Nervous About A Lens Purchase

"RPN" wrote in message
...
I am planning to buy the Canon 100-400mm L IS lens and I have read
accounts on the web and various Usenet forums where even the best lens
manufacturers, making the best of lenses, occasionally makes a lens that
does not focus properly or has some other defect. I have no idea if
these accounts represent 10% of the lenses sold or .0001% of the lenses
sold. To me this is a very expensive purchase that I don't take
lightly. I wonder, even if it is only .0001% chance, what can I expect
of Canon or a reputable dealer such as B&H or Adorama if I am that
"lucky" person who hits that .0001%.

Are there any of you that can offer some insight on how prevalent
manufacturing problems really are, how often problems are successfully
resolved to the buyers satisfaction, and how much of a hassle it is?

Reading the other responses suggests that your question has not been
answered. I'll try:

1/ A lens is a mechanical assembly and thus is subject to manufacturing
tolerances.
2/ As one pays more, one expects tighter tolerances ... and generally gets
them.
3/ Canon lenses are good buys and L lenses are generally worth their cost.
4/ Lenses can be damaged (slightly) so that anecdotal information can be
misleading.
5/ Canon has good repair depots.

Hope that helps. By the way, I own a copy of that lens and can recommend
it.

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
Now if only you'd had a 300mm f4 handy that day...

indeed, but Skip's examples, and Roger's evaluations do support the
notion that the 100-400mm is not optimal, like most zoom options (with
very few potential exceptions).

--
Bart

Bart van der Wolf wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
...
Now if only you'd had a 300mm f4 handy that day...

indeed, but Skip's examples, and Roger's evaluations do support the
notion that the 100-400mm is not optimal, like most zoom options (with
very few potential exceptions).

Ya. I've owned two copies of that lens, and it was less than perfect, but I
don't think Skip's example is a very typical example shot. This is a more
likely subject example for that lens:
http://www.pbase.com/markuson/image/47306216/original

My first copy was stolen, and I sold the replacement after seeing it sit on
the shelf after I bought the 70-200 2.8 IS. With my more recent use of the
full frame 5D and the lack of perceived enlargement (crop factor) I've found
myself wishing for 400mm again (my 200 + 1.4+1.6 cropped 10D made me miss it
less, with similar field of view to 448mm...).

My ideal zoom tele would be a Canon 200-400 f4 (unless 2.8 isn't too much to
ask), or perhaps a 200-500 f4. But alas...Canon makes neither... Nikon's
version is right up there in price with the best super-teles, so I'm sure a
Canon rendition would be up there as well... For this reason, I've been
tempted to re-acquire the 100-400, but I know I'd be unhappy with the 5.6
aperture. Given an extra $6K+, I'd grab the 400mm 2.8 IS and return to
Alaska for a month or two...

Oh well...for now.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"RPN" wrote in message
...



Thanks for the input. If there are others that are looking as well, I
think the URL for last one (400mm at F8) should be

http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/51380605


Also, I have a way off topic question. The shorter building on the far
left hand side of the frame appears to have an antenna system of some
sort (mast with wires running radially to the edges) on the roof. Do
you know anything about that? Just curious.

Well, since that is a federal building/prison, I'm not sure I want to
know...

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

In article , Skip
writes
"RPN" wrote in message
...



Thanks for the input. If there are others that are looking as well, I
think the URL for last one (400mm at F8) should be

http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/51380605


Also, I have a way off topic question. The shorter building on the far
left hand side of the frame appears to have an antenna system of some
sort (mast with wires running radially to the edges) on the roof. Do
you know anything about that? Just curious.

Well, since that is a federal building/prison, I'm not sure I want to
know...
In which case it is probably the base station antenna for the wardens.

--
Ian G8ILZ

In article , Prometheus@
127.0.0.1 says...
In article , Skip
writes
"RPN" wrote in message
...



Thanks for the input. If there are others that are looking as well, I
think the URL for last one (400mm at F8) should be

http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/51380605


Also, I have a way off topic question. The shorter building on the far
left hand side of the frame appears to have an antenna system of some
sort (mast with wires running radially to the edges) on the roof. Do
you know anything about that? Just curious.

Well, since that is a federal building/prison, I'm not sure I want to
know...
In which case it is probably the base station antenna for the wardens.


Perhaps, but it looks large enough to be an HF antenna. I am not sure
why they would need that in a prison for local communications. My
guess is that being in an urban setting, it would be a lesser prison
and other Federal agencies are in the building, and one of those would
use it. But as I say it is a guess, and with no other facts, yours is
certainly as good as mine.

"Prometheus" wrote in message
...
In article , Skip
writes
"RPN" wrote in message
.. .



Thanks for the input. If there are others that are looking as well, I
think the URL for last one (400mm at F8) should be

http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/51380605


Also, I have a way off topic question. The shorter building on the far
left hand side of the frame appears to have an antenna system of some
sort (mast with wires running radially to the edges) on the roof. Do
you know anything about that? Just curious.

Well, since that is a federal building/prison, I'm not sure I want to
know...
In which case it is probably the base station antenna for the wardens.

--
Ian G8ILZ

More than likely.

--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
www.pbase.com/skipm

wrote:

I have it on good authority

Does that read "A friend of a friend once pulled my leg and
told me the following rumor"?

Or do your really believe nobody would test the camera before
and after?

-Wolfgang

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:

wrote:

I have it on good authority

Does that read "A friend of a friend once pulled my leg and
told me the following rumor"?

Actually, it could have been written "Polson, you couldn't tell if your
body had an AF problem at all", but felt my unsupported exaggerations
were a more humorous way of putting it. I guess I failed, eh?

Or do your really believe nobody would test the camera before
and after?

Absolutely not. However, it would not surprise me at all to find that
most of the "AF problem" returns to Canon were from insecure little
****ants who are in a panic because they maxed their credit cards and
generally have no idea whatsoever. "There are semiconductor crystal
dislocations in my sensor! You miserable liars! I just bought this
camera for $1k and demand total perfection."

Why do I suspect this? Well, many reasons, some I've seen and more
I've heard about:

http://www.actsofgord.com/index.html

Some people just don't deserve modern camera equipment, even if they
can afford it.

Hi Alan,

While I disagree with the rest of your post, no truer words than above
have ever been stated about high end gear (photography and otherwise).

Ever heard of insurance?g

Best regards,

Arnor Baldvinsson
San Antonio, Texas.