Reviews and Problems with Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM
Showing 1-10 of 16
Magic Marker, B&H Photo
23 December 2012
Excerpt: I found that getting the auto focus to "lock on" was erratic. Most images were soft. I did micro adjust the focus on my 5D Mark II which gave a slight improvement, but the auto focus was still erratic. Some images sharper, most still soft.
Conclusion: Started out ok, but after a few months this lense turned out to be a waste of money. Images not sharp, very slow. Not worth the money. It's been in for service several times. Image stabilizer burnt out twice. I think I received a lemon.
Conclusion: This lens was purchased to capture wildlife. I too agree with the review by lorendn on 3/3/12 and have the same result. I'm very disappointed with the sharpness and wondering if I should send the lens back to Canon for repair or replacement. I am very pleased with other Canon lens that I have.
Conclusion: I purchased the 100-400 f4.5-5.6L about 2 months ago and have never been satisfied with its sharpness. I have 4 other EOS L lenses and am constantly amazed at the quality of the images I capture with my 7D. This lens totally misses the mark and its performance is disappointing. The images are excessively soft and lack the sharpness of other L lenses. It is almost unusable at f4.5-5.6 and barely acceptable under ideal circumstances at f8-16.
Excerpt: Within 3 months of using this lens, the switch for the image stabilizer was missing. Canon denied covered on their warranty (impact). I was told that both Canon and Nikon are turning down nearly all claims after the earthquake. I recommend additional coverage to cover expensive repair costs. Have quality fallen after the earthquake too?
Excerpt: I loved this lens, but now it has fallen victim to what I read about and hoped wouldn't happen to mine. The bearings on the inside have come loose, the IS has stopped working because of it, and now at a very busy part of my year, I have to send it off to get repaired. (so more $ for a lens I already payed [$] for) OUCH!!!
Excerpt: As a professional, I usually shoot landscapes but I have recently started to get more into wildlife. After much research, I pulled the trigger and bought this. Right out of the box the lens feels well built and heavy. I was surprised at the size of the lens. It is smaller then the 70-200mm f/2.8 when zoomed out and only looks truely impressive in size with the lens cap on.
Cons: Blurry Focus, Lens Creep, Not sharp, Poor in Low Light
Conclusion: A complete waste of money:- Soft Awful Bokeh Terrible zoom action, reminds me of some awful 1970's zooms I once owned. A dust Pump A disgrace to Canon's Famous 'L' lens series > Just avoid the temptation to buy one - get a 400 F5.6 'L' and a 135 F2 'L' instead > Only plus point I sold mine for a good price on ebay, check ebay out there's plenty of this lens for sale, so obviously other owners don't like 'em either.
Cons: A truly awful lens - soft - difficult to use the push/pull system - but worst of all the things an air pump - dusty dusty 'Dusty Bin' it ought to be called - did I mention the lack of IQ and the soft focus images - the worst Canon lens I've ever owned - though the 70-200F2.8 IS comes a close 2nd.
Conclusion: Well, I must have gotten the SOFTEST copy at 400mm that was ever produced (from B&H), because my images are really weak at that zoom level of 400mm. In fact I was just in Irvine, CA and dropped off the lens at the Canon Service Center for calibration at 400mm. To be honest, at 100mm the lens is tack sharp, but at 400mm, it is as if I am shooting with a softening filter. I am very disappointed in this copy of the lens.
Pros: Great at 100mm
Cons: Loose as a goose and soft as a baby's butt at 400mm....