Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS L Topic

ImageImageDedicated forum for all your questions, remarks etc about (aviation) photography, digital as well as old fashioned film.

Forum rules
ImageImage
User avatar
Jetzone 2000
Scramble Junior
Scramble Junior
Posts: 235
Joined: 24 May 2005, 16:27

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 IS L Topic

Post by Jetzone 2000 »

Having read several contra-dictionary reports about Canon’s EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 IS L, thought about sharing my experiences here. There are numerous forum post on this subject so, why not a dedicated one Scramble.

Some examples @:

http://www.fencecheck.com/forums/index. ... 960.0.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.eosdigitaal.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31674" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.eosdigitaal.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9998" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.scramble.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?p=167332" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.scramble.nl/forum/viewtopic.php?t=26926" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It seems that this lens is very popular among aviation photographers. Warthog64 is publishing great shots here with his 100-400. Also Delta12 seems to be very happy. On the other hand, I’ve read (on EOSDigitaal) that Kleintje Pils has had about the same experience as I and had gone from a 100-400 to a 300mm f4 (+ 1.4 TC occassionaly)

Having had experiences with two different 100-400mm's, on a 10D and on a 30D, I was never satisfied with the sharpness above the 300+ range. I had occasionally good shots, but most times I was disappointed with the results. No matter what AF, ISO, or IS settings (or combination) I tried. Also supported shots where often soft at 300-400mm. But on a 10D/30D the effictive focal lenght (yes, I know this is not exactly true) will be 640mm, and i found it difficult to hold steady or panning allong a moving subject.

I must admit that compared coming from a 70-200 and the 300mm IS (both f4), I was spoiled as these lenses are about the sharpest in the sub $ 3500,- ranges (so not talking about the big 300/400mm f2,8 guns :lol: )

Recently I bought a 300mm f4 IS again and compared them sideby side @ 300mm. First thing that I noticed was the 100-400 was having an aperture of 5,6 at 270mm upwards. Ofcource the 100-400 won the contest in the 100-299mm range and the 301-400mm range. But at 300mm wow ! Especially in some real life shooting like tracking objects. I try to publish these results on my site (if i can find the time). maybe 300x1.6 is my fysical limit.

Just to day I sold the 100-400 to an 5D owner with a clear explanation of ‘my’ problems and it turned out that on his camera this lens was great, even at wide open 400mm. (Of course this camera is in a different league (ff + better AF).)

So my I’m back from where my journey started. Canon 300mm (+1,4TC)-> Canon100-400mm -> Sigma 120-300 (+1,4TC)-> Sigma 100-300mm (+1,4TC)(was better than 120-300 !) -> Canon100-400mm -> Canon 300mm.

Anybody willing to share their experiences ? Roel, Remco ?

BTW It is like many other things in life; Size doesnot matter, it is what you do with it. But on other occassions size does matter :lol: :!:
Kind Regards,

Andries

http://www.jetzone2000.com
User avatar
warthog64
Scramble Addict
Scramble Addict
Posts: 2118
Joined: 16 Feb 2003, 09:23
Subscriber Scramble Magazine: Nope
Location: Woudenberg. the Netherlands. 52O 05'02,5"N 5O 24'40,4"O
Contact:

Post by warthog64 »

Hi Andries and others
,
It seems (my experience) that the 300-400 range of the 100-400
is indeed less sharp, but I have to admit that I also made some very nice pics with 400mm.

I think it's also depents on the light circumstances you have.(good contrast)

here a few examples taken with 400mm,

Image

Image

Image

Of course I will only show my best pics on the scramble and own site etc.
There are plenty pics I took that are unsharp, because of the 400mm.
But I simply don't publish them.

