Mustang Air to Air: The Sequel
/forum/topic/600984/3757

1       2       3              3757      
3758
       3759              4342       4343       end

DanNehmer
Registered: Nov 26, 2009
Total Posts: 272
Country: United States

Jim,

I borrowed a 100-400 from a friend for my recent vacation out west and dang your's is so much sharper. Beautiful hawk and golf photos. I tried MA, tripods, etc and must say inconsistent were the results. Some photos very sharp and clear, others not. Copy variation I guess. Only thing that was repeatable is the closer the subject the more likely the focus was correct. Seemed to back focus, but tried the MA with tripod on two separate days and got values of 2 and 10 respectively. I think he is going to send it in for a check out as it's only 4 months old.

But I love the focal range, IS, etc. I think it's a great lens to have if it's working well.

Just my 2 cents,
Dan

PS - Looks like I have to add a top photo.



futurshox
Registered: Feb 15, 2008
Total Posts: 2415
Country: United States

Maybe I am being dumb, but how exactly do you send a lens in for a clean and check and calibration only? I looked on the Canon site the other day and it has check boxes for various kinds of broken-ness but nothing for 'just sort it out'...



cbrandt
Registered: Aug 03, 2006
Total Posts: 1486
Country: United States



I'm curious how many folks here have their lenses calibrated to thier cameras ? Do it yourself .. ? OEM ?? 3rd party ?

I once had my 17-55mm calibrated by Nikon to a D300 I no longer have, and quite frankly the results were amazing !



cbrandt
Registered: Aug 03, 2006
Total Posts: 1486
Country: United States

Nikon has the same type of repair form ........ but I always enclose a letter stating what I think is wrong and what I want ... they then send an email saying what they found on their eval with the cost ........ and what was in the box ....... rear lens cap, front lens cap, your letter, 70-200mm xxxxxxxx

I'm sure if you send a letter along you'd get the same result ..

Last time I sent this 70-200mm in for a clean and cal it was like 350 bucks !!

I told them in the letter I sent in this time I felt i hadn't rec'd a good cleaning the last time it was in .. since they're going to have to really disassemble this lens - cleaning should be a given as they reassemble the lens.



Wrei
Registered: Aug 01, 2008
Total Posts: 2242
Country: United States

Jo, when I was a CPS member, I called CPS to tell them I wanted to do a clean and check (I had a free coupon), but I also wanted them to calibrate the 24-70. He told me a clean and check is included in lens calibration. So I asked for a calibration price and he finally told me to put the coupon in the box, and they would do the calibration using the coupon with no additional charges. I simply wrote "calibration with clean and check" on the CPS work request form. Everything worked out fine.



FlyingPhotog
Registered: May 09, 2008
Total Posts: 4540
Country: United States

Generally, Canon will have bodies that they consider to be "golden samples" where they know every attribute is spot on and they'll use those bodies to calibrate lenses to where they meet spec (as it relates to that golden sample body.)

If you truly want YOUR glass to work perfectly with YOUR body, then you really should send both. HOWEVER, if you have more than one body, that's not necessarily going to work very well.

For the record, everything I've ever posted here has come from a mix of three bodies and nine lenses and none of them have ever been to Canon nor have I ever done any micro-focus adjustments to anything. I do need to send my 24-70 to Canon for some TLC because it got dropped, but so far, it's still working well insofar as I can tell. There is cosmetic rash and the front ring is slightly out of round, but otherwise it still makes good images.



Wrei
Registered: Aug 01, 2008
Total Posts: 2242
Country: United States

Yeah, but Jay, you could produce great photos with a Kodak Brownie!



FlyingPhotog
Registered: May 09, 2008
Total Posts: 4540
Country: United States

Guess that didn't come out sounding quite right...



JWilsonphoto
Registered: Jan 16, 2002
Total Posts: 16221
Country: United States

FlyingPhotog wrote:
Generally, Canon will have bodies that they consider to be "golden samples" where they know every attribute is spot on and they'll use those bodies to calibrate lenses to where they meet spec (as it relates to that golden sample body.)

If you truly want YOUR glass to work perfectly with YOUR body, then you really should send both. HOWEVER, if you have more than one body, that's not necessarily going to work very well.

For the record, everything I've ever posted here has come from a mix of three bodies and nine lenses and none of them have ever been to Canon nor have I ever done any micro-focus adjustments to anything. I do need to send my 24-70 to Canon for some TLC because it got dropped, but so far, it's still working well insofar as I can tell. There is cosmetic rash and the front ring is slightly out of round, but otherwise it still makes good images.



That little repair will cost you about $325.00 Jay....................don't ask...........



JWilsonphoto
Registered: Jan 16, 2002
Total Posts: 16221
Country: United States

That seems to be a fairly common story Dan, unfortunately. Mine has been back to CPS three times, twice for disassembly and cleaning of the barrel and lens elements, and once because some photographer thought he could put just one more camera bag on top the cart and make it to the rental car. That confidence proved to be unfounded and the lesson cost $475.00. I do believe that it came back sharper than it left, but I couldn't say for sure. Happy with it now though.



