Pardon my ignorance, but what is this push pull design.
does this suck in dust?
Lots of people say that, but I haven't seen any good reason to take it seriously. Any lens which changes length as it zooms has to pump air in and out; push-pull or twist, the issue is the same. As far as I can tell the idea that the 100-400 has worse dust seals than other zooms is entirely anecdotal.
Lots of people say that, but I haven't seen any good reason to take it seriously. Any lens which changes length as it zooms has to pump air in and out; push-pull or twist, the issue is the same. As far as I can tell the idea that the 100-400 has worse dust seals than other zooms is entirely anecdotal.
Its a very old design. Probably the newer designs are better?
Canon has a big lens poweress as far as legacy is concerened, but I don't see any new developments in the lens space as far as telephotos like the 100-400L are concerned.
Its high time a 80-450mm L IS comes at same price bracket.
Features I would like to see are
1. Mirror slap IS compensation when mounted on tripod
2. Auto tripod detection
I'll have to chase that down again. It was actually in reference to rental lenses which presmaubly see a lot of hard use. I am guessing that what happens is people point the camera down without locking the zoom and the front element slams against the stop. Let that happen enough times and you'll be sending it in for service.
If its your own lens and you baby it you probably won't have any problems. The copy I used was just fine, but I borrowed it from a friend who bought it new and takes good care of his gear.
Well, I can only coment on my limited experience with the 100-400, but I didn't see that in the well-worn rental I used. The images it produced were actually pretty darn nice. I simply hate the way the lens handles in order to obtain those images. So, I know my beef with it is purely personal preference. That being a dislike for the push-pull zoom, having to deal with the fiddly locking ring (it had to be adjacent to the MF ring, forcing two-handed operation?), and the positioning of the switches (in the one day I flipped to MF three times and changed IS mode several times by accident. Never had that problem with the 70-200's).
Between that, and the 100-200mm overlap, I'm leaning to the 300/4L and TCs to get the reach I'm after.
I'm leaning to the 300/4L and TCs to get the reach I'm after.
That's also a great way to go. I'm continually impressed by the images I've seen from 300 F/4 IS. Use of a TC with this lens is actually supported by the camera, rather than having to resort to the hack of taping up the TC like you have to do with the F5.6 lenses. So the AF with a TC actually works properly with this lens. My only problem with it is that 300 is just too short for me. Add a TC, and you're at 420mm, and arguably at lower image quality than you'd get with a naked 100-400 (I've heard this argued both ways.) If you have an actual use for the 300 focal length, then it's a no-brainer.
Ok then, finally got a sec to do this. These are shot on a Canon 1DsIII 400mm at f5.6 in raw, 1/250 with bounce flash, mirror lockup and 2sec shutter delay
400 center:
100-400 Center:
And the kicker (loss of sharpness and light falloff):
400 bottom left corner:
I wasn't going to do f8 cuz a) who is going to shoot 400mm at f8 and b) most lenses become equal sharpness at f8 so its essentially a moot point, it'd be like 'which one smashes walnuts better' Same with a 24mm lens for example, comparing them at f1.4 is silly cuz you really care about performance at and above f8-f16.
I wasn't going to do f8 cuz a) who is going to shoot 400mm at f8 and b) most lenses become equal sharpness at f8 so its essentially a moot point
Who shoots a 400mm lens at F8? Anybody that wants more than just the face in focus of the bear they're shooting. Or the eagle. Or whatever. The only time you shoot nature photography wide open is if your subject is so far away so that DOF doesn't matter, or if you're isolating just a part of the animal. As an example, the DOF of a 400mm at F5.6 on a crop body camera at 30' is 4". That's 2" in front, and in back of the focal plane. So if you focus on the eye, you have only 2" depth behind the eye that will be in optimum focus. Unless your animal is very small, it's not all going to be in focus.
Besides, almost any lens isn't at its sharpest wide open. Why wouldn't you shoot a stop or two down from wide-open, everything else being equal?
Cuz you'd like your bird to look like a bird not a blur so you go for high shutter speeds, people don't carry the 400 f2.8 around for their health So yea, if you're shooting at f8 most lenses become equal in sharpness but for wildlife/action since you want fast fast shutter speeds its rare you're shooting over f5.6, for all action/wildlife I'd say most people shoot wide open. But now we're off topic, I'm just illustrating that the prime is sharper wide open which was the only point of contention, focusing speed is also _vastly_ faster on the prime but I can't show that in a forum
I guess if you think wide-open is the only thing that matters in nature photography, then I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.
Regards,
-joel
Kewl, do you think the 800mm/5.6 L IS is one?
The 2nd link u gave doesnt work.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
Ok then, finally got a sec to do this. These are shot on a Canon 1DsIII 400mm at f5.6 in raw, 1/250 with bounce flash, mirror lockup and 2sec shutter delay
The 21MP of the 1DsIII is really rough on the 100-400. The difference is not nearly as dramatic on my 12MP 5D. On the other hand the pixel density of the 40D is even higher that the 1DsIII (equivalent to about 25MP full frame) so if you are shooting APS-C, this will give you a pretty good idea of what you will see.
