p.2 #1 · EF 100-400mm - chances of getting a good copy?
Even I repeat myself here from former posts about the 100-400 performance in the past - IMO it's 95% user error of how to use this lens correctly if users don't achieve good photos with it. I have a fully sharp copy, couldn't be better.
p.2 #2 · EF 100-400mm - chances of getting a good copy?
I brought two in 2006, or 2007 I can't remember. Anyway I purchased the first at the begining of the year and the second at the end. Both were good and they are identical in performance.
Feb 18, 2009 at 08:49 PM
jim allison Offline • • • [X]
p.2 #3 · EF 100-400mm - chances of getting a good copy?
I'm really happy with mine even wide open and it's the only Canon product that I own = to Nikon build quality. Certainly faster autofocus and supeior IS to the Nikon 80-400 which I've used extensively.
p.2 #7 · EF 100-400mm - chances of getting a good copy?
Heres my story:
Mine was sharp at the beginning. Then I dropped it from a tripod and it was less sharp but I was 16 back then, and I blamed everything on the 350D. I could live with it but then my old man dropped it two years later and its zoom got stuck so it was a 175-400L lens... I used it when it was broken, still ok sharpness UNTILL I sent it to Canon Switzerland and those careless bastards made it soft. Now going to send it in to get it calibrated but its lacking contrast (probably because I used glass cleaning towels to clean the front element and therefor less coating), and I kinda have a bad feeling I might be getting back a worse copy of one of my alltime fav. lenses...
p.2 #8 · EF 100-400mm - chances of getting a good copy?
PetKal wrote:
Let me see....I am on my 5th copy which I consider to be very good and a keeper.
Out of 4 previous copies, one had a fairly good IQ, two were poor and one was mechanically defective, didn't even bother testing that one optically.
All in all, I think the chances of getting a very good to exceptional copy, optically and otherwise, is about 60%. Ten percent are probably duds and 30% are mediocre, or average, if you will.
What about a timeline?
I think most folk now accept that the more recent 100-400mms are pretty much a dead cert for sharpness and IQ (obviously Friday Afternoon Specials are still a possibility) - mine's a 2006 model, and it's splendidly sharp, even wide open at 400mm, handheld.
As I believe I've proven several times recently...
Websurfer, you've been beating this question to death for years - just buy the damn' thing!
I can guarantee that you've got a better chance of getting a good one if you get one.
p.2 #9 · EF 100-400mm - chances of getting a good copy?
n0b0 wrote:
I'm only asking so I have a general idea of what IQ to expect from this lens wide open. I don't wanna put my expectation too high and later be disappointed.
How many 100-400mm pictures have been posted up on here recently? I've posted dozens myself.
So why is there any doubt whatsoever about how well it can perform?
p.2 #10 · EF 100-400mm - chances of getting a good copy?
n0b0 wrote:
And would you consider the 100-400L copy that Luminous Landscape used in their comparison to the 400mm 5.6L to be good?
That's a dismally bad 100-400mm.
As MR admits himself, he got numerous responses to that article from 100-400mm owners who simply could not recognise the output from that 100-400mm as representative of what their own were capable of.
In fact that article has been quoted then shot down in flames so many times that MR should really pull it from Luminous Landscape - it's utter cr@p.
p.2 #11 · EF 100-400mm - chances of getting a good copy?
My eyes aren't near as good as they used to be but this this looks sharp to me.
It was with a 40D and 100-400 wide open at 400 handheld at 1/250..Thanks
p.2 #13 · EF 100-400mm - chances of getting a good copy?
n0b0 wrote:
What happened to the "fairly good IQ" one mate? And would you consider the 100-400L copy that Luminous Landscape used in their comparison to the 400mm 5.6L to be good?
If this test was the only one - but also The Great Canon 400mm Shootout test did show that the EF 100-400mm was behind the EF 400mm f5.6L
Link: http://www.ejphoto.com/400mm_shoot_out_page.htm
p.2 #14 · EF 100-400mm - chances of getting a good copy?
Nobody here (except rental and retailer purchasers) can answer this question accurately. I've bought two 100-400's and both were "good copies". But I can't say 100%, or even 50%, because I don't have anywhere near the scale of data I'd need to make that assertion.
p.2 #15 · EF 100-400mm - chances of getting a good copy?
I've been using one for the last three years and i get good and bad results from it. there are too many factors involved in taking a shot for the lens to always be at fault so I think you have to just shoot and see what happens.
I have a 70-300DO for traveling and while it gives good results it is more hit and miss, perhaps because of the DO optics but at the long end it can be quite fuzzy in sunny.hot conditions. Again this may be more to do with the atmosperic conditions than purely the lens. on th eflip side I had to shoot a collauge today for a CV photo and only had the 70-300 on a D450 and had set it for 800ASA earlier and forgot to reset it. 80% of the images were excelent, 20% she blinked all shot at the 70mm end of the lens.
Back to the 100-400, if you are unsure of the quality try hiring one for a couple of days, my local shop will hire you one and let you keep it if you like it (and pay the difference), as opposed to a loan model with every one gets, I'm sure other shops will do the same.
john