I simply prefer the flexability of the 100-400 (with its sometimes unsharp pics) above a prime 300 or 400 mm.
WH64
___│ØoØ│___
due to corona, nowhere!
User avatar
Jetzone 2000
Scramble Junior
Scramble Junior
Posts: 235
Joined: 24 May 2005, 16:27

Post by Jetzone 2000 »

Tnanks. Exactly what I mean, great shot AND sharp. :D Something I found difficult to optain. Even straight forward landing shots had only an average quality. As said, I had two examples on two different bodies, but is was not my cup of thee :cry:

Found another comparisation:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/revie ... -400.shtml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Looks like there are a lot of variations in the image quality of this lens.

An unknown, but very fanatic lensteste can be found here:
http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/lenstests" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Kind Regards,

Andries

http://www.jetzone2000.com
wright flyer
Scramble Junior
Scramble Junior
Posts: 134
Joined: 31 Oct 2003, 21:10

Post by wright flyer »

Hoi,

Het is hier engels, maar mijn engels is zodanig slecht dat ik niet zou kunnen reageren, excuus hiervoor.

Ik heb de afgelopen weken ook gekeken naar een nieuwe lens. De sigma 50-500 ging eruit vanwege zijn kwaliteit gebrek. Ik heb zitten twijfelen tussen een 100-400 of een combinatie met een kleine zoom en prime/extender.

Om te beginnen met de voordelen van de 100-400: de flexabiliteit. Dat ga ik wel missen. Ik vond dat kwaliteit voor kwantiteit gaat. Ik ga geen 1400,- voor een lens neerleggen waar je maar 80% waar voor je geld voor krijgt.

Ander punt: push/pull systeem. Ik vond het niet werken, maar dat kan persoonlijk zijn. Sommige spreken er zeer over.

Een van de andere reden dat ik de 100-400 heb laten vallen is zijn probleem status. Hij schijnt zeer vaak terug te gaan naar Canon. Zelfs zo erg dat 60% nog nooit problemen met de lens heeft gehad. 60% !!!! voor een lens van 1400,-. En 25% heeft twee of meer problemen gehad.

Het is toch ook persoonlijk deze keuze. Wat voor fotograaf ben je, wat wens je van je foto's. Ik ben iemand die gruwelijk veel kwaliteit verwacht van zijn foto's, dan valt de 100-400 eigelijk al af. Ik lig ook liever 3 uur voor een kist te wachten voor het perfecte plaatje dan dat ik alles op de camera heb. Ik weet tijdens het spotten vantevoren eigelijk al wat ik voor foto wil gaan maken.

Ander punt was ook nog dat de 100mm minder goed aansloot op mijn andere lens, 70mm was daarbij beter.

Ik ben voor de combinatie gegaan. En heb afgelopen zaterdag de 70-200 4.0 IS alvast gekocht. Later komt hier nog een prime bij met eventueel extender.

gr Frank
Kees van der Velden
Scramble Junior
Scramble Junior
Posts: 155
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 11:40

Canon EF 100-400 mm L IS SM

Post by Kees van der Velden »

I'm a 100-400 user and I stated my opinion on this lens recently in the topic "Cool photos - Canon or Nikon?" so I don't think it's necessary to repeat that here. Just some of my pictures taken with the long end of this lens:

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Kees van der Velden
User avatar
Joris van Boven
Scramble Die-Hard
Scramble Die-Hard
Posts: 883
Joined: 28 Aug 2002, 12:57
Type of spotter: F5
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Joris van Boven »

Hi

I have lot's of problems with the 100-400, when making moving photos of fast flying aircraft, fully extended to 400mm, many unsharp photos.
Did various tests:
IS on/off
fixed speed/auto speed (P mode)
focuspoint 1/all
but never came up with a sufficient solution.

Static photos like Kees are not the problem, fast moving jets are.
Even at LWD last year (saturday), clear blue sky, lots of light, but many landing a/c (like the dutch F-16s) were unsharp

With old EOS30A, hardly any problem, but with EOS10D lots of problems, with EOS30D less problems.

