EF 100-400mm manufacturer's dating code.

I am looking to buy this lens in the very near future. I currently own the 5D and the longest lens I own is the 135mm

L. I am an amateur/hobbyiest photographer. I thought about the 70-200mm f/4L IS but it isn't long enough for what I

would want. I am 60 years old and do not want to drag around more than 2 lenses on any given trip. I thought with

my 24-105mm and the 100-400mm I would have a lens package consisting of only 2 lenses with a span of 24-

400mm. I shoot people, landscapes and animals.

 

It doesn't appear Canon is going to upgrade or change this lens design any time in the near future. It was pointed

out in another posting that this lens is still very popular and sells off the shelf. Therefore, I read, Canon has no need

to upgrade or change it.

 

I also read somewhere that later models of this lens are inherently better than earlier models. I don't know why that

would be unless Canon changed something in the lens formula, maybe a new coating process, or secretly tweeked

the IS. My question is this. Does anyone know what was meant by later models and about when that would be? I

don't want to purchase an early version given the cost of the later models is the same.

 

Thanks....

 

<p>Disclaimer: any discussion of this topic is speculation. That includes what I'm writing below. Take it with a grain of salt.</p>

 

<p>There are those who suggest that Canon silently made a slipstream change to this lens somewhere along the line, and that later models are better than newer ones. This could be true; if it is, it certainly wouldn't be the first time Canon made such a change. But I wouldn't want to bet anything important (either way) on whether this is the case, and if I had to make a small bet on it, I'd lean toward thinking that the rumours aren't true.</p>

 

<p>This lens gets a variety of reviews; some say it deserves its L and red ring at all focal lengths, while others say it's fine on the short end but soft on the long end. This disagreement seems to have gone on from when it first came out right up to the present, so I suspect this is some combination of sample variation and differences in users' expectations. But that's just my opinion, worth exactly what you paid for it.</p>

 

<p>If there has been a change, it's not in the IS; nobody seems to report differences in IS between different 100-400s. The 70-200/2.8 did get a revised IS unit along the way (as a silent slipstream change, which I don't believe Canon ever officially acknowledged), but that was due to an unacceptably high rate of failure of the IS unit in earlier lenses. The new IS unit didn't add or improve any capabilities; it was just more reliable. I haven't seem anyone saying anything similar about the 100-400 (and its IS unit is a different generation from the 70-200's, incidentally).</p>

 

<p>If you're buying from a local store (i.e. if you can examine the specific lens you're about to buy), check the <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/DATECODE.HTM" target="_blank">date code</a>. This lens has been in the product line for about a decade now and it's been a few years since the rumour of a revised model started, so you should be pretty safe unless the store is selling really old stock.</p>

Hi, Canon date codes (not serial No.s) First letter U,F,O etc are factories. Second letter is the year, A is 1986, B is 1987 etc. So O is 2000, P is 2001, etc. Mine is sharp and it's a V or 2007.The next numbers are the month, mine is 05, I assume May. The final two numbers have other meanings to Canon but not me. The date code on my 100-400 is found etched into the black ring that contains the lens contacts. This lens is not easy to use, it takes a bit of learning and this might be why some report softness. I thought mine was soft too until one day it produced a stellar sharp shot and I realised it was me not the lens. For guidance, I generally try to shoot up around f8, as fast a shutter speed as I can muster even if i have to bump ISO up to 400 or 800. For shorter focal lengths, down around 200mm or less the lens is more forgiving. It's a heavy lens, not an everyday walkaround lens. But if you have a few shorter primes it is a welcome addition to the kit. When using the IS give it a second to settle before shooting, and be aware that at 400mm atmospereic heat wobbles cause some funny effects on images.

Neill Farmer

Possibly the most important silent changes are to quality control procedures, and those really are likely to remain silent. Any

physical silent change inevitably shows up in parts lists and service manuals, and I have seen quite a number of examples

of this in the EOS system. If you can get hold of a current parts list or service manual for the 100~400 (I don't know where

to find one for that lens) then it will answer the question.

 

You will find plenty of posts on this forum about different ways to get to about 400mm at finite cost. 70~200/2.8(with or

without IS)+Extender2x is not generally recommended in quality terms, although it is probably an acceptable occasional

solution if you normally use such a lens. There are three other solutions: 100~400, which you are considering; 300/4L IS +

Extender 1.4x; and 400/5.6L. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.

 

Another solution is to buy a 1.6-factor body (possibly as well as, rather than instead of, your 5D) and use a shorter (and

hence considerably lighter and less bulky) lens. The lens of choice for that option is the 70~200/4L IS, which works

extremely well with the Extender 1.4x at a total focal length of 280mm, same angle of view on 1.6-factor as 448mm on FF.

For me, the 70~200/4L IS is carryable routinely, whereas I take the 100~400 only when I expect to need it. Of course, on

my 40D the 100~400 gives me the FF equivalent of 640mm, and you can't get that on FF without moving into a different

league of equipment for size, weight and cost.

Well, I learned something. My 100-400 was manufactured in August 2006. If I put the lens on a tripod, use mirror lockup and a remote release, the lens meets my expectations for sharpness quite well and I have made somes rather large prints from exposures at 400mm. I have a very large blow up of the Oriole perched on a metal shepherds crook that is shown in my PN gallery that is very sharp. Look also at the Bokeh. That is green grass behind the picture.

Mine's May 2006 and it's *very* sharp at 400mm.<br><Br>

 

<img src="http://keithreeder.diinoweb.com/files/greylag%202f.jpg">

Doh! Forgot that this board resizes images!<br><Br>

 

Here it is <a href="http://keithreeder.diinoweb.com/files/greylag%202f.jpg">presented properly.</a>

I think I read something about "receased switches" on newer model

After more thought I'm up in the air about which lens do I really need. grrrr. I'm now stuck between the 1-4L or the 70-200mm f/4L IS. I don't have anything longer than 135mm L and wonder how often I really need a telephoto. If I do need something longer than 200mm on my 5D I suppose I can always rent; much cheaper than buying a $1400 lens and having it sit in the closet and using it maybe twice a year on vacations.

Rent before you buy. I had a great experience with lensrentals.com. I rented a 100mm macro just before I took a week off work. I wasn't sure if I would enjoy macro photography that much, but now that lens is on the top of my wish list. Plan a long weekend and rent the 100-400. If you find most of your pictures are taken over the 200 range and you are happy with the quality, you know the 100-400 would be a good investment for you. If not, go the other route. Small investment for a fun weekend out and avoiding a lens purchasing mistake.