new Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS USM lens falling apart ?

[jgh]

Hello,

 

Does anyone own one of these lenses? The one that Canon released in

Sept 2005? I just bought one a couple of days ago and it seems to

be poorly constructed. The whole thing seems like the entire

assembly needs to be tightened inside. The inner (front) barrel

(the one that extends for focusing) is loose inside its outer barrel

and rattles a bit -- it moves laterally inside the outer barrel.

 

Is this normal? Just wondered what other owners have experienced

before I head back to the camera store.

 

The other thing that was a little disappointing for a lens of this

price is that it doesn't have FTM focus. Maybe my expectations are

too high for this lens?

 

Thanks....gary

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I can't help with specifics for this lens, but it's not unusual for consumer-grade zoom lenses to have some motion like you describe. My 28-105/3.5-4.5 USM did, my 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM did, and I think there was even a little play in the front end of my 100-300/4.5-5.6 USM. As far as FT-M, well, this lens replaces the 75-300 IS, which has a lot in common with it as far as the focusing system: the front element moves around, the manual focus could be better, and it's driven by a micro USM, not a ring USM, and like almost all micro USM lenses it lacks FT-M.</p>

[jgh]

Hmmm, there seems to be quite a lot of play in this one. But maybe that's normal for this lens -- I'll drop back into the store where I purchased this to see if they have any others I can compare with.

 

Regarding FTM focus, I suppos I can buy this lens in the DO version - but that's over twice the price. Or I can live without FTM focus :-(

 

What might you recommend as an alternate for this lens? Anything comparable from Sigma, Tamron, etc?

 

Thanks....gary

[rogernoel]

I bought this lens last month and have not noticed any particular problem with the lens. No rattle, and I am happy with the pictures. I already have the 28-135 USM IS Canon lens, so the lack of the full time manual focus hasn't bothered me.albeit there is a definite tendency to try and focus while the AF is on. Maybe when my ship comes in I will replace it. LOL....

[gary petersen]

Mine rattles and moves some. Whoevers said lenses were not supposed to do that? It takes great photos and I'm happy with it. It's a good value for the dollar. <a href+"http://www.pbase.com/alibaby/root">Look here</a> and you'll find plenty of photos taken with it and make up your own mind.

[haltedsisyphus]

I have posted some information about that here: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EzHY&tag=

 

Depending on how important it is to you, you may want to test your lens and see if the looseness causes any loss in sharpness. I returned mine, but I would reconsider it if Canon announced a fix (or a longer warranty period).

[yakim_peled1]

<p> <i>Is this normal? </i> </p>

<p> Yes. Mine was the same. I eventually sold it because I couldn't stand it. Than again, image quality and IS are on the highest level.

<a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=294&sort=7&cat=27&page=3">See my review</a>. <b></b> </p>

 

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[nico_smit]

I returned mine for a refund for the very same reason and also because it exhibit a loss of sharpness between 200-300 mm in vertical format (a common problem with this lens). I am really disappointed in Canon on this one.

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>What might you recommend as an alternate for this lens? Anything comparable from Sigma, Tamron, etc?</cite>

 

<p>The only third-party alternative is the Sigma 80-400; to me, an alternative for an IS lens must include IS (or equivalent), and that's the only which does. Canon's alternatives are the 70-300 DO and the 100-400. Oh, and the 70-200/2.8L IS USM plus the 1.4x teleconverter, which will blow you away with its build quality and optics, but obviously it's a little on the pricey side :-)</p>

 

<p>Before you go that route, take some pictures with it :-) It wouldn't be the first Canon lens with disappointing mechanical/build quality but capable of taking some fine photos; the dirt cheap 50/1.8 II is famous for low build quality and a lack of robustness but it's very sharp. Your new lens is supposed to be pretty darn good as consumer-grade telephoto zooms go.</p>

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Gary,

 

For $570 the new 70-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM is an excellent price/performer. The Canon 50mm f1.8 is the only lens that I consider has a better price/performance value. I don't know what you can expect for $570, but I think it takes great photos for a long (300mm) consumer zoom lens. And far as the verticle softness or bluriness, I haven't seen this problem with my copy. The quality of the optics is very close to an L zoom, the 3rd generation IS is fantastic, and the build is acceptable for the money. I don't throw around my L lenses, even though they might be able to take the abuse and I'm sure not going to abuse this lens. I expect it to last many years... and if doesn't, I'm sure I'll get my monies worth out of it.

The only comparible lens is the 70-300mm DO for twice the money and it has more minuses, other than build.

 

But, this is me... I like what it provides for the $525, that I paid for it with the triple rebate deal.

 

//Chuck

[jgh]

Wow, I originally thought that I was just having a unique problem with my copy. Sounds like it might be more prevalent. I didn't get a chance to drop by the camera store today, but will tomorrow. I'm looking at this lens right now and with the barrel fully "retracted" (NOT extended), there is about 1/8" play. That seems excessively loose to me. I haven't tried landscape versus portrait yet. But will after I check with the store if other copies have the same amount of play in their barrels.

 

I know the Sigma 80-400 is over twice the price as this lens, but I would fork out the extra cash if only it had HSM for the faster focus. Alas, it doesn't :-(

 

....gary

[chrisjb]

Hi, I was going to replace my 100-300usm with this 70-300 lens, but now I feel it isn`t as good as hoped. So may go back to my original idea of the Sigma 100-300mm F/4 EX IF HSM APO not much more and far better build for this range. worth a look if you don`t need IS.

[pto189]

As Chuck said, you're excpecting too much from a consumer lens. I can't understand that while no one complains about the 100mm macro but every one complains about this lens for it's poor build quality. In front of me are these two lenses with exact build quality. It's amazing when one spends $500 or more for a lens, he wants to check every square pico-inch and screams when he thinks something is wrong with the lens, "Oh no! The focus ring plays 1/64"!"<p>

When I bought the 70-200 f/4L, I loved the lens. But when I'm using the 70-300 IS, I love the pictures I take. I sold the 70-200 f/4L because I couldn't take a sharp picture without a tripod. To setup a tripod, I needed a colar ring, and I hated it.<p>There is nothing wrong with my 70-300 IS even at 300mm in portrait.<p>Your new Canon 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS isn't falling apart. Come on!

[jason_vieitas]

Lol, well I'll find out soon. I have one on order.

 

-Jason