Canon 70-200 f4 L glass - backfocusing nightmares!

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

10/09/2006 05:45:28 AM · #26

Well, poo!

Got a call a couple of days ago from nice Jessops man that Canon had sent the lens back with a ticksheet to say what they'd done to it that showed only "Adjusted" on it.

Incase I haven't kept the thread updated, this was the 3rd lens we'd tried. The 4th one had also had the same problem, and we'd kept that in our hands as a replacement whilst they sent the 3rd one in to Canon. So the 3rd one, the one we officially owned, was back.

We grabbed our receipts, said replacement lens (that we'd taken, futilely, to Venice only to accept we really couldn't use it usefully), and went in to test the one that had come back from Canon.

It was worse than before it was sent to them! As usual, Pete used a tripod and took pictures of a high contrast ruler focusing on the 15 inch mark. Both of us plus the Jessops manager were agreed that the focus was some inches off at one end of the focal range and still half an inch out at the other end.

So after four lenses, one of which Canon's own service centre adjusted, having been told the problem was backfocusing, we decided to give up and returned the lens completely.

Before all the L glass fans try and claim that we don't know how to use the camera/ lens properly or that it's the camera that's maladjusted we tried the lens on 3 cameras, a 20D, a new 350D and then a new 400D (that we exchanged the 350D for within a week or two of purchase). Given that all three cameras have no issues at all creating sharp images using all out other lenses, I find it impossible to believe that all 3 bodies have an identical problem that manifests in all of them only when using this one L glass lens and not any others...

I KNOW that many people have bought the same lens and had backfocusing problems but I'm absolutely stunned that it would come back from Canon's own service centre even worse than when it went in!

So we're now somewhat stuck - not very long till we go to India, certainly very little free time in which to research and buy a new lens - and we've only one longer lens between the two of us for a wildlife safari trip where longer lenses are the main ones used.

SIGH.

pix-al

Canon EOS-5D

10/09/2006 05:57:55 AM · #27

Thats a pretty poor outcome from Canon... I'm quite surprised! Did they even test the lens once they adjusted it?!?!?

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

10/09/2006 06:48:11 AM · #28

I can only assume not!

Thing is I've always heard that any such problems will, at least, be absolutely resolved, once the lens has been sent to Canon's service centre. And this is their own centre, not just an authorised dealer.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

10/09/2006 09:48:23 AM · #29

Major bummer folks... Check the Photozone.de review on the Sigma 120-300 f/4. You might like that one.

EDIT: CORRECTION - the lens I was referring to is the Sigma 100-300 f/4.

Message edited by author 2006-10-10 03:42:53.

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS STM

10/09/2006 10:03:42 AM · #30

Review looks good -checking it out. THANKS!

floppychicken

Canon EOS-70D

10/10/2006 07:28:05 AM · #31

Hmmmmm, that's interesting. I just rented the identical lens over the Thanksgiving long weekend to see if I liked it, and I have to say, this lens must be suffering the same issue. I have had a HELL of a time, trying to get a nice focused shot. It's been a very frustrating experience with the lens and I'm glad I found this thread. At least now I know exactly what the problem is.... Gotta love the forums !

Thanks,

/FC

Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS USM

10/10/2006 07:54:00 AM · #32

You're welcome!

When we first researched it (before deciding to buy it) we found excellent reviews all round - and I'm sure it is an excellent lens when it's not suffering from backfocusing - it's pin sharp, it's virtually silent and very fast at focusing, it's small and lightweight...

Only afterwards did we come across posts in message boards across the net from others who had also swapped/ returned more than once or had to send the lens off to Canon before they ended up with a sharp, accurately focusing lens.

It's not so bad if you're a member of Canon's Professional Service thingummy and can get your stuff sent in, dealt with as a priority and sent back within a week or so.

But for the rest of us, it's much more of an issue.

Anyway, I've found another store (not Jessops) in central London who may or may not be able to get one into the store in time for our upcoming trip (we only have limited time to go down into town to collect). If they can get it in time we'll go down, test it right there and then and only buy IF it's perfect. They have the same price as Jessops.

Don't get me wrong, Jessops staff were FANTASTIC and went above and beyond, but it seems as though their entire stock is from one or more faulty batches AND the Canon Service Centre did not deliver either...

Sigh!

I'll let you know!

Oh and thanks Eschalar for the email with possible alternatives which I'll also research...

If we go for something else we want something with similar range, similar quick and silent focusing, same weight or only fractionally heavier, similar size AND similar price! I'm not sure that's even possible!

