100-400 IS performance at 400mm... sample pics anyone?

[rixhobbbies]

I hear a lot of comments about how sharp the Canon 100-400 IS L is and a lot of

others that say it's soft. Can anyone share some shots of this lens at 400mm

to give me an idea of what to expect?

 

Based on what I've read here, there is a noticable, but not a "huge"

difference, in zoom between a 70-200 f4 IS w/ 1.4 TC (280x) and the 400mm end

of the 100-400, so I would want to make sure that what is captured at 400mm is

plenty sharp. I would hate to get this lens and then feel I had to back off

into the low 300mm range to get good shots.

 

If anyone has any feedback and some shots, I'd love to see them!

 

Regards,

 

Rick

[james_sawle]

If it is a choice between the 70-200 or the 100-400 I would choose the 1900 to 400, UNLESS you were considering the 70-200 f/2.8, then it is a totally different ball game, the f/2.8 lens is about the best lens to come out of Canon in a very long time. the 100-400 is a cheap lens, but it is also a L series with IS, so you have to like it, but it is not the sharpest, you get what you pay for, and it is a f/4.5-5.5 lens, if you want stunning then look at the f/2.8 .

[JosvanEekelen]

You may have a look at <a href="http://www.josvaneekelen.nl">my website</a> and choose "klik hier voor de foto's van Oost-Afrika". The site is not fully functional yet and has some errors but it shows pictures from a recent East-Africa trip. Pictures were taken handheld or with a monopod, all pictures with a focal length longer than 135 mm were taken with the 100-400. Please note that the quality of some pictures shows some artefacts, probably caused by the downsizing process.

[stevepamp]

Rick I have this lens and am generally happy with it. All of the photos in my Africa Safari portfolio were taken with this lens (http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=699578) and I believe, although I didn't go back to check the XIF, that most of them were taken at or around 400mm.

My biggest gripe on this lens is that it's sloooow, and needs a lot of available light or high ISO. Max aperture goes to 5.0 at something like 135mm, and 5.6 at around 200mm so for all intents and purposes, I treat it as a 100-400 f5.6 lens.

[jrschlauch]

This photo was taken at the Bronx zoo. He was behind a sheet of plexiglass, so it isn't as sharp as it could be.

http://www.photo.net/photo/5782308

[smalinowski]

I considered purchasing the 100-400 IS but decided against it because of reports about it sucking in a lot of dust (due to the push-pull zoom mechanics). Can any owners comment on their experience?

[jrschlauch]

The photo in my previous post was taken hand held with the 100-400 at 400mm, as is the photo below. Again, both were shot at the Bronx zoo through dirty, smudged and scratched Plexiglass. Canon 30d, iso 800, 1/200 f.5.6<div></div>

[jrschlauch]

Not sure why my previous photo did not open. I'll try one last time.

http://www.photo.net/photo/5782448<div></div>

[sergey_oboguev]

100-400 is not as sharp as 300/4 or 70-200, but what does it matter?

If you need 100-400 functionality (reach and zoom), the other two lenses are not a substitute.

 

Do not shoot it wide open though, it *is* really soft on the long end when wide-open.

Closing down just 1/3 does a quantum leap in terms of improving optical quality.

 

There is significant sample-to-sample variation for 100-400. I got mine years ago from B&H and luckily ended up with the sample I am content with, but if I had to replace it I'd rather buy locally and compare few samples, rather than take the risks of random picking.

 

I did not use it in dusty places (have not been to Africa), but there was no dust build-up to any noticeable level in several years of fairly intense use in less dusty locations. The only problem I ever had was zoom mechanism lock-up, lens had to go to CFS for service.

 

If it gets dusty, you can always send it for cleaning to Canon for $150.

[mark_chappell]

<I>Based on what I've read here, there is a noticable, but not a "huge" difference, in zoom

between a 70-200 f4 IS w/ 1.4 TC (280x) and the 400mm end of the 100-400</i><P>

 

Sorry, but you are making a somewhat silly comparison. 280 mm is *** NOT *** the same

as 400 mm. The image area of a given subject at a given distance at 280 mm is only half

of what it would be at 400 mm. So you have to take enlarging into account, and if you do

that, my bet is that the 100-400 will likely be better than the 70/200/4 IS + 1.4X. <P>

 

You asked for sample photos at 400 mm with the 100-400. I have lots of sharp ones, but

that's because I avoid shooting wide open at focal lengths above about 300 mm. Stop it

down to f8 or f11 and it's quite good. I avoid shooting at f5.6 at these focal lengths

unless I'm desperate.<P>

 

Sergey is correct in terms of sample variation (at least as far as I can judge from wildly

different user reports -- my sample is pretty good), and in saying that the 'dust vacuum'

issue has been greatly exaggerated. I've had the lens for 5 years and have seen zero

evidence that it has a dust problem (changing lenses a lot is what gets dust into the

camera, in my experience). In any event, the push-pull mechanism has nothing to do

with the problem. It's the physical lengthening and shortening of the lens as you zoom --

it would have the same effect if zooming was by a twist mechanism.<P>

 

<I>... UNLESS you were considering the 70-200 f/2.8, then it is a totally different ball

game, the f/2.8 lens is about the best lens to come out of Canon in a very long time.

