Just wondering how popular or unpopular is Canons 100-400mm lens with birders?
Just wondering how popular or unpopular is Canons 100-400mm lens with birders?
I used it for several years but when I got my 4/500 I've never used it for birds any more.
Later I replaced it with a 4/70-200L IS and 4/300L IS. Suits my working style better but this may not be the case for someone else.
The zoom advantage is great with birds that let you get close. Otherwise it is often too short, even with crop cameras.
The AF is slower than with a 4/500.
For people who do not want to afford a 4/500, 4/600 or 5.6/800 the 100-400 can be a great bird lens. Many amazing images have been made with this lens.
Markus
It's very popular with those of us who like to work handheld, or who carry a scope and a camera into the field. I think of it as a good lens for birders who photograph as opposed to photographers who take pictures of birds. Photographers who consistently work from tripods usually prefer something bigger (and more expensive) though.
It's a great versitale lens - I still love mine! It's not as sharp as my 400 prime but it has it's own benefits and is great for hand held shooting. It's still my go to lens for airshows and zoos.
Mark
I almost always carry two cameras when I am out shooting, my 500 f4 on a tripod
and the 70-200 or the 100-400 on another body.
Having the 100-400 has allowed me to get a few shots I would have missed without
the zoom range it has.
Here is one from Bunche Beach.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/...277d3838_o.jpg
Hi Jim - In my section of the US, it's very difficult to get close enough to wild birds @ 400mm. On the other hand, the state of Florida is well known for approachable birds so the 100-400mm may actually be THE ideal lens for that area. I do usually bring my 500mm f/4 and the 100-400mm both into the field for birding outings, like wildlife refuges. I leave the 1.4tc on the 500mm to try for shots of songbirds, but the 100-400 allows me to get shots of birds that flyby close or overhead that I would have missed otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Dahl
Another nice thing about the zoom is that it works well for other wildlife like deer, and the minimum focusing distance isn't bad for snakes, frogs, and lizards. Keep in mind that it is also THE #1 SAFARI LENS for Canon, so they must be doing something right.
- Dave
Jim,
I have the 100-400, as well as 300 f/4 L IS, 300 f/2.8 L IS and 500 f/4 L IS. In my experience, the 100-400 is not as sharp as the 300 wth a 1.4x TC. Also being a push pull zoom, your are pumping air into and out of the lens as you zoom and because the lens has no rear element, you are also pumping air into and out of the camera body, and that means the potential for more dust.
Figure 10 on this page compares the 300 f/4+1.4x TC to the 100-400 at 400.
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/moon-test2/
I don't use my 100-400 much anymore, so if someone really wants it I'm willing to part with it (contact me off list), but I would recommend a 300 f/4 +TC instead.
Roger
Although perhaps not a premier birding lens, I see the 100-400 alot in places where people are photographing larger birds such as eagles or osprey. I have a very sharp copy of the 100-400 but tend to use it only at air shows where I need the flexibility of the zoom.
Since I came back to Canon, the 100-400 is my choice for over the shoulder lens, or if I want to go hand held and not carry a tripod. At least for Florida, the length works. As far as sharpness is concerned, Artie uses it a lot, never saw him use the 300/4.
Here's an example of sharpness, full frame.
I have heard people complain about lack of sharpness and speed from people that have never tried it.
Hi Jim
For its length is one fine lens, I find it sharp and the AF is more than acceptable. Probable is the one lens you will hear more derogatory things about than any other.
Roger has a good point regarding dust being sucked up and the zoom will need to be repaired at some time, bearing failure, depending on how had you use it. Mine is in for repair but having said that is one of my favorite Canon lenses. Also do not agree that the 300 f 4.0 with 1.4 is sharper.
Got lots of purple martins in flight with this lens, AF did just fine. Will post below an image taken with the 100-400 and 1.4X converter. With some cameras you loose the AF but still makes one sharp image is you place it on a tripod and use the correct technique btw will place a link to stacking converters with the 500 which you hear all the time it is not usable. http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...ad.php?t=55627 since a sharp image is not possible.
With any lens is best to test and try for yourself.
