Canon telephoto zooms and IS

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mike Hollingshead
  • Start date Start date
Congrats on the new lens Mike! It is a heavy monster though isn't it?

After much trial and error my telephoto lineup ended up like this:

70-200 F4 IS - This lens is sickening. It has amazing IQ, throughout its range. I have used the F2.8, both IS and non versions, and this lens out performs it, even when not pixel peeping IMHO.

100-400 IS - I was waiting for Canon to remake this lens, but then I realized it would be 1.5x the cost. I got a great deal on a used one, and it is the outdoor event lens.

135L - I have no need for the 70-200 f2.8 lenses after I found this lens. It is a perfect lens. Not a zoom, but flexible still if you switch between a 5D and a 1.6 crop.
 
Wow did I just give my most expensive lens an unwanted durability test. I figured I'd post it in one of these lens threads, since it is a testament to the durability of an L series lens. I thought I was going to have to start shedding some tears right after it happened. I cannot believe the thing ain't fubar'd.

I was farting around with longer exposures in bright daylight today, after noting the speed of the low level clouds. Since I only have 3, 3 stop ND filters and learned they aren't enough, I knew my only option was telephoto shots(clouds would appear to cover more area zoomed in than wide angle). So the lens I was using when I gave it this "test" was the Canon 100-400L IS.

I walked up the hill behind my parent's house to try doing some shots of the steam coming out of the stacks at the corn milling plant here. It was icy as hell under a dusting of snow. I about fell a couple times on the way up. I shoot, get freezing cold and decide I needed to beat the sun and get some shots from the highway, without the trees in the way. So being cold and in a hurry, I decided to run back down the hill. I put the fully extended tripod(all three leg sections were out) under my left arm, hands inside my sleeves, and stuck the camera with the lens attached inside my coat. I zipped up, with the end of the lens sticking out the bottom of my jacket(it was extended, so it's rather long). It still had the cokin P filter holder with all three of those ND filters still attached(thank god!). I wasn't far into my run like this, on a flat dirt trail, covered solid with ice and a dusting of snow on top, when it crossed my mind just how dumb I was being. It was half comical how the moment after I realized how dumb it was to be running, I went straight down on the ice. Before I crashed, I was just thinking, oh I can run and not fall, so I'll be ok. So I'm flying along, foot slips, one arm stuck with the tripod, other in the sleeve. Having the camera inside my coat, sticking out the bottom did not help matters. There was no way to do a thing for the camera and lens as I crashed on it. The front of the lens smashes into the ground pefectly head on(since gravity was sure to make sure it was pointed that way, the way it was poking out below my jacket). Me, with my momentum, make sure to finish it off as we smash into it. I could tell the lens and cam took the majority of this crash. My jacket was not protecting things, the actual end of the lens with the holders drove into the ground.

I was scared to roll over and open my jacket so I could move the camera and see the damage. First thing I see were broken pieces of those filters. Next thing, the filter holder, away from the camera now. Had the filter holder and filters not been on there, the glass on the end of the lens would have surely been scratched to hell, or more likely broken. It just wasn't a friendly smash to the ground at all.

So I get up and finish the walk down the hill, "knowing" the inner workings of the lens were toast, and possibly the camera. I mean I nailed this thing down into the ground very very hard. I dry it off and check it out. To my amazement, looking through it, things looked fine. I then flipped the IS on, and it still worked! The autofocus however did not. At least not at first. I'd put it on an object and it wouldn't even begin to try to focus. I'm guessing the impact and the fact it was so cold had something a little stuck. It finally started working again though.

To give some idea how hard I landed on the thing, smashing the end perfectly into the ground, the filter holder adapter ring was now stuck on the lens bigtime. It's pretty impossible to screw it on too tight, since the part that attaches to the filter holder can just spin loosely. What I did was smash the end hard enough into the ground, to pinch the threads together. I thought I was going to do more damage just trying to get it to spin off. It just wouldn't budge. Finally after some time trying, I got it to start to move, then it spun off.

Anyway, it is simply amazing to me this lens can still work fine. Had I had one of their non-L telephotos on, there is just no doubt in my mind it would have been broken into pieces. I would have been buying another lens. When I first rolled over, after this happened, I had that super sinking feeling. You see just how it hit the ground, and felt it too, and are just certain, this thing will not possibly work properly now. Built like a tank is not an understatement on these things!