</i><P>

 

Not according to several recent reviews of the 70/200 f4 IS, like <A HREF="http://

www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_4is/index.htm">this one</a>.

[nels]

It's a good lens for its focal length coverage. I don't particularly like the push-pull zoom mechanism, but it doesn't take long to get used to.<p>

These are with 5D & 100-400L IS @ 400mm. Check EXIF for more details. More pix on my site.<p>

 

<center><img src="http://www.pbase.com/nels_olvin/image/70378501/original.jpg"></center><p>

<center><img src="http://www.pbase.com/nels_olvin/image/70378488/original.jpg"></center>

<center><img src="http://www.pbase.com/nels_olvin/image/70378502/original.jpg"></center><p>

<center><img src="http://www.pbase.com/nels_olvin/image/70429894/original.jpg"></center><p>

<center><img src="http://www.pbase.com/nels_olvin/image/70378490/original.jpg"></center><p>

<center><img src="http://www.pbase.com/nels_olvin/image/70411001/original.jpg"></center><p>

<center><img src="http://www.pbase.com/nels_olvin/image/56236366/original.jpg"></center>

[jim_larson1]

If you need a 400mm lens. . . . and you want a zoom. A 70-200 with a 1.4TC gets you . . .280. That ain't 400. If you need a 400mm zoom. . .and you want a zoom, then the 100-400 is for you. There are no alternatives.

 

I looked at buying the 100-400. I didn't like the push-pull design. . and I didn't like the humongous size of the lens. I considered the 300/4L-IS with a 1.4TC as an alternative. .. but I couldn't justify a prime based upon my planned usage.

 

I did not consider the 400/5.6L because it lacked image stabilization.

 

I ended up buying nothing. . . .because I really didn't NEED a lens in this range bad enough. If travelling. . I would go for the 100-400 zoom. If not travelling. . .then a combination of a 70-200 (which I already had) and the 300/4L with 1.4TC would be the way to go.

[nels]

My 100-400 was a rental. I own 70-200IS and 1.4x converter, but that combination isn't long enough for most wildlife stuff.

 

If I seriously considered working regularly in this focal length range, I'd most likely go with a 1.6x crop body such as the Rebel XTi and use the much more portable 70-300 IS with it, getting an effective 480mm coverage and 10MP resolution - sufficient for a decent sized print for most needs. A full frame body such as 5D defeats you against getting extra reach when you want a portable kit for hand-held work such as with wildlife.

[mike_broderick]

My 100-400L was one of the first two lenses I bought. It was VERY sharp on my D60, not as sharp on my 1Ds, but still very respectable. I'm attaching a full shot (reduced in size for posting of course) taken at 400mm and f/8 (which now seems oversharpened to me--I did this a couple of years ago, sorry 'bout that!) and a 100% crop from the center of the picture. This was taken with my Canon 1Ds. I think this is pretty good performance, but obviously am biased, I'm interested if uninvolved viewers think it is good.

 

On 1.6 crop cameras, the lens is even better. When I'd had the lens just a couple of months I took an airshow shot with my Canon D60 of a biplane doing a flyby, and you can read individual lettering on the pilots flight helmet. This was wide-open, I forget the focal length now, but it was probably in the 300mm or above range.

 

Overall the lens quality is quite good, especially if you keep it short of 100mm (say 350mm or less) and stopped down at least one stop. I find at 100-200mm stopped down one or more stop the lens is just barely lower image quality than my 70-200/4 (non-IS). The difference is mostly in chromatic aberration, and if you adjust for that in RAW processing, the 70-200 still just barely beats the 1-4L. At 300mm and f/8 it is indistinguishable from my 300/4 IS. The zoom doesn't do as well wide open, however.

 

My subjective unverified impression (with no actual data whatsoever to back this up) is that there's a fair amount of variability in the lens, and I have a better than average copy.

 

I do find that the lens has accumulated a significant amount of dust on the INSIDE of the front glass element, while I have no or almost no dust on any of my other lenses. So I think there's some substance to the stories of it acting as a dust pump. I'm reluctant to send the lens to Canon for cleaning as I'm afraid I'd get it back and it wouldn't be as sharp! I suspect this dust may affect contrast when shooting into the Sun, but the hood is effective enough I haven't noticed any effect. I haven't noticed a higher-than-normal problem with camera sensor dust when using the lens.

