was gonna be at 400 the 400 f5.6 came along instead. When I sold off the 100-400,
300 f4 IS, and the 400 f5.6 to buy a 300 f2.8 IS (3 for one...crazy) something happened.
Picked up another 100-400. It was sharp all the way to 400. Now were talkin'. UV04xx.
Then a buddy got one, yup sharp at 400 UV06xx. I bought another for a 1D package
for a friend. UV 04xx again sharp all the way through the range. Maybe Canon did some
tweakin' or QC is better this last year or so. There are sharp copies with earlier date
codes. I'm sure there are less than stellar one's being released now, it's merely an
observation...don't shoot the 'monkey, and play in the sand at your own risk.

Apr 07, 2008 at 11:59 AM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 end