Hmmm, maybe it's not fine, lol. I thought before posting I ought to inspect the glass more, as I never really did...since it looked ok enough from a glance, while I was worried about the inside of the thing. It looks fine. I pick it up and fart around with the autofocus again just now, and it appears to not work once again. After trying different things, it appears like it works on distant objects just fine, but does not want to focus back on closer ones. It's not something inside the minumum focusing distance because I can do it manually and focus on them fine. Autofocus sure as hell doesn't want to though. Probably not a huge deal I guess, since I've never trusted the autofocusing abilities of this lens anyway. If that's all that is wrong, it will remain amazing to me, since it really should be toast after that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm sure you checked this Mike, but make sure you didn't hit the setting for the minimum focusing distance switch on the side of the lens and knock it to the longer of the selectable focusing range settings.

Oh, and remind me to never let you borrow any of my equipment. :p

Scott
 
Thanks Scott! lol, sure enough, that was all that was "wrong". I forgot that was even an available function on there. I very rarely use the auto-focus on the thing, let alone that specified option. I'm sure it got switched some other day on accident and had just been that way for a while. That was bugging me, as I knew I'd auto-focused closer than that before. I just figured it was something broke in there due to the fall. Had you not mentioned that switch, I can only imagine how long I would have gone assuming it was just broke.

That just seems like a highly unused switch for a lens. I'm sure there's some setting/scene it would be useful on. Actually, maybe I just realized its real use, lol. I was thinking, that must be there to keep you from accidently grabbing something closer for focus. Now I'm thinking, it must be there so when your focus is lost, it's not THAT lost going all the way out. That would make more sense as a use, as I just can't come up with many scenes focusing on something too close would be the problem. Now I'm guessing a more "default" setting and use for that would be where it was, limiting how close it will focus. Then when you know you are messing with close things, you'd open it up for that ability.

So I guess nothing at all is wrong with it after that beating. You could probably drive a car over these. I'm pretty good with equipment normally. I can't think of any time I've even dropped a lens. I guess I'd been saving up for this time. Now if I could just get rid of the damn dust on the sensor(need to get one of those electrical brush things, as the blow bulb just ain't getting it done....tiny tiny dust that only shows up when stopped down past F9).
 
Just of of curiousity, were you comparing the two lenses wide open, or were you comparing the lenses @ f/4. I would really believe the 2.8 version would be better at f/4 than the f4 version at f/4. I could be wrong though.

Congrats on the new lens Mike! It is a heavy monster though isn't it?

After much trial and error my telephoto lineup ended up like this:

70-200 F4 IS - This lens is sickening. It has amazing IQ, throughout its range. I have used the F2.8, both IS and non versions, and this lens out performs it, even when not pixel peeping IMHO.

100-400 IS - I was waiting for Canon to remake this lens, but then I realized it would be 1.5x the cost. I got a great deal on a used one, and it is the outdoor event lens.

135L - I have no need for the 70-200 f2.8 lenses after I found this lens. It is a perfect lens. Not a zoom, but flexible still if you switch between a 5D and a 1.6 crop.
 
That just seems like a highly unused switch for a lens. I'm sure there's some setting/scene it would be useful on. Actually, maybe I just realized its real use, lol. I was thinking, that must be there to keep you from accidently grabbing something closer for focus. Now I'm thinking, it must be there so when your focus is lost, it's not THAT lost going all the way out. That would make more sense as a use, as I just can't come up with many scenes focusing on something too close would be the problem. Now I'm guessing a more "default" setting and use for that would be where it was, limiting how close it will focus. Then when you know you are messing with close things, you'd open it up for that ability.

You got it! Those switches were invaluable before in-lens focusing. I loved it on my old Nikon 80-200mm. The "hunt" time was greatly reduced. With HSM, supersonic, etc, the switch is kind of pointless.

David Drufke


-----------
David Drufke, photographer
Onsite Minnesota Wedding Photography
 
Just of of curiousity, were you comparing the two lenses wide open, or were you comparing the lenses @ f/4. I would really believe the 2.8 version would be better at f/4 than the f4 version at f/4. I could be wrong though.

You would think so, but it turns out that the f/4 lens is just an all-around sharper lens than the 2.8 version. Still, when you get to the image quality range that L telephoto lenses occupy, the difference isn't terribly large.
 
Back
Top