Skip

Canon EOS-1D X

10/10/2006 07:56:54 AM · #33

this most certainly sucks, all the way around. i know it cost *quite* a bit more, but i've never had a problem with my f/2.8 version of the lens. if i didn't use it nearly every day, i'd lend it to you.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

10/10/2006 08:00:37 AM · #34

You're a sweetheart... wrong continent too but could be an excuse for another visit?!

But it's not cost that's the main factor in our reason for choosing the f4 - it's weight and size. I have back, hip and shoulder problems and can't manage the larger, heavier lenses so it's a priority consideration for me.

Neil

Fujifilm X-T30

10/10/2006 09:06:08 AM · #35

Since you travel a lot, take a look at the 70-300 IS DO. See the review at:

//luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-70-300mm.shtml

Besides being a very good lens, it's very small and "relatively" lightweight. It uses 58 mm filters, which keeps costs down for polarizers, etc.

Message edited by author 2006-10-10 09:25:27.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

10/10/2006 04:18:02 PM · #36

Thanks... we're thinking about that one... we have the 75-300 IS predecessor which we are happy with... not quite as sharp as this L one (where it focuses) but pretty good...

ragamuffingirl

Sony Alpha NEX-5N

10/10/2006 06:01:52 PM · #37

Do other lens manufacturers have this problem (Sigma, Nikkor, Tamron, etc)? It seems to me that L-glass is awful damn expensive, often costing more than our cameras. The lenses should work straight out of box!!!

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

10/11/2006 04:11:32 AM · #38

Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:

That's exactly how I feel...
It seems as though people make a lot of excuses for Canon and simply accept that they may well need to send the new equipment off to them to be calibrated and I'm amazed that this is accepted as absolutely normal!

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

10/11/2006 04:36:38 AM · #39

The 70-300 DO reviewed in comparison to the non-DO

Maybe keep trying... Patience is a virtue and sometimes you get lucky and it is rewarded.

Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 Di III VXD

10/11/2006 04:24:32 PM · #40

Given the half hour journey from us to the store each way plus the time spent at the store too and given that we've now made about 6 trips there so far I think I HAVE been pretty patient already!

:o)

Thanks for the link!

MadMan2k

Sony Alpha a6400

10/11/2006 04:31:00 PM · #41

Tried the 70-200 2.8?

Considering all the time you've spent trying to get a good one, I'd assume you're pretty fond of that focal length, and a little extra bulk and weight are definitely worth the extra stop. And they might have better QC on them.

Tamron 70-180mm F/2.8 Di III VXD

10/11/2006 04:40:03 PM · #42

Hi Madman,
As above, it's way too heavy. I have back, shoulder and hip problems and I just can't manage heavy lenses... to some it's not that heavy but for me it's much too much.
Hence needing something of similar size/ weight to the f4 one.
:D

MadMan2k

Sony Alpha a6400

10/11/2006 05:23:56 PM · #43

Ah, fair enough.

Do you mind prime lenses? If not, have you looked at the Canon 100mm 2.0 and 135mm 2.0L? Or even the 200mm 2.8? They'll be lighter than the big zoom telephoto, and probably about equal image wise.

And, if you don't mind manual focus, setting the aperture on the lens, and having to use an adapter, you can get some very good Zeiss/Contax lenses used that will probably be just as good as the L-series primes.
Like this one.

ganders

Canon EOS-40D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

10/11/2006 05:27:31 PM · #44

Originally posted by MadMan2k:

And, if you don't mind manual focus, setting the aperture on the lens, and having to use an adapter, you can get some very good Zeiss/Contax lenses used that will probably be just as good as the L-series primes.

Hehe - if I didn't mind manual focusing I'd have kept the f4 - it's a stunning lens when it's actually in focus :-)

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

10/11/2006 05:52:45 PM · #45

Definitely need autofocus as one of the primary types of photography we enjoy is wildlife photography, some of which is pretty quickfire stuff and also street/ travel photography handheld.

Not against a prime per se but it wouldn't be as useful for us as a zoom simply because one often has to take the shot there and then without being able to reposition oneself closer or further and a zoom allows one to fully compose the shot as one prefers in that scenario.

If we do go for a prime we'd be looking for a long one, so 200 or 300mm focal length.

Weight is absolutely crucial though...

THANKS

espencor

08/10/2007 03:51:01 AM · #46

Send your CAMERA in for sure! I have an EOS 30-D and had to send it in because of back focusing problems. Hardcore. It came back a little better but still suffers. Gonna have to send it back again. This is not uncommon.

basssman7

Nikon D500

08/10/2007 05:03:37 AM · #47

This is why you should have stayed with Nikon! Canon service sucks.