riscpc Loc: Lincoln UK.

Have a look at the Teardown of this Lens.

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/?s=Canon+100-400+teardown

Jimmy T Loc: Virginia

See page 6 of the manual. http://www.kulturbuero.ch/zh/resources/ef100mm-400mmmanual.pdf

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

👍👍👍

Stan W. Loc: Tampa, Fl

He's from New Jersey. What else would you expect?

Leitz Loc: Solms

Page 7 in this Canon manual: http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/6/0300017486/01/ef100-400f45-56lisiiusm-im-e.pdf

brooklyn-camera I Loc: Brooklyn, NY

Turn the zoom ring to tight...this will lock the lens when traveling.

Jakebrake Loc: Broomfield, Colorado

😂

Ron Dial Loc: Cuenca, Ecuador

On the 100-400 lens there is a ring that can be tightened or loosened to control limit the lens can slide.

Gampa

By the way ... you’re going to love the quality of shots this lens provides!!!

williejoha

If all else fails, read the instruction. I use this lens and it is fantastic in every way.
WJH

CanonTom Loc: Birmingham

I am looking at the earlier version of this lens. Read a Ken Rockwell comparison of the two. He indicated version II is superior but says version I is a bargain for the now much lower price. I understand a Canon version II converter works well with it. I would really appreciate comments as to this from those who have experience with both. Sure hope this inquiry does not make me a thread hijacker. Since OP’s question has now been answered, hopefully OP will not be offended. Tom

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

Read the manual.

There's a narrower ring that rotates to increase or decrease the drag on the zoom ring, which serves to lock it when turned to the maximum.



Tom, the original version of the lens is a "push/pull" zoom... a single ring serves both for focus and for zooming. Not my favorite design so I only borrowed and used it a little. Some people really like the push/pull design, especially for things like birds in flight, air shows, etc. The original version is about a half lb. lighter than the II, though it's still a fairly hefty lens.

The original 100-400 has quite good image quality... so long as you don't put any filter on it. For some reason, it "goes soft" when any filter is on there... even good, high quality ones. More than one person who felt the need to "baby" and protect it with a filter were stunned to see how much sharper it was when they removed the filter! I honestly can't say about how the II works with filters... I've been shooting with it for a couple years and have yet to need to use a filter on it.

Both versions of the lens use fluorite, along with some other exotic glass. They both also have fast, accurate USM. The original is one of five Canon lenses that require the IS be manually turned off when it's locked down on a tripod.... or the IS will "freak out". No problem like that with the II... it has some of the most advanced IS Canon makes.

The original lens' tripod mounting ring is more fully removable, reducing the weight for hand-holding it a bit more. In fact, one thing I didn't like about the II is the design of the foot used on the tripod ring, which is held on by a thumbscrew. I replaced that with a foot that Hejnar Photo makes for the 100-400 II and it's a significant improvement, especially for anyone using it on a tripod with a gimbal or on a monopod or anything else with an Arca-Swiss quick release system. RRS and Kirk Photo both also offer replacement tripod feet for the II, slightly different designs. These are largely unnecessary for the original version, though. A standard Arca-style lens plate can be used on it's tripod ring without problem, if needed.

The clearance pricing of the original is a very good value. There must have been a lot of them in stock around the world, it's still so widely available brand new.

Interesting the both Tamron and Sigma introduced 100-400s of their own, shortly after the Canon was intro'd. Both of those third party lenses are much cheaper... also a little lighter and smaller. However, they also are slower... the Sigma, in particular, is 2/3 stop slower than the Canon through much of it's range. I have not had any hand-on time with either of them, but it appears the Sigma may be a wee bit sharper than the Tamron... but either Canon is sharper still. The Sigma also doesn't have a tripod ring or means of adding one. The Tamron doesn't come with one, but there's an optional ring that can be fitted. Personally, I wouldn't want a 100-400mm that didn't have a tripod ring!

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

Didn't your new lens come with a small manual explaining all 5 thinks you need to know about your new lens?

leftj Loc: Texas

That is totally incorrect. If a lock was to prevent focus traveling then you would be able to lock the lens at any focus distance. My zoom lenses only lock when fully retracted to their shortest physical length. It is in fact to prevent lens creep which would include traveling.

leftj Loc: Texas

Ah, but there is a manual. Review that.