What did the others use as 'the perfect settings' :?: :?:
Rule #23: Never mess with a Marine's coffee if you want to live.
Kees van der Velden
Scramble Junior
Scramble Junior
Posts: 155
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 11:40

settings

Post by Kees van der Velden »

I used to do everything manually (old habits die hard) but lately, if conditions are optimum (sun and blue skies) I simply turn the dial to P and let the camera/lens do all the work for me. If conditions are not that good I always use shutterspeed priority because there is no point in shooting at 400(640) mm with very low shutterspeeds, even with IS. Unless ofcourse you want a panning shot with the background transformed into a blur. These shots only make sense though if there is a real background, not an even blue sky.
For anything with propellors and rotors I make shure that the shutterspeed is not higher than 1/200 of a second.
I'm very staisfied with the results of my 100-400, both static and flying. I realise that it cannot compete with for instance a 400 2.8 but at least it's offordable for me and the versatility of all those focal lenghts plus the excellent IS system make this the lens for me. That is until I win the "staatsloterij" or it turns out that Santa Clause exists after all!

Image

Image

regards,
Kees
User avatar
warthog64
Scramble Addict
Scramble Addict
Posts: 2118
Joined: 16 Feb 2003, 09:23
Subscriber Scramble Magazine: Nope
Location: Woudenberg. the Netherlands. 52O 05'02,5"N 5O 24'40,4"O
Contact:

Post by warthog64 »

here is a addition of my previous experience of the 100-400L is.

It was a hard choice for me to choose between the 50-350L
or the 100-400 L IS.
But I am happy that I choose the 100-400 ILS

I now have this lens about 6 1/2 years',
with only one problem with it, the push/pull zoom (wich I prefer above the turn zoom) got stuck.
I sometimes could't hardly move the zoom....
sent it to the photo repairshop (canon), and it cost me about 60 euro's.
A little screw turned out to moving around in the lens.

My settings are alway's shutterspeed priority, middle AF point.
and AI servo.

here is another little unsharp photo, 400-mm's

1/640 F 5.6

Image

sharp,

1/250 F 5.6

Image



by the way,
very nice pics kees! :clap:
WH64
___│ØoØ│___
due to corona, nowhere!
User avatar
Joris van Boven
Scramble Die-Hard
Scramble Die-Hard
Posts: 883
Joined: 28 Aug 2002, 12:57
Type of spotter: F5
Location: Eindhoven, the Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Joris van Boven »

wharthog, the first one is exactly what I mean, many photos are unsharp with the 100-400, sometimes 2 out of 3, even with the speed at 1/500 or 1/640 at a bright day :cry:
Rule #23: Never mess with a Marine's coffee if you want to live.
User avatar
Jetzone 2000
Scramble Junior
Scramble Junior
Posts: 235
Joined: 24 May 2005, 16:27

Post by Jetzone 2000 »

Joris van Boven wrote:wharthog, the first one is exactly what I mean, many photos are unsharp with the 100-400, sometimes 2 out of 3, even with the speed at 1/500 or 1/640 at a bright day :cry:
Same problems with me. But not all the time :? Last month at Florennes (the day that half of spotting Europe was there; 27/3) the take off shots at 300-400mm were 70% out of focus/soft. But if this was was a faulty lens, it would be 100% bad. Why the 30 % good ones ? However, the landingshots @ 200-300 were good.

@Kees: Wow ! The Hawk and Typhoon are excelent examples of the sharpness produced by your copy of the lens. To bad I didn't get the same results as you did.
Kind Regards,

Andries

http://www.jetzone2000.com
Kees van der Velden
Scramble Junior
Scramble Junior
Posts: 155
Joined: 07 Apr 2007, 11:40

lens test

Post by Kees van der Velden »

Hi guys,

I was a little bored this afternoon and so I decided to do an amateur test on the 100-400 mm. It might make this discussion a bit more concrete. There are no aircraft I'm afraid but it may give you a fair idea nevertheless.
I attached the 1.4 converter to the lens and took the following pictures, handheld without tripod or anything else, through a not too clean upstairs window of our house, all at the questionable 400 mm setting of the lens. The only thing I did with the pictures afterwards was autolevels, autocolor and a little unsharp mask. (That's about the extent of my Photoshop knowledge...)

