Going over to the dark side

4

48thEagle

Messages
367
Edit My Images
Yes
Much has been said about people moving from Canon to Nikon, and I have been following these threads with interest.

I started off in January with a 400D with a twin lens kit (18-55mm and 55-200mm) and 3 weeks later, added a 70-300mm IS to that.

During the summer, I decided to upgrade, and via Canon's ebay page, I got a 40D and 17-85mm IS (refurbished and one years warranty) for a good price (£640) but since then, as I have said, have seen a lot written about going over to the other side.

Today I bought a Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5/5.6L , so I think it is fair to say any thoughts of going over have disappeared.

Oh so much joy, and the annoying thing is, the airbases I tend to frequent wont start again in earnest until monday, and I have nothing to do for a few days lol

Still, I finally have one, I'm so happy!!!!!!!
 
I expect you'll continue to get more and more enjoyment from your 100-400 L.

Don't worry about the 'bases: yesterday there seemed to be plenty of C130 into Mildenhall - one every 10 mins at one stage - but West Suffolk has been gloomily overcast today:-( and the skies very quiet.
 
Congrats. The 100-400L is lot of bang for your buck! ;)
 
CT said:
Congrats. The 100-400L is lot of bang for your buck! ;)
Click to expand...

Got it for £938.71 from Jessops, thanks to looking at camera price buster and checking there.

I hired one from LensesForHire back in the summer, and really liked it, and was determined to get one, I worked x*** day and boxing day, and those shifts paid for this lens.

Oh I can't wait....
 
LOL I know the feeling. I got mine for a great price from 7dayshop before Canon dropped the big clog on them and stopped them selling Canon gear.

Just be careful with that torque setting collar. If you have it too slack, when you drop the lens down it slides right out to 400mm and stops with a heck of a whack! It's thought that this continuously happening is responsible for a lot of the IS failures on this lens. I usually just nip the torque ring up if I'm just walking around.
 
CT said:
.... It's thought that this continuously happening is responsible for a lot of the IS failures on this lens. I usually just nip the torque ring up if I'm just walking around.
Click to expand...

It's very plausible. All Canon's L lens have the image stabilisation group at the back end of the lens except the 100-400 where it's positioned close behind the front element.....hence, surfing into the buffers with the rest of the extension portion. By the time the 28-300 appeared, they'd put the IS group back into the fixed portion.

Bob
 
You will love it, just getting the hang of mine (y)
 
Congratulations on the new lens, I am sure you will love it!

I treated myself to one of those on Christmas Eve, also from Jessops and also thanks to Camera Price Buster and I am so pleased with it, my first L lens as well.

Just like you it also took a while to get over the just wanting to hug it stage! :love: But I think I am over that now, well perhaps! :help:
 
CT said:
It's thought that this continuously happening is responsible for a lot of the IS failures on this lens.
Click to expand...
Are there a lot of IS failures? I hadn't heard that. It's not been my experience yet, but more relevantly LensRentals in the USA with their huge sample size (they have about 50 100-400s; I only have 15) haven't had many IS failures either. Here are their repair data. They highlight the zoom tensioner ring as a trouble spot - I can agree with that, I've had two fail - but not the IS.

PS - Congratulations, Adrian!
 
StewartR said:
Are there a lot of IS failures? I hadn't heard that. It's not been my experience yet, but more relevantly LensRentals in the USA with their huge sample size (they have about 50 100-400s; I only have 15) haven't had many IS failures either. Here are their repair data. They highlight the zoom tensioner ring as a trouble spot - I can agree with that, I've had two fail - but not the IS.

PS - Congratulations, Adrian!
Click to expand...

Perhaps my post was a bit misleading in implying 'a lot' of IS failures. I've heard of about three cases of !S failure with the 100-400L and I'm sure someone was told by Canon Service peeps that the likely cause was the sloppy trombone effect. There's certainly been no probs with mine so far, thankfully, but I am very careful with that torque collar.
 
The reports of IS failure seem to have died down now, a couple of years ago, it was commonplace to hear of 100-400's with failed IS systems, maybe Canon have tweaked them and made them hardier ? I know mine has been fine and i bought it in 2006 :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top