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

[warthog64]

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

here it is Iwan,
A slightly unsharp image,
400mm
iso 200
tv 1/644
av 5.6

no adjustments...

[Iwan Bogels]

Oops ! That's what I call seriously out of focus.

I do have an occasional shot like this too, but less than 5% of all action shots. Nothing to worry about, I guess.

But It's weird to read that individual lenses of one similar type perform significantly different. That should not be possible, except for an occasional misproduction. But misproduction seems pretty common with this lens.

Damn, I'm happy to use another lens.

Good luck,
Iwan

[Kees van der Velden]

*Iwan you're a great teacher. That's why I forgive you just this once for saying nasty things about my lovely lens. Seriously, I followed your instructions to the letter and it worked! The only thing I changed was that I didn't make the file 900X600 but 800X550. I did this because Photobucket, the transfersite where I upload my images to be able to put them on websites, specificaly states that images should have a maximum of 800. I hope this doesn't cause too many heartfailures in the Scramble Photo Nerd community!
Now for the results, first there is the full image that I gave my "Opel Manta" Photoshop treatment and then the cut out according to your instructions:









I hope this is of more use then my last posting. Furthermore I read a lot about the fact that aparently there are good examples of this lens and bad ones. So maybe I'm just lucky in having obtained a good one. If this really is true then I wonder why people haven't complained and why Canon hasn't made a statement?

greetings,
Kees

[herky]

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.

I have had the same problem. Fixed by Canon for the same price.
It is a particular problem from the first lenses. Later on they have fixed the problem in the factory.

Overall it's a very fine lense and I'm still satisfied with it.

[Delta12]

Im very happy with this lens. Im using it almost one year and in the beginning I was a bit afraid of all those flaws that people are talking about but it never dissapointed me! it has great range, price is good, it has IS and its solid and most important its sharp! Here are some pics of my 100-400L with 30d

100% crops RAW untouched:

[Redskin301]

Maybe it is an idea to test more of these 100-400 lenses on a lens test weekend at schiphol. Then you are able to find out if there are bad examples of this lens or not enough trained photographers of it I'm would be very currious about the results because i also would like to buy this lens

[SquAdmin]

Guys... You shouldn't rule out the camera in this matter! Which bodies were you using and are there any differences in the results?

[Thijs]

Maybe it is an idea to test more of these 100-400 lenses on a lens test weekend at schiphol. Then you are able to find out if there are bad examples of this lens or not enough trained photographers of it Exclamation I'm would be very currious about the results because i also would like to buy this lens

isn't it very hard to see the differences between lenses on a small display on your camera. Mostly the pictures looks good at the display of the camera and when you look at your computer screen you see how bad the picture is.

For the discussion, i am a happy 70-200 2.8L Canon user with a 1.4 extender. A various nice combination. I had also my doubts about the 100-400. The main reason for me to buy the above combination was the sharpness of the lens.

[Redskin301]

isn't it very hard to see the differences between lenses on a small display on your camera. Mostly the pictures looks good at the display of the camera and when you look at your computer screen you see how bad the picture is.

That's why I would like to test more of these lenses on my EOS30D body and compare photo's of the same object on my PC

[tonno1970]

Hi all, my two cents.

I had one copy of the 100-400 in the K64 time just for one summer as I sold it immediately. It was very bad after 300mm and Canon assistance told it was nothing bad with it. So I bought a 300mm f4 non IS and 1,4x.
Now, with digital, I use the 1D markI and speaking of normal landing and take off shots I can say I have more then 99% of pictures in perfect focus.
It seems with or without the 1,4x makes no difference in IQ but only in autofocus speed, which decreases a little bit.
In these years I read a lot of different things on this debated lens and realized that probably canon has some quality control issue on it.
So I tried a 100-400 from my friend. This was supposed to be a good performer concerning IQ.

In the same day I tried it against my 300+1,4x combo.
300+1,4x at f,8 200 ISO time over 1/1000
100-400 at f,10 200 ISO time over 1/1000

First: I had 30% of out of focus shots
second: IQ quality was far better with the prime and converter.
OK it is well known a prime is better then a zoom but I hoped it was better with digital bodies.

When I see some good pictures like warthog's one, I remain very confused.

I'd like a lot to see the IQ of the 70-200/4L into this lens.

Giampaolo

[wvanbel]

Guys... You shouldn't rule out the camera in this matter! Which bodies were you using and are there any differences in the results?

Even when pictures are shown here "un-edited", it would be wise to compare in-camera settings for sharpening. I have always read that it is best to set in-camera sharpening to a minimum and use the - more powerfull - processor in your PC to do the calculations instead of the one in your camera. I have always used the "0" setting for my in-camera sharpening (I have experimented - during last TLP - with "-2" settings, but that requires an enormous amount of editing/sharpening, so I will not do that again...).

I am also a 100-400 user and I also get mixed results and I am still trying to find out what realy causes these mixed results. Steady shots are perfect (so I realy doubt any imperfections on the lens), with panning shots I get mixed results (blaming either: poor me, a minimum movement of the zoom part when I leave the zoom-ring very loose, the slow autofocus of my "old 300D", my panning techniques or a combination of all these factors...).

PS: I also have the experience when I tilt my lens skywards, I get problems with my IS when in mode II. Has anybody else experienced that before?? I have heared stories (i.e. about IS malfunctioning) on the EF24-105 f/4L IS USM having similar problems during aerobatic manoevres...

Best regards,

Walter

[SquAdmin]

There's a similar discussion going on at the Fencecheck forum. Someone there stated that the EOS1D produces better results with this lens than the EOS20D.

From what I've read it's especially the (fast) moving stuff that causes unsharp images. Maybe the EOS10/20/30D range is not capable of making the right calculations, contrary to the EOS1D?

[warthog64]

today @ volkel 400 mm's,

[wvanbel]

Cool and sharp shots, Warthog! I assume you also used IS in mode I?

PS: What are your in-camera settings for sharpness? Has anybody else experimented with that?

Thanks and regards,

Walter

[warthog64]

[quote="wvanbel"]Cool and sharp shots, Warthog! I assume you also used IS in mode I?

yes...

PS: What are your in-camera settings for sharpness? Has anybody else experimented with that?

non extra setting everything at "0"