Image
560(896) mm 1/80 sec F8.0 ISO 100

Image
560(896) mm 1/50 sec F8.0 ISO 100

Image
560(896) mm 1/250 sec F8.0 ISO 100

Image
this shot is part of the shot above

Well, see what you think of it and draw your own conclusions!

By the way: Warthog64, I love your Sabreshot! Absolutely stunning. Shame of your Luke F-16 but I suppose this wasn't the only picture you took that day.

greetings,
Kees
SpotterNL
Scramble Die-Hard
Scramble Die-Hard
Posts: 708
Joined: 01 Mar 2005, 19:34

Re: lens test

Post by SpotterNL »

Kees van der Velden wrote:The only thing I did with the pictures afterwards was autolevels, autocolor and a little unsharp mask. (That's about the extent of my Photoshop knowledge...)

greetings,
Kees
Resized and with USM these shots (except for the last one) are pretty much useless because you can't see the detail.

Jurgen
User avatar
Iwan Bogels
Scramble Addict
Scramble Addict
Posts: 2384
Joined: 06 Sep 2002, 06:59
Subscriber Scramble Magazine: Iwan Bogels
Location: N 52°13"31.2 E 4°29"57.5
Contact:

Post by Iwan Bogels »

Well,

Why don't Roel, Kees and the others cut out a 900 x 600 piece of the original file and post it here without any adjustments (no color tweaking, no resizing, no sharpening).

The easiest way to do this in Photoshop:

- Create a new file at 900 x 600 pixels
- Open the desired photo in full size
- Select Ctrl-A, Ctrl-C
- Close the opened photo
- Click inside the blank new file once
- Press Ctrl-V
- Select the upper right tool from the toolbar
- Drag the Photo so that the intended part of the photo is visible
- Select Layers - Flatten Image
- Save file as desired

After that it's just a matter of uploading the image in this topic.

Good luck,
Iwan
User avatar
Glidepath
Scramble Addict
Scramble Addict
Posts: 1594
Joined: 25 Mar 2006, 12:04

Post by Glidepath »

lees ik dat goed: Door het vuile raam?
jammer, m.i. gaat ieder vergelijk / beoordeling op voorhand mank.
Volgende keer raam open. :wink:
en wat de voorgaande poster zegt: idd niets aan doen met de computer. anders dan in juiste formaat invoegen. Kun je beter vergelijken met de collega's.

Jetzone: vwb die onscherpe opnamen? misschien te veel (miniscule) beweging op het zoomdeel door en tijdens het vasthouden en mikken? (bovenop de normale handtrilling en beweging (panning enzo).
De landing is trager dan start, zou eea kunnen verklaren, dan ben je rustiger met het zoomdeel. (?)
Of het zoomdeel loslaten en na compo allen op het vaste deel van het objectief vasthouden, na het in/uitzoomen het bewegende deel verlaten met je hand. Dat is vlgs mij ook het probleem van een schuifzoom. Je moet er echt aan wennen. het zwaartepunt verandert immers bij het zoomen.
Hoera d'revolutie, 't is eindelijk zover', maar de nwe leiders blijken net zo autoritair
User avatar
Redskin301
Scramble Addict
Scramble Addict
Posts: 2161
Joined: 23 Mar 2006, 12:52
Type of spotter: Graphical
Subscriber Scramble Magazine: nee
Location: Tilburg
Contact:

Post by Redskin301 »

Hoe meer mm's je hebt hoe meer techniek je nodig hebt om de camera + lens goed stil te houden, dat is voor ons allemaal een kwestie van oefenen en sommige zullen dat nooit leren en andere na een paar keer al :D
Regards Alex van Noye,

http://www.runway28.nl
Post Reply