The 100-400 is my main bird photography lens. I've had tremendous success with it and cannot be any happier with it. Sharp, versatile, and great for handholding. Yes I do wish I had a 500mm prime lens (or the budget for it), but there are ways to get the birds closer such as blinds, use of audio, bird feeders, etc...
My favorite landscapes have been taken with this lens too, as well as many "macros" of flowers and larger insects with it's close MFD. Combine it with extention tubes and it is killer for macros of smaller objects too. Although I may be in the minority here I LOVE the push-pull mechanism...very easy and fast to use for incoming subjects such as friendly shorebirds. This very under-rated lens will remain in my arsenal for a long time to come.:)
I too am quite partial to this lens and (so far) have used it more than any other lens I own. As evidenced on this site there are better lenses for getting great bird photographs although the 100-400 holds its own in the hands of a skilled photographer (several can be found above). IMO the niche for this lens is that if you are a birder or biologist you can stuff this lens in your pack and it is there when there is something you need or want to document. When you are using a 500 or other larger lens your priority is photography rather than birding or research.
BTW there was a recent post on Canon Rumors of some vendors listing this lens as being out of production. Take your pick: a) another useless rumor, b) get one while you can, or c) hold off something better to come.
Declan I'm sure this lens will be updated at some time, the one feature I dislike the most is the focusing range placement.... unusable while shooting, need to decide one or the other beforehand !!
Daniel thanks for bringing up the macro aspect, for traveling I will take my 500D close up lens, great combo !!
with you Garry, I usually do the same thingQuote:
Originally Posted by Garry Gibson
Thank you very much one and all for the replies and also the absolutely awesome photos and links.
Two lens I couldn't live without: 100-400 and 500 F4 !!!!!!!!!! A great combo especially with two bodies.
I have gone through two of them and we simply did not click.
I have returned to primes and will stay that way.
I am not saying it is not a great lens it simply was not my cup of tea (yes I am an unforgiving old grump)
The 100-400 is very popular.
When assessing what lens you want you should choose the 100-400 only because you you are going to make use of the varying focal lengths, take advantage of the minimum focus distance and of course IS for hand holding. I would not let differences in sharpness with other prime lenses be the sole criteria for determining what lens you buy since such differences are in my humble opinion small or insignificant. There is much discussion about this on the internet and it is like comparing apples with oranges: you should get the lens that suits your style, the habitat and light you photograph in. You get a zoom lens because you need a zoom lens.
For BIF the 100-400 is slower than the 400 prime at acquiring autofocus but it is still no slouch.
Ditto Daniel. For those of us who can not afford a 500 prime, the 100-400 is a great option. As Al and Fabs have pointed out it is very sharp with the right technique. While the short focal length can be a bit frustrating with the smaller plovers and sandpipers at the beach, it works great for set-ups with a blind. The short minimum focusing distance really helps for set-ups, as does the ability to quickly recompose if a larger bird stops by.
The 100-400mm is one of my favorite lenses and I have a few: 300mm f/4, 100-400mm, 400mm f/5.6, 400mm f/4 DO, 500mm f/4 L are those used for birds/wildlife, there is a few more besids these. Some of the best images I have captured has been with this lens.
I have found that my 100-400mm is sharper and has less CA than the 300mm f/4 with the Canon 1.4x behind it, the only caveat may be is that the lens needs to stopped down at least 2/3rd's of a stop from wide open (f/7.1 - f/9 Is where I get the best results). Both sharpen up a bit when stopping down but the increase in the 100-400mm is greater than the 300mm combo.
When I am in the field I usually will have the 100-400 on one of the xxD bodies and the 500mm + 1.4x on the 1D3. A real versatile combination for varying circumstances.
Just another random example of the IQ possible with this lens.
http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y25...apr2siskin.jpg
.. fine example Brad !!!!
Alfred,Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfred Forns
I've used it with a 1.4 with taped pins and a 5D2 but never thought to try it without taping the pins on my 1D4. Will the AF work untaped?
I'll have to try it if Canon ever manages to get the left 1/3 as as sharp as the right 2/3. This is their third try.