 

The lens is good as a generalist nature lens, and it is totally awesome for photographing breaching humpback whales! I'm not very good at bird flight photography, but from what I can tell, it is worse than other lenses at focusing on flying birds--I seldom get a good flight shot with it unless the bird is practically hovering.

 

I love my lens. I'd probably be less pleased if I had a less-than wondrous copy.<div></div>

[mike_broderick]

The link doesn't appear to be working. I'll try the full frame again here. Sorry for the size, but I don't want to resize these, as it could affect the image quality I'm trying to demonstrate! Contrary to what I said in the original posting, I found another version of this and the crop that I'd converted with no USM after RAW conversion.

[mike_broderick]

And here's a crop with no sharpening applied after RAW conversion. As mentioned, I'm interested in uninvolved opinions. This looks a bit underexposed to me now. *sigh*

[m_barbu1]

Mike, how have you found your lens to be at f/5.6?

[mike_broderick]

At f/5.6, it is still quite decent, but it is then a definite step down from the other lenses (70-200/4 and 300/4) I mentioned. In my original post,I described an airshow shot of a biplane flyby where you could read lettering on the pilot's helmet, and that was shot wide open. So it's no slouch, but definitely not spectacular wide open, especially when you get longer than 350mm focal length.

[james_sawle]

Scott Malinowski said that it pulled in dust, I have to say that I find this lens one of the less offensive lens for this problem, I have had no issues at all with this lens causing any dust to hit the sensor, especially when using the zoom a lot. I would still rate it above the 70-200 f/4, the image quality is much better I find that the 70-200, but does get a bit soft at 400, but with the added reach I think it is better than the f/4 version, though if you spend a bit more and pick up the 70-200 /f2.8 and get yourself a x2 later, you will end up with a really good lens, still better than the 100-400, and much sharper, even with the x2 included, and take the x2 off and you get a VERY good lens as well.

[rixhobbbies]

I was thinking that the alternative to this is the 300 f4 IS and use the 1.4 TC when needed. Supposedly this is a sharper combination than the 100-400 and with the TC, you get two focal lengths.

 

I can't find any reviews of the 300 f4 w/ 1.4 TC combo to compare though.

[mark_chappell]

<I> ...pick up the 70-200 /f2.8 and get yourself a x2 later, you will end up with a really good

lens, still better than the 100-400, and much sharper, even with the x2 included</i><P>

 

Not according to the majority of reviews, which say that the 100-400 at 400mm is

substantially better than the 70-200/28. + 2X at 400mm.

[steve santikarn]

for handheld, bright light, action photo, especiall of subject that move towards or away from camera all the time (e.g. animals, air show, soccer games) the 100-400 is IMO the best lens there is. Once you get used to the one hand zoom/focus action of this lens you'll find the other type of zoom lens quite slow in actual use. The IS works well also if you are using mono pod or handholding the lens.

[m_barbu1]

For what it's worth, none of the professional photographers at the air shows or sports events I've attended appear to use this lens. They're mostly using multiple bodies with one of the L primes. I've seen them use the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and a 400 (some DO, some the f/2.8), or the 300mm and 500mm (those usually with a monopod), typically. I guess it depends on their preference, and they usually place themselves on the sidelines accordingly. The Navy photographer I saw at our local air show used the EF 600mm on one body, and another lens on another body (couldn't discern that one, because I was too far away). Of course, he had the physique to handle the 600mm, but I digress.

[william_bray1]

I have been trying to decide between the 100-400 and the 70-200f/4 IS and using a 1.4 TC.I have spent more time doing this then I did when I bought my car.Unless you can afford the two you have to be very honest about the kind of photo's you take.It can be easy to think if I have the 100-400 I can start taking bird photo's or the 100-400 can do what the f/4 IS can.I found it very hard how to lable this lens, what's is it best used for. I came to the conclusion the 100 400 is a Jack of all trades and master of none. That doesn't mean it's bad because nothing else comes close to this in a zoom.I do wedding photos,a bit of commercial work,lanscape,and I would like to have had a good lens to take general wildlife with.Out of all that I think the 100 400 is only up to the general wildlife or air shows, and I can't remember the last time I went to one of those.I don't understand why a lot of people seem to think stopping the 100 400 down to f/8 or f/11 to get the best out of it is a good thing, on a 400mm long lens with only 1 stop IS(what were Canon thinking). If you didn't have a bright day or you're willing to up the ISO some you'll proberly end up haveing to use a tripod any way.I stood the risk of buying the 100-400 for it gather dust waiting for a bright day, ( you don't get many of those in England),a visit to the zoo,an air show or a safari.For me the F/4 is a work lens, it does what it says,and extremly well.I'll just use a 1.4 TC when I go to the zoo. By the way while I was reserching this I read a few comments of the bearings wearing on the 100 400 and thus affecting the image qaulity over time.This can be repaired but beware if you're planning to buy one secondhand.