The 21MP of the 1DsIII is really rough on the 100-400. The difference is not nearly as dramatic on my 12MP 5D. On the other hand the pixel density of the 40D is even higher that the 1DsIII (equivalent to about 25MP full frame) so if you are shooting APS-C, this will give you a pretty good idea of what you will see.
You're forgetting that APS-C Crops the borders away where the difference
is most notable.
“To consult the rules of composition before making a picture is a little like consulting the law of gravitation before going for a walk.”
― Edward Weston
You're forgetting that APS-C Crops the borders away where the difference
is most notable.
Actually, I find the difference in center sharpness to be pretty dramatic. With the 400/5.6 you can see the printing screen. With the 100-400 you can't.
The corners of the 100-400 have some vignetting and CA. Neither of thise concern me much as they are easy to correct. I can't be sure of this without trying it, but it looks to me like if you correct the CA and the vignetting the center and the corners of the 100-400 will look pretty similar. One way or the other, critical sharpness in the corners isn't particularly important for most of my super telephoto shooting anyhow.
The take home message for me is that while I find the 100-400 to be acceptably sharp on the 5D, if at some point in the future I go to a higher density sensor I may be less satisfied with it.
Comments
If you mean me, I was shooting with a 5D. The 100-400 (like all lenses) will look a little softer on a 40D because of its smaller sensor size.
does this suck in dust?
How does the Sigma 80-400OS compare to this. I am sure it won't be L quality, but is the extra 400 justtified for the 100-400L
FB:https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Site :http://www.tanveer.in
Blog :http://tsk1979.livejournal.com
Lots of people say that, but I haven't seen any good reason to take it seriously. Any lens which changes length as it zooms has to pump air in and out; push-pull or twist, the issue is the same. As far as I can tell the idea that the 100-400 has worse dust seals than other zooms is entirely anecdotal.
Canon has a big lens poweress as far as legacy is concerened, but I don't see any new developments in the lens space as far as telephotos like the 100-400L are concerned.
Its high time a 80-450mm L IS comes at same price bracket.
Features I would like to see are
1. Mirror slap IS compensation when mounted on tripod
2. Auto tripod detection
FB:https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
Site :http://www.tanveer.in
Blog :http://tsk1979.livejournal.com
Well, I can only coment on my limited experience with the 100-400, but I didn't see that in the well-worn rental I used. The images it produced were actually pretty darn nice. I simply hate the way the lens handles in order to obtain those images. So, I know my beef with it is purely personal preference. That being a dislike for the push-pull zoom, having to deal with the fiddly locking ring (it had to be adjacent to the MF ring, forcing two-handed operation?), and the positioning of the switches (in the one day I flipped to MF three times and changed IS mode several times by accident. Never had that problem with the 70-200's).
Between that, and the 100-200mm overlap, I'm leaning to the 300/4L and TCs to get the reach I'm after.
http://www.chrislaudermilkphoto.com/
That's also a great way to go. I'm continually impressed by the images I've seen from 300 F/4 IS. Use of a TC with this lens is actually supported by the camera, rather than having to resort to the hack of taping up the TC like you have to do with the F5.6 lenses. So the AF with a TC actually works properly with this lens. My only problem with it is that 300 is just too short for me. Add a TC, and you're at 420mm, and arguably at lower image quality than you'd get with a naked 100-400 (I've heard this argued both ways.) If you have an actual use for the 300 focal length, then it's a no-brainer.
Link to my Smugmug site
400 center:
100-400 Center:
And the kicker (loss of sharpness and light falloff):
400 bottom left corner:
100-400 Bottom left corner:
Sam
Link to my Smugmug site
I wasn't going to do f8 cuz a) who is going to shoot 400mm at f8 and b) most lenses become equal sharpness at f8 so its essentially a moot point, it'd be like 'which one smashes walnuts better'
Sam
Besides, almost any lens isn't at its sharpest wide open. Why wouldn't you shoot a stop or two down from wide-open, everything else being equal?
Link to my Smugmug site
References:
Arthur Morris
Moose Peterson
I guess if you think wide-open is the only thing that matters in nature photography, then I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.
Regards,
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
Kewl, do you think the 800mm/5.6 L IS is one?
The 2nd link u gave doesnt work.
― Edward Weston
Keep trying the Moose Peterson link. It's correct. I think his server might have hiccuped there for a minute.
-joel
Link to my Smugmug site
The 21MP of the 1DsIII is really rough on the 100-400. The difference is not nearly as dramatic on my 12MP 5D. On the other hand the pixel density of the 40D is even higher that the 1DsIII (equivalent to about 25MP full frame) so if you are shooting APS-C, this will give you a pretty good idea of what you will see.
is most notable.
― Edward Weston
Actually, I find the difference in center sharpness to be pretty dramatic. With the 400/5.6 you can see the printing screen. With the 100-400 you can't.
The corners of the 100-400 have some vignetting and CA. Neither of thise concern me much as they are easy to correct. I can't be sure of this without trying it, but it looks to me like if you correct the CA and the vignetting the center and the corners of the 100-400 will look pretty similar. One way or the other, critical sharpness in the corners isn't particularly important for most of my super telephoto shooting anyhow.
The take home message for me is that while I find the 100-400 to be acceptably sharp on the 5D, if at some point in the future I go to a higher density sensor I may be less satisfied with it.