Blake
Agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfred Forns
I would like to see more direct comparisons. Different people seem to have different standards as to what is sharp. Without a standard to compare with, one may come to unsupported conclusions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabs Forns
This is the image I referenced earlier. It clearly demonstrates the 300+1.4 is sharper than my 100-400 at 400.
Both images used the same CF tripod with Wimberly head at the same exposure and f/stop with the same camera both using mirror lockup. These are in-camera generated jpegs with no sharpening, so everything equal except the lens.
You can try this test yourself with your 100-400 (or any other lens) and see if your lens is better. The moon will be similar to this view in about 3 weeks. Other lenses and phases of the moon are here:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/moon-test2/
The moon is a real test because of the high edge contrast. It will reveal problems that may not always be obvious. However, in high contrast situations, like bird in a tree with bright background, similar problems will show. The only tougher lens test is stars, for which the 100-400 does not do well.
I hope the rumors of canon replacing it with a new design are true.
Roger
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake Cook
Ahhhh so thats why the AF doesn't work !!!
@ Roger, very interesting site you have there with a wealth of information. Thats very interesting re: the UV filters.
I used the 100/400L for almost ten years. I tried the 400 f5.6 and have since sold the 100/400 as I never used it again. The 400 f5.6 pluses for birding, slightly sharper and much faster auto focus. For BIF my success rate has trippled vs. the 100/400L.
Roger if you look at my image with the 1.4X is lots sharper than yours without the converter
My standards are quite high and I don't appreciate your implications ..... to be specific you implied I found the lens to be sharp because my standards were lower.
Testing sharpness with a picture of the moon is not my idea of a target.
Alfred,Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfred Forns
I was speaking generally and was not trying to imply any individuals standards. I am very sorry if I implied your standards were lower. I know your standards are very high.
Of the images posted by people, so far in this thread, how many are 100% views with no sharpening? Is yours? But even if people post 100% views, if they are done by different cameras, sharpness will appear to vary, and will vary if in-camera jpeg versus raw converted (and converted with sharpening on). That is why I compared the two lenses using the same camera with all the same techniques, settings and methods. The Moon comparison is 100% view.
While the Moon may not be the favorite subject of bird photographers, it is a standard everyone around the world can use and inter-compare, and it is particularly difficult so shows weaknesses in the system, whether it be technique or lens sharpness. It is a better target than a black and white bar test target on a piece of paper because the edges are sharper and the contrast much higher, and those are qualities you want to reveal flair, chromatic and spherical aberration, all things that hurt image quality.
There are also reported differences in 100-400 quality, but I have not seen a direct comparison with the same target and camera that shows two 100-400s showing different image quality. Canon's own MTF charts shows the 100-400 to be less sharp than the 300 f/4 L IS.
Roger
... seems you were very specific Roger. As in testing is best to choose the words more carefully.Quote:
Originally Posted by rnclark
Alfred,
I agree. Sorry for any confusion.
Roger
Pixel crop straight out of camera raw with no sharpening, contrast or noise reduction applied.
And my standards are quite high, so high, that I was the first person to complain online about the Mark's III AF inconsistency, even before Rob Galbraith report came up, in a thread that went over 100,000 hits at NSN if any of you remember. BTW, ironically enough, this is a 1d3 file.
I don't have a 100-400 to comment about its sharpness, but I wanted to add that sometimes the source of inconsistency in experience is just sample variation, especially when competent photographers disagree on whether a lens is sharp or not. I personally had very bad experience with 300 f/4 IS + TC, the lens was very sharp without the TC but with the TC I could not produce even one file that was sharp at pixel level, however I have seen photos on the internet that look sharp enough with the same combo.
Most of these lenses were designed and are still manufactured with the standards and tolerances of the film days, they are not precision optics similar to those used in laboratory equipment and with today's high resolution sensors these tolerances are becoming more and more apparent. Have a look at this excellent review published on SLRgear.com http://www.slrgear.com/articles/vari...canon50f14.htm
they took 5 random samples of a canon 50 f/1.4, a lens that is most simple to manufacture and has been in production line for a long time, you can clearly see the sample to sample variations especially at larger apertures and they point out how different the current lenses are from the one they tested some years ago. Things only get worse with a complicated zoom lens like 100-400, some people are lucky enough to get the gold sample and some get the bad ones...I hope that Canon improve their manufacturing tolerance and inspection procedures to reduce the inconsistencies.
