Will, did you check the condition of the 52mm drop in filter? On my Nikon 500mm f4 it is a necessary part of the lens, and effects sharpness much as your examples look. I don't know if Canon works it the same way, but even if not...the filter could be dirty...just an idea...
I used to own one of those back when I shot film. It was sharp even with a 1.4X. It wasn't quite as sharp as the 300/2.8, but it was plenty sharp. Something doesn't look right with your images.
My first guess is that it looks like an alignment issue with a lens element or group inside your 400/f2.8; that can happen from a drop like during shipping or user mishandling. Before sending it in, I'd also check there is mold inside (look for haziness) especially in the rearmost elements. Mis-aligned elements are fixable even on your mkI series lens and won't cost a fortune.
James Markus wrote:
Will, did you check the condition of the 52mm drop in filter? On my Nikon 500mm f4 it is a necessary part of the lens, and effects sharpness much as your examples look. I don't know if Canon works it the same way, but even if not...the filter could be dirty...just an idea...
The filter was fine. Just for the heck of it I pulled the filter out totally and believe it or not the IQ was actually even worse... eesh.
Oh well, it's on a UPS truck right now. I hope it comes back better.
Will Patterson wrote:
The filter was fine. Just for the heck of it I pulled the filter out totally and believe it or not the IQ was actually even worse... eesh.
Oh well, it's on a UPS truck right now. I hope it comes back better.
Will is this the same 400 you were going to offer to trade for a 300IS? And I have to admit, in your position with that kind of $$$ out I'd be a bit more then pissed about getting a lens in that condition. Those 400's are tack sharp, that looks more like a mirror lens of $100 quality. Good luck getting it fixed and back to the condition you would have expected.
Matt OHarver wrote:
Will is this the same 400 you were going to offer to trade for a 300IS? And I have to admit, in your position with that kind of $$$ out I'd be a bit more then pissed about getting a lens in that condition. Those 400's are tack sharp, that looks more like a mirror lens of $100 quality. Good luck getting it fixed and back to the condition you would have expected.
Matt
Yep.. I was thinking more about portability for use at Daytona, but if I can't get it fixed it's going to be a paper weight because I'll leave it home. I do think though that the guys at midstate will fix it. They seem to have some stellar reviews.
Bmeister wrote:
My first guess is that it looks like an alignment issue with a lens element or group inside your 400/f2.8; that can happen from a drop like during shipping or user mishandling. Before sending it in, I'd also check there is mold inside (look for haziness) especially in the rearmost elements. Mis-aligned elements are fixable even on your mkI series lens and won't cost a fortune.
Matt OHarver wrote:
Those 400's are tack sharp, that looks more like a mirror lens of $100 quality. Good luck getting it fixed and back to the condition you would have expected.
Matt
Errr... actually, the 400 2.8 Mk I is notorious for inconsistent IQ. Unlike the Mk II and IS versions, it's absolutely not safe to assume a Mk I will be sharp "because it's a 400 2.8." Some maybe are (none that I've used), some definitely are not.
Some Mk I owners swear by their copies, and I still see some on the sidelines at sports events, but if someone is thinking of buying one, make sure you can test it and walk away if it performs like this one.
I understand what you're saying, however the sample images taken right before the lens was shipped to me looked 100x better, something must have happened in shipping. Sometimes I love FedEx, sometimes I hate them.
I shipped the lens from where I work, I created the label myself and made 110% sure that everything was correct on the label.
I go to track it this afternoon and it says it's scheduled for delivery tomorrow the 13th (Friday, figures...), but the destination says Warwick, NC. There's no such place!!! I called UPS and they said there is a restriction on the account I used for changing the address, so basically I have to hope and prey that either the lens arrives at the right place or that it gets shipped back to me. I know for a fact that the label said "RI" on it for the state, and when I look in my shipping system all the info is correct, so somewhere between here and UPS's computers something got screwed up.
Keeping my fingers crossed that when I wake up in the morning it says it's out for delivery in Rhode Island.. my only ray of hope is that the lady said it's in transit from Syracuse, NY to somewhere in Massachusetts, so atleast it's heading in the right direction.
* edit * - the lens did end up making it there just fine, and was delivered at 10:30 AM on Friday. As of Tuesday the 17th it's apart on their bench and they're looking at it.
Will Patterson wrote:
Nope.. not gonna even worry about that. I'm just making sure I'm right in saying I should send it in, possibly to midstate camera repair. I can't find that list I saw on here lately of camera repair centers that work on Canon SLR equipment.
wow something must be knocked out of position or something
ugly
a sigma 120-300 + TC looks better at 400mm
that said the 400 2.8 Mark I was known to be optically inferior to the Mark II which itself is (very slightly but still better than almost any other lens out there) inferior to the IS version (the 300 2.8 is also inferior ot the 2.8 IS but the difference is very minor). But no way it should be anything like that! I think the old 70-300 non-IS at 300mm was better than that, by a LOT!
