Canon 100-400L - Durability?

[Joe Copalman]

Have any long-term users of the Canon 100-400L (I'm talking 5 - 10+ years) who have put the lens through heavy use run into any problems with it? Things I am interested in specifically are the durability and longevity of the image stabilizer and the autofocus motor.

I'm trying to map out my glass upgrades for the next 12-18 months, and with the nosedive my Sigma 150-500 has taken recently, I'm in the market for a long zoom again.  While I loved the Sigma for the first few years I've had it (I hit the five-year mark with it in January), I've burned through two IS motors, and the autofocus has started to crap out as well.  I'm looking at $400+ for repairs, and with the $300+ I put into a new IS motor a few years back, that would undo the cost savings that were a large part of why I chose the Sigma over the Canon. 

Most of you know that I have used the absolute living hell out of that lens.  This wasn't an "airshow and the occasional photocall" deal, this was pretty much every day at Willie for a solid three years, plus airshows, photocalls, exercises, zoo trips, fly-ins, etc.  I would not be surprised if I've shot 250,000+ images through this lens.  Basically I want to know if spending the extra $600 or so on the Canon is worth it in terms of longevity, or if I'm just going to be paying for the same IS and autofocus motor service a few years down the road, just on a more expensive lens.  The Tamron 150-600 is looking tempting, and I'm definitely considering it, but it also hasn't been around for ten years, so I have no idea if I'll be running into the same problems with it as I ran into with the Sigma. 

Anyway, feedback on this is greatly appreciated. 

[KeithS]

I've only had mine for four years, so not relevant to your question.  If you haven't already, check out POTN and search for it on the Canon EF and EF-S Lenses forum.

[Joe Copalman]

I've poked around a bit, but I know most of the people on AzAP pretty well and am familiar with how much they shoot and the results they get, so I figured I'd get solid intel right here on what to expect from long-term 100-400L users. 

[trmphoto]

Joe,

I've had my 100-400 lens for over 10 years and it has been well worth the money.  I use it at all of the aviation events, as well as carrying it along with me on a lot of hiking trips.  I'm generally not rough on my equipment, but this lens has seen a lot of dust, wind, and monsoon moisture.  It's holding up really well.

[Scott Youmans]

Joe,

I had mine for around 6 years and had zero issues.  There was one case I'd heard of where the twist lock failed and had the be replaced.  The image stabilization might be an older version but I've noticed that the image in the viewfinder is more stabile (less jumpy) than with the Nikon 80-400mm (new one) or the Tamron 150-600.  Easier to track things.  Having been without that lens for a while and having used the Tamron and Nikon instead I came to appreciate the push pull zoom. When I tried my friend's Canon 100-400mm recently in some side by side tests with the Tamron I much preferred the push pull.  Easier to track while zooming.The stiffness of the twist zoom on the Tamron and Nikon lenses makes it somewhat harder to keep things steady while twisting.  I had a Canon 70-300mmL IS for a while and found that twist to quite acceptable because it was less stiff but overall it was not a long enough focal length for what we typically do.  Really nice lens though, quite sharp and convenient.  Long story short.  I bought another Canon 100-400mm and glad I did.  I'm keeping the Tamron though because it goes to 600mm and is quite sharp.  Part of my earlier focus doubts with the Tamron were because I had the focus set on single point.  Seems to work better with multiple points available.  The Tamron is worth considering but I would get some experience with one first to see if you like it.

[Chris Janes]

Joe,
I've had my 100-400L since about early 2007 and I've had zero issues with it and It's been exposed to some pretty harsh environments. I've had it on the beaches of Atlantic City several times shooting the air show there, its been blasted  with rotor wash from a helicopter out in the desert countless times, and its been bounced around in small aircraft on numerous occasions.
The push pull zoom took some getting used to but it's really not a problem once you use it a few times. Just make sure that If you point the camera  down the zoom lock is secured or you are holding it otherwise the lens will slam down. It's easy to forget when you shoot a moving object in the sky and then point the camera down to look at the image in the viewfinder and then BAM! the lens slams forward.
I don't think you will regret getting it.

[Joe Copalman]

Thanks everyone for the feedback.  The Sigma has been good to me, but I'm thinking that the money I'd put into having it repaired would be better spent  on new glass at this point.  Still not sure whether I'm going to go with the Canon or the Tamron at this point, but with the durability/longevity issue being so prevalent with the Sigma, it's definitely tempting to spend the extra money on something that's been around much longer than the Tamron and has proven its ruggedness with several shooters I know and trust.  Definitely food for thought.

[FelipeG]

On a sidenote: Scott, how is the 150-600 for panning? I'm curious because summer shooting at CMH requires more than 400mm due to how far away the south runway is, and I don't know if the 150-600 would be worth the money, or if I should stick to the 100-400+1.4x on the 1D3 for that. Everything I've gathered is that the 150-600 does not have a mode 1 / mode 2 on the IS, but nobody has been able to tell me if it automatically switches off one axis or if just doesn't have a panning mode.

Joe,

I'm not a long term user (bought my 100-400 in December), but it seems like the 100-400L is pretty much the official lens for planespotting, and the only negative comments I've heard are regarding how it's a 77mm wide dust vaccuum.

I have nothing but disappointment towards Sigma. My 80-400 OS seemed to be great when I bought it (used, in pretty much near mint condition), it didn't take much abuse, other than the ocassional bump, but everything changed in August/September of last year, when a screw from the zoom lock switch fell into the barrel and jammed it, and the repair I was quoted ($400, on a lens with a market value of just over that -copies of the newer 120-400 OS from rental agencies were going for $650) wasn't worth it (the experience with the repair shop is a whole different story). My brief analysis was that this was a design/manufacture flaw that nobody seemed to have addressed in the past, and the whole fiasco (not to mention that my OS seemed to have been acting up) resulted in me having a nice cylindrical paperweight chilling in my closet, and to this date I doubt I will buy Sigma in the near future.

[Jay Beckman]

The "dust pump" aspect of the 100-400 is greatly exaggerated (IMO)

The one "knock" I'll lay on the 100-400 is that to really shine, you want to avoid shooting wide open unless you have really great, contrasty light.  If you stick to f/8 as a max aperture, it will surprise and delight.  The downside of course is that f/8 means you need significant light (which we have) but you'll be bumping the ISO a little sooner than you might normally expect once the light starts to go away.

Really though, with today's cameras, it's really not that big a deal to have to go to ISO 400 if you need to keep, say, jet-worthy shutter speeds.

[Jeff D. Welker]

The "dust pump" aspect of the 100-400 is greatly exaggerated (IMO)

The one "knock" I'll lay on the 100-400 is that to really shine, you want to avoid shooting wide open unless you have really great, contrasty light.  If you stick to f/8 as a max aperture, it will surprise and delight.  The downside of course is that f/8 means you need significant light (which we have) but you'll be bumping the ISO a little sooner than you might normally expect once the light starts to go away.

Really though, with today's cameras, it's really not that big a deal to have to go to ISO 400 if you need to keep, say, jet-worthy shutter speeds.

I concur with Jay 100%. His comments about avoiding maxing your aperture beyond f/8 is wise counsel. I try to keep mine at f/11 most of the time. In fact, I've often used ISO 640 on my 5D3 without any serious noise issues.