This is really sharp Fabs, what focal length and aperture was this? And are you sure sharpening was fully off? (When you open the RAW files in Light Room it applies some sharpening by default), but very nice for 100%. Now that I have the 500 I am thinking about exchanging my 400 f/5.6 for a 100-400 for more versatility and also for telephoto landscape with 5DMKII but I am concerned about sharpness. Would be interesting to see how the new 70-200 f/2.8 II with TC compares against the 100-400, the former is even more versatile :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Fabs Forns
I agree 100%, there are far better subjects to use for comparrison.Quote:
Testing sharpness with a picture of the moon is not my idea of a target.
Such as?Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher C.M. Cooke
This would be my choice for a test target.
Well, I would suggest something that doesn't have thousands of miles of roiling atmosphere between the lens and the subject, and isn't moving at at ~1,000 miles an hour as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by rnclark
If I can have an image from a couple dozen yards that is negatively effected by varying air/ground tempertures in certain weather conditions, then a light from a subject ~ 238,000 miles away will certainly experience at least a similar issue that is never repeatable from moment to moment.
What kind of "target" may be the best is up to debate however whether one is using test charts, newspaper or even like I have fly-tying supplies like pheasant tail. There are a number of methods one can compare the image quality of differing equipment as long as the conditions are truly repeatable.
Arash, this was at 400mm, f/ 5.6Quote:
Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi
I looked at ACR, sharpening amount 25 radius 1. which I believe is their default and probably no more than an in camera jpg would get.
The versatility of the zoom far outweighs any potential "sharpness" issues, which, btw, I have been lucky not to have experienced. Way back, I had the 300/4 and sold it because of the awkward focal length, and adding the 1.4X for flight was a loosing proposition because of loss of acquisition speed. Only my personal experience, though.
The moon or a dollar pasted to the wall, is the same, as both lenses will have to deal with the same athmospheric complications, I donīt see the difference...
In my experience, I have only tried three different 100-400mm, only one was as sharp as the 300mm f4 the other two were as sharp only at f7.1 or higher, do not take this as a cientific comment, it is just what I was able to see when using this lens in the field... subjects that are not really close usually are not as sharp compared to the same distance with a 300mmf4 or a 400mmf5.6... sorry I do not have any pics to compare... just my two cents.
:)
That's a clever remark, Ramon, so I should wear an outer space helmet in my living room? LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Ramon M. Casares
Thanks Fabs, even with default sharpening it looks pretty good. First time I see a sample from this lens that is so sharp!!! Did it also perform as good on the 7D? For primary flight I would be sitting at 400 all the time so I went with the prime but now that I use 500 for primary flight I will trade some sharpness and AF speed for versatility. BTW, I had a 300 and 1.4X TC when I had a 20D, painfully slow to AF!!! sold and got 400 f/5.6 and never looked back :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Fabs Forns
If you read the legit reviews online they are mixed
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/20...review?start=1
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...1&LensComp=278
http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showp...duct/77/cat/11
so you guys definitely have a good sample :)
Arash when this lens came out years ago there were a number of soft copies, the ones coming out now seem to be sharp. As with any lens it is good to test on your own.
Thanks for info Al, do you guys have more than one that is sharp? I will get one and try it out. IS is sure nice to have too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfred Forns
Both of ours are very sharp. btw mine has crapped out with a locked focus ring ... that and the zoom seems to get stuck on these lenses. From past experience I will not take it to the beach, will carry the 70-200 4.0 with 1.4X
Artie had one he loved but dropped the lens and bent the barrel, it would stick at 280 !!
Huge difference. An image of a dollar bill from across the room is not trying to image the subject through a couple dozen kilometers of atmospheric distortion (when you see stars twinkle at night, or heat shimmer on a hot day, that is caused by atmospheric density fluctuations). One of the big advances in ground-based telescopy in recent years is the development of adaptive optics which correct for such distortions on the fly, and thereby increasing resolution. There is also scattering off suspended matter (water vapor, particulate matter etc) which depending on where you live can render the moon a bit less sharp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramon M. Casares
Furthermore, the moon for all practical purposes is imaging at infinity, while most birding is focusing at several meters. I suspect it is most useful to test the system for the dominant usage conditions, and thus to use a test target placed at a typical subject distance.
