New 100-400L, seagulls, and good Canadian price.

Ember42 wrote:

First outing with the 100-400L

I'm impressed with this lens. Definitely some practice will be required to consistently get birds in focus, but it is a massive step up from the 55-250!

For the Canadians out there, I found a good deal on it. Photo-Experts in BC have it on for $1529, but Best-buy (or futureshop I presume) will price match it less the $15 delivery. They and the other big stores have it on at $1700. (After duties, delivery and currency adjustment US imports are no better)

I was considering waiting for the rumoured replacement to see if it was worth it, or if there would be good deals on the outgoing one. After I saw the price for the new Nikon 80-400, i figured the Canon would be well out of my bracket (this is my first L), and there would be enough difference the old 100-400L wouldn't go down that much.

I took it out to the local bay to give it a test run and check for any significant defects. I think I am happy with this copy

Good capture, good lens.  Is this the "trombone"?  If so be careful with zooming in and out.  It has no end of travel buffer stops.  With some hearty knocks at the end of travel it dislodges some of the microscopic ball bearings under the zoom lock.  These get between the slide and the barrel make the action sticky and can leave tiny smear like traces up and down the barrel which looks like some dirt has got under the slide.  Eventually these bearings can migrate into the IS mechanism and stop it working.  All this is guaranteed to happen one week after the warranty runs out.

I made the mistake of loosening the screws holding the zoom lock in place thinking that I might clean it. Advice - don't!  Underneath this innocuous fitting are two hoizontally opposed open ball races full of hundreds of tiny pin-head size ball bearings which will suddenly fall out into your lap.  There is no way of replacing them without special help - even if you are the patient type and have also managed to save all the bearings - as the races are open, opposed and dry.  I had thought perhaps "a symple nylon ramp lock" but this is one over-engineered tricky set up and a disaster waiting to happen.

I had to pay of course to have it fixed by Canon - AUD$800 later.

I was annoyed because when I then (some years ago) did a straw survey on the net I found that about one in ten of these lenses will suffer form the displaced bearing problem.  Everyone else who had not yet encountered the issue was a happy as the proverbial "Larry" with the lens.  Canon of course refused to acknowledge this as a fundamental design fault.

Of course my problem was in following an Osprey Eagle in flight.  Zoom out, find it, zoom in track it, lost it, zoom out, repeat .... The zoom action is very fast and you get this "whack, whack" when you are in a hurry.  Watch it.  I am careful these days and have had no more trouble.  I have no idea why Canon cold not have fitted and end of travel buffer - a simple cheap "O" ring would have done well.  Maybe the repair revenue is attractive.

Ember42 wrote:

thanks! Always good to know what the vulnerabilities of an expensive piece of kit are. I will have to develop my technique to avoid that failure mode.

Enjoy it, I think 90% of owners have not had that problem.  But you will note that at the end of the travel each way it does go "whack" - I think relatively easy whacks will be ok.  Just don't get over enthusiastic.

Kevin Jorgensen wrote:

Ember42 wrote:

thanks! Always good to know what the vulnerabilities of an expensive piece of kit are. I will have to develop my technique to avoid that failure mode.

I find it remarkable that you're taking advice from someone who had to ask you if it was the ''trombone'' as he put it. Canon doesn't make any other 100-400s, something I would have thought he knew. Take it from someone who uses this lenses every day, never heard of this problem, which is strange given its supposed to affect 10% of these lenses.............. and never had the problem. Go out and enjoy your lens, don't baby it.

Oh you mean the f4.5-5.6 do you?  Don't be so condescending.  I was just checking that I was talking of a particular design that caused the potential problem.  I should obviously have known otherwise I would not have launched into such a long winded explanation.

I tell you that the problem is very real.  I did a research on the web at the time - maybe 8 years ago.  The web was full of guys saying "pay no notice as I am personally as happy as ..., I have had no trouble, whee-aw you are mad and don't know your lenses" and a reasonable number complaining of bitter experience, displaced bearings, sticky trombone, defunct IS and Canon's out of warranty repair bills.   A straw (very inaccuate) poll between those ecstatic with no trouble and those miserable after a big out-of-warranty repair bill gave a rough 10% with this identical problem.

I am not trying to spoil happiness, just warning to not be too slap happy with the travel, the trombone seems to be a good way to quicky identify the zoom action as against the internal zooming 70-200mm f2.8 IS which is a much better lens and seems to be used by many "up and comings".

And of course if you notice any stickiness of movement and tell-tale faint line traces on the barrel it has popped one or more of these very small bearings out of the ball races which are dragging and causing the "sticky" effect. You had best send it for a warranty repair as trying to clean the lens movement can only lead to disaster.

