Canon 100-400 trial run

RMays

I rented this lens today with high hopes.
1. Should've taken the garbage promaster uv filter off.
2. There was a lot of dust in this lens !
3. Push pull not bad, but tension ring... Well, didn't like it.

Got home and loaded a hundred or so shots. (Eagles & Hawks)

These pictures stunk ! I guess I'm spoiled on the 70-200 f/2.8 L.

Just not crisp. I really want a good bird lens. Anyone want to stand up for this product ? Did I use a lemon ? Suggest another ? I have heard such good things about this lens.
Here is sample: 1/500 f/5.6 400mm



Thanks in advance.

RMays

Jeffro

A picture speaks a thousand words.....one would be nice.

RMays

Jeffro wrote:

A picture speaks a thousand words.....one would be nice.

I should know better. Edited post. I noticed you have the 300 f/4.

Like ???

Red Bull

I think you might have gotten a lemon. All of the photos I've seen shot with that lens look a lot better than what you have posted. Cheap filters also degrade image quality. Although the photo you potsed looks very odd, almost like it's pixelated.

windoze

RMays wrote:

I really want a good bird lens.

try the Canon 400 mm f/5.6. the IQ of the 100-400 has been inconsistent to say the least over the past few years. There is also a learning curve with this lens that can not be mastered in one day. The lens also "suffers" from an old version of IS. Now that said, there are people who get a "sharp" copy and the results are spectacular! IMHO, we shouldnt have to pay $1399.00 to take a chance on getting a "good copy". The newer 100-400's ( made recently ) seem to be more consistent in terms of IQ. All said - try the canon 400 f/5.6.... you'll like it ! Guaranteed!!


troy

Jeffro

RMays wrote:

I should know better. Edited post. I noticed you have the 300 f/4.

Like ???

I do like my 300 f/4. Someday I hope to have a 500. Until then I get by with my 300 and a 2x tc, or my buddies 1.4tc.

If I had to guess, on the shot you posted, (thanks btw), I'd say the filter may be the cause of that "ghosting"...or chromatic aberattion you see there.

A crappy filter will ruin a good lens. No need for a UV filter when shooting wildlife anyway. I only use one when I'm in fear of a bit of dirt or something being thrown at when shooting motocross....kind of cheap insurance. I doubt a bird will fly into the lens and shatter it, so a lens hood should be enough.

You have the 100-400 for more than 1-day?

20DNoob

I'm thinking you got a not so good copy. The one I had rented also gave me the feeling. I haven't the time nor the funds to buy multiple copies and test them out as others I know have, $1400+/- should get you something that's sorted. Even at the long end like you were shooting should have better results IMO.

To bad, otherwise it would have been a really great shot. Don't get me wrong, it's still a good shot.

Here's a link to see what you can get with a proper copy.

Click me.

Belg

Is there anything in particular that distinguishes a "good copy" from a "bad copy"? Serial numbers? Years? Was considerring picking one up before I do some trekking.. and it's more or less right on what I want/need.

Nikolai

Mebbe you got a lemon
Over the last 16 months I used (rather extensively) two copies of this lens: first, my boss' (didn't have the $$ at the time), and, recently, my own.

And while I agree that the image you posted looks, mm, substandard, I never (i.e. NEVER:-) got anything remotely bad.

I do understand that it's not a prime, and it's rather short for any serious birding, but for what I'm using it (events) it's an awesome lens with a great reach and flexibility (let alone IS rocks:-).

HTH

RMays

Thanks for the input guys. I want the same sharpness of 70-200 L. Just looking at the dust in the 100-400 lens turned me off. I'll try the 400 5.6 next.

windoze

RMays wrote:

Thanks for the input guys. I want the same sharpness of 70-200 L. Just looking at the dust in the 100-400 lens turned me off. I'll try the 400 5.6 next.

FYI, the canon 400 f/5.6 is practically if not sharper wide open as it is closed down. that said you can get some sweet bokeh...
good luck with it!

troy

Thusie

Have seen some super shots with the 100-400, there does seem to be some QC problems from what I have read.

Interesting comparison between the 400 f5.6 and the 100-400

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

I have the 400 f5.6 L love it! Does need good light or a tripod/monopod. Fast, dead on AF, a bit of a learning curve as Troy said.

cmason

I think you had either a bad copy, or perhaps you weren't using a tripod????

Here is one taken at 330mm, handheld:

mushy

I'll speak in favor with the lens, I bought that lens for birding and apart from being a little slow at times in focusing the shots have always come out absolutely tack sharp. I've also thrown a 2x tele on it and after slight USM in photoshop I was very impressed with the results there too.

http://mushy.smugmug.com/gallery/1401672

Most of the shots in here are shot with this lens.

RMays

Thanks for all the input. I have seen mighty fine pictures from the 100-400, but I must go for the prime. Wish I had the bucks for more of a lens. Wife threatens to get another dog if I get another lens. I'll be sure to post some pics. Here's one of Sam shot with 70-200 + 1.4. The kind of sharp I'm looking for.

evoryware

RMays wrote:

Thanks for the input guys. I want the same sharpness of 70-200 L. Just looking at the dust in the 100-400 lens turned me off. I'll try the 400 5.6 next.

I got some good pics with my 100-400 and regretted having to take it back... till I got the 70-200.

RMays

Just clicked the order button on the 400 f/5.6 L ! It was a grooling decision. Thanks for all the input. Weather permitting, I'll post some pics next Friday.

System

The 400 f/5.6 is an excellent lens. I sold my 100-400L for it and now have the 100-400L again. The prime is great but the versatility of the zoom outways it.

You will be amazed what you can shoot with the 400L handheld.

Dan