Glenn Watson
Registered: Nov 13, 2007
Total Posts: 3062
Country: United States

I've never calibrated or sent off any of my stuff either...When I was waiting for the B24 to board to shoot the Collings airplanes a few weeks back i had my 3 bodies and 3 most used lens (12-24,50,70-200) sitting on a plastic table - I turned my back on the table for about 3 seconds and a gust of wind blew the whole damn thing over and my stuff all smashed onto the ramp. Once I stopped silently hyperventilating and got it together, it all seems to be okay. i hate the doubt that puts in the back of your head when looking at new images in LR and missing focus on a lot of shots ....(was it me or the pavement encounter?)

Glenn



DanNehmer
Registered: Nov 26, 2009
Total Posts: 272
Country: United States

I have 8 or 9 lens, some consumer primes, a couple consumer zooms, and then in the last couple years I have purchased 16-35, 24-70, & 70-200 f2.8. I had to send only the 16-35 back for focus issues. It was back focusing horribly at 35, front focusing at 16, and sorta okay at 24. Canon said there was a bad part in the new lens I had purchased and life has been good every since.

I have played with MA some, but can't say it really has helped or hurt. I have MA turned off on my 6D and 7D and have been happy with the focus. I do avoid f1.4 to f2.0 on most stuff just because the depth of field is so shallow that it's nearly impossible to get a good picture unless everything is nailed down stationary.

Dan



Razor17
Registered: Oct 08, 2012
Total Posts: 335
Country: United States

DanNehmer wrote:
Jim,

I borrowed a 100-400 from a friend for my recent vacation out west and dang your's is so much sharper. Beautiful hawk and golf photos. I tried MA, tripods, etc and must say inconsistent were the results. Some photos very sharp and clear, others not. Copy variation I guess. Only thing that was repeatable is the closer the subject the more likely the focus was correct. Seemed to back focus, but tried the MA with tripod on two separate days and got values of 2 and 10 respectively. I think he is going to send it in for a check out as it's only 4 months old.

But I love the focal range, IS, etc. I think it's a great lens to have if it's working well.

Just my 2 cents,
Dan

PS - Looks like I have to add a top photo.


Thanks for the capture, we enjoy the drive out the West gate as there are several Eagle nest.
I had a 100-400 and it would stop short of crisp at 400mm and so it now belongs to my sister...

Lynn



Colin Giersberg
Registered: Jun 01, 2008
Total Posts: 2103
Country: United States

Back several years ago, I posted several images of a large wooden model mining excavator. For those that saw it then, you remember it. For those who have yet to go that far back in this thread, I would like to post a link to the photos I just posted on a woodworking message board I go to. There are better images in this thread than what I had available to me then, so I hope you check it out.


http://festoolownersgroup.com/general-friendly-chat/wooden-excavator-model/



FlyingPhotog
Registered: May 09, 2008
Total Posts: 4540
Country: United States

Colin Giersberg wrote:
Back several years ago, I posted several images of a large wooden model mining excavator. For those that saw it then, you remember it. For those who have yet to go that far back in this thread, I would like to post a link to the photos I just posted on a woodworking message board I go to. There are better images in this thread than what I had available to me then, so I hope you check it out.


http://festoolownersgroup.com/general-friendly-chat/wooden-excavator-model/


THAT is one of the most AMAZING pieces of work I've ever seen. WOW!!!



JWilsonphoto
Registered: Jan 16, 2002
Total Posts: 16221
Country: United States

Glenn Watson wrote:
I've never calibrated or sent off any of my stuff either...When I was waiting for the B24 to board to shoot the Collings airplanes a few weeks back i had my 3 bodies and 3 most used lens (12-24,50,70-200) sitting on a plastic table - I turned my back on the table for about 3 seconds and a gust of wind blew the whole damn thing over and my stuff all smashed onto the ramp. Once I stopped silently hyperventilating and got it together, it all seems to be okay. i hate the doubt that puts in the back of your head when looking at new images in LR and missing focus on a lot of shots ....(was it me or the pavement encounter?)

Glenn


I know what you mean Glenn. Anything that introduces doubt drives me crazy because your imagination begins to run wild and there are so many variables you can't begin to determine whether it's the body, the lens, the photographer, ugh! I think it was Jon Berry who decided to take the bull by the horns and get a calibration kit and go through all of his gear. As I remember, it was a nightmare and I don't think he ever got it back to where he was comfortable with it.

Sending everything off to CPS/NPS, while I've considered it at times, would be a ridiculously time consuming and expensive proposition for sure.



JWilsonphoto
Registered: Jan 16, 2002
Total Posts: 16221
Country: United States

FlyingPhotog wrote:
Colin Giersberg wrote:
Back several years ago, I posted several images of a large wooden model mining excavator. For those that saw it then, you remember it. For those who have yet to go that far back in this thread, I would like to post a link to the photos I just posted on a woodworking message board I go to. There are better images in this thread than what I had available to me then, so I hope you check it out.


http://festoolownersgroup.com/general-friendly-chat/wooden-excavator-model/


THAT is one of the most AMAZING pieces of work I've ever seen. WOW!!!


I'd say!! What detail!!



Tim Adams
Registered: Jan 01, 2004
Total Posts: 2648
Country: United States

Never calibrated any of my stuff either. They seem to work ok.



Tim Adams
Registered: Jan 01, 2004
Total Posts: 2648
Country: United States

It was announced yesterday that Unlimiteds have reached an agreement and they will be at Reno.



Jeff W.
Registered: Feb 09, 2008
Total Posts: 1900
Country: United States

A little panning practice from earlier this year. A CRJ making a late afternoon arrival at PHX.



1       2       3              3757      
3758
       3759              4342       4343       end