My problem was caused by chasing aerial bird shots so it moved me to comment.  Eight years further down the track I have had no further problem - guess I am now in the 90% category.  The lens will take normal amounts of abuse it is just that here is no soft-stop buffer in the lens and whilst it can take a whack or two there is no knowing just how hard a whack it will need to cause damage.  Notably the zoom lock on the repaired lens was adjusted tighter when "off" when it came back and did not allow such rapid accelleration when operated.  Initially it was very free when set to "off".  Maybe my lens was faulty ex-works?  In which case I had an expensive lesson.

... and a lot of others complained about it being a "dust pump" - I never subscribed to that argument.

Ecoh wrote:

I have used this lens almost every day for about 8 years.. I use it mainly for birding so I have packed this lens on hikes through marshes, beaches, and woods. It is my favorite lens, for being versatile and light enough to carry around ready to shoot all day.

I have never had a problem with dust in it, or with the push pull mechanism getting hard to slide. There is some black material under the ring that locks the lens that seems to degrade after a few years of use. I had this replaced 4 years ago and just recently again. I just send it to Canon for a cleaning and focus check and they replace that material at no charge.

You will really enjoy this lens.

Ahah!

Glad to hear someone whose experience proves the point.  For one who also noticed the "black material" and thought it was a simple "cleaning job":  There is no black material under the lock to degrade.  Take it from one who has had very expensive experience.  That black material is one or more displaced bearings under the zoom lock.  They jam and are driven up and down as the lens moves leaving fine black mark traces that look for all the world like "dirt marks" especially as they can be wiped off. The effect is a sort of slight resistence when moving the slide which once overcome slides normally.  It is just slightly unpleasant and not the usual butter-smooth original action.  It was a desire to do a simple clean that led me to my mistake.  If the screws attaching the zoom lock are removed the zoom easily comes apart and  immediately disgorges hundreds (thousands?) of microscopic bearings virually all over the table and your lap.  The design of the zoom lock entails two tracks of opposed bearings in an usealed race (bearings on the opposing outsides).  Someone else suggested that they must be assembled using magnets as there could be no other way to do this.  I found a lens construction diagram somewhere on the web before I tried to clean the barrel but it was not explicit on how the race was made.  I can generally fix lenses and I am not casual about it.

The fact that Canon clean and focus check with no charge for materials more proves my point that they are aware of the problem and repair it quietly at no cost rather than publicly acknowledge the problem.  In my case I foolishly tried to clean the lens myself  - my problem and I paid the price - sorry to have bothered explaining.  But my very problem showed me the construction details, the propensity for tiny ball bearings to be jolted out of open races is quite real.  It was only a thorough search of the web at the time that identified from other experiences that it was the jolted-out bearings that caused the problem and that in some cases the roaming bearings got inside the lens and wrecked the IS mechanism.

Having said this I acknowledge that this is a great lens, it is very useful, can stand up to normal use, gives people a huge amount of pleasure, etc.  No need to be a killjoy.  People can use this lens for years or for a lifetime with no problems whatsoever.

However the "trombone action" with no soft stop at lens and two opposed open race bearing tracks containing microscopic bearings is bad design.  Problems are bound to happen on occasion, but surely they are not inevitable. I just merely caution not to be over heavy on hitting the end stops and there is no meter that can show how much is ok and what is too much.  A factory inserted soft stop at either end should have cured the problem but as far as I know the design is quite old and has never been changed.  Canon must simply re-pack the bearings with a special tool whenever the lens is send in for cleaning "the degraded black material" from under the lock ring.

One might have thought a surrounding ring with a nylon sliding ramp would serve as a lock - the highly complex and resulting potential for failure seems an engineering overkill for such a simple function.

birdbrain wrote:

It's a great lens which lends itself to quite a varied diet of photography, as it has a very short minimum focus distance its rather good at butterflies.



Also good at tracking airplanes as well.



If Canon ever bring out a MkII it will probably cost an-arm-and-a-leg, especially seeing the price Nikon have their new equivalent at.

Have fun using it.

Phil,

Great images, it truly is a good lens.

Kevin Jorgensen wrote:

Tom Caldwell wrote:

Kevin Jorgensen wrote:

Ember42 wrote:

thanks! Always good to know what the vulnerabilities of an expensive piece of kit are. I will have to develop my technique to avoid that failure mode.

I find it remarkable that you're taking advice from someone who had to ask you if it was the ''trombone'' as he put it. Canon doesn't make any other 100-400s, something I would have thought he knew. Take it from someone who uses this lenses every day, never heard of this problem, which is strange given its supposed to affect 10% of these lenses.............. and never had the problem. Go out and enjoy your lens, don't baby it.

''Oh you mean the f4.5-5.6 do you? Don't be so condescending. I was just checking that I was talking of a particular design that caused the potential problem. I should obviously have known otherwise I would not have launched into such a long winded explanation.''

Lol..............................no mate I'm talking about all the other 100-400s Canon makes! 1 in 10 huh, I would have thought the decimation of a lens model would at least warrant a mention on some of the review sites. Nope, can't find one! Some links would be good Tom.

Kevin,

Next time I need to buy a lens I will seek your advice, you seem to be very knowledgeable.