wayne_walker

I had a look at this website - but could not find any examples of the

100-400 zoom

<p>

can you advise

You can get an eye piece extender which apparently allows ECF to work

better for people with glasses, I do not think it will fit onto an

eos5, and as I do not wear glasses cannot comment on the

effectiveness, I also recalibrate my ECF in different lighting

situations about 1 a month max

I thought I would round off this thread by posting the conclusion.

<p>

The Lens went back to Canon via Jessops, Jessops quoted #94 to have

the lens fixed. When I asked them what was wrong, I was told that the

#94 was the minimum charge to investigate the problem and if

necessary fix it. So after a few phone calls and various letters

Canon eventually agreed to reduce the cost of the repair and replace

the lens with a service replacement. I agreed to the charge on a

Friday and the Lens was with the shop ready for collection on the

following Tuesday just in time for xmas.

<p>

I have learnt to deal direct with Canon they certainly treated me as

a customer and listened to my concerns.

<p>

I have now received some test 9�x6� pictures back and they are

certainly much improved as the above posts suggested.

<p>

I�m waiting for Canon to let me know exactly what the problem with

the original lens was.

<p>

Thanks to the above posts particularly Bob�s picture. I now know what

to expect from this lens. Thanks Bob and all other posters.

I found the article now, as follows:-

<p>

EOS Magazine, Issue 11 page 346

<p>

"WHEN NOT TO USE IS

<p>

Image Stabilization should not be used when the camera is mounted on

a tripod. As well as being unnecessary, it can confuse the system and

cause it to shake continuously."

In the UK you can pickup FD lenses quite cheaply 100mm f2.8 macro lens for example is about #500 in UK and I have seen a 100mm f2 FD lens for #100.

<p>

Is it worth getting the FD to EOS adapter (not sure of the cost) and using the old FD lenses?

<p>

or would I be better off getting a second hand A1?

I found an article in one of the EOS magazines issue 14ish, although

this did refer to the 75-300 consumer lens, that states something

like "do not us IS on a tripod as this will confuse the IS system and

make it oscillate.

<p>

From the UK, not sure of your country, if you call Canon on

0990143723 they are very helpful.

Bob, Thanks for your example (exactly want I needed to see)- if this

had been my picture at the 300mm end you would not have any detail in

the head, would just be a blob, the body would be out of focus and

none of the grass would be sharp. Thanks, I'll await Canon's results

and let you know.

I'm having problems with my 75-300 usm II zoom. All images taken with this lens appear *razor* sharp in the viewfinder, on both my EOS5 bodies and an EOS600, autofocus and manual. However, the 9" x 6" prints are out of focus (certainly not worth putting in an album), nothing *razor* sharp. I use a tripod whenever possible and ensure I handhold >1/500th.

Just to be sure its not my eyesight, I also lent the lens to a mate to use on his eos5 and his results were very poor with his camera.

I returned the lens yesterday to Canon UK and I'm currently awaiting there reply to my problem (nolonger in warranty).

Looking back at some of my slides/6x4 prints the results have always been poor.

The latest problem's have been using kodak 400asa gold film and Jessops D&P 9x6 standard service, tested using one film on all 3 bodies with various lens, the 75-300 lens produced the softest to poor.

I have also started using a 7 element 2x converter and the results are not worth the paper printed on.

Many years ago I had a cosina, 70-200sun and a cheap 2x converter this setup produced better results!!!!!!!

I have posted this question as Klaus Schroiff has suggested that this lens performance at the 300 end is poor and also wondered if anyone else has had poor results with this lens.