As for the question of the OP, I have many images taken with my 100-400 (the first DSLR long lens I acquired) that I am very happy with. However the lens is substantially softer than my other long primes (400/5.6, 500/4, and 300/2.8) and a bit slower and more inaccurate in focusing. But I would find it hard to part with, I love the versatility.
This thread, like many on the net seem to come to the conclusion that the are significant variations in the 100-400, so Alfred's advice to test it whenever you get one to be sure is good advice. But that means you must have a standard to measure to, and everyone should develop a standard if you want to be sure you have a good lens. I do agree with Alfred that you can use a test chart (I use them too) to test.
But it is hard for people to inter-compare lenses unless you have the same conditions. Test charts are fine, but lighting will vary unless one specifies what kind of lighting and at what distance, and what distance you image the target from are all important and can change results. And if everyone prints their own chart, there are variations in ink and paper, so contrast will vary.
But even so, test charts are inherently low contrast. The contrast depends solely on the reflectance of the inks used to make the chart and the brightness of the paper it is printed on. That is almost always less than 5 stops, and usually less than about 4. The real world contains directional lighting, shading plus reflectance variations, and can be greater than 10 stops. So a test chart doesn't really reveal common problems with a lens that will be apparent in real wold imaging outdoors.
The charge that the moon is imaged through "thousands of miles of roiling atmosphere" is simply false. Satellites orbit a few tens of miles high. When you image the moon when it is reasonably high in the sky, you are looking through the equivalent atmosphere of about 10 kilometers thickness (straight up), double that if 30 degrees up from the horizon. But more importantly, the turbulence is dominantly generated very close to the ground so the higher parts of the atmosphere contribute little to any distortion. That is why sharp images of the Moon are relatively easy to make.
The Moon is a target that has high contrast (more than 10 stops from the bright edge to the black sky) so it will show lens problems that imaging a test target will not reveal. Further, it is lit by the same light source for everyone around the world, and has detail far below what any lens or telescope can ever resolve from the Earth. The Moon also has subtle gradations in both intensity and color that tests a camera's ability to show fine gradations. It is far more complex than any test chart in its properties to reveal strengths and weaknesses in any camera system. The disadvantage is you do need to wait for the Moon to be up and to a have reasonably steady atmosphere. But a big advantage is that whether you live in Australia, India, Africa, North or South America, everyone can image the Moon and inter-compare their results.
So, Fabs and Alfred, it would be nice to see your 100-400 lenses image the Moon with your 5D2s with in-camera generated jpegs. Florida, by the way, has amazingly steady skies. Amateur astronomers in Florida are making some of the most astounding images of other planets in North America. Here in Colorado, in contrast, we have a lot of turbulence from wind coming over the Rocky Mountains. Even so, at the short focal lengths below about 700 mm, that turbulence is usually smaller than lens and camera limitations. Your 100-400 lenses appear sharper than mine (mine is over 10 years old). I would like to see just how much sharper it does on the Moon--in about 3 weeks when the Moon is at first quarter.
Roger
Roger, I would have to decline on the test. I am very happy with the lens and not at all interested in scientific testing. Performance in the field is enough for me. Sorry.
Arash, if it's just for flight, I'd stick with the 400/5.6, I find it's faster in acq because of the long minimum focusing distance. For all around, though, the zoom is invaluable. I'll check my files tonight to see if I have some with that combo. I had the 7D for a very short time.Quote:
Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabs Forns
Thanks a lot Fabs, I will be using the 500 for flight most of the time so I want to retire my 400 in favor of something more versatile that I can use for subjects other than birds as well (knowing that I would lose a bit in sharpness and AF speed :))... either 100-400 or the new 70-200 f/2.8II plus 1.4X and 2X. Would appreciate your 100-400 samples on 7D!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fabs Forns
I am not being clever :confused:, I am just saying that for comparison, trying both lenses with the same subject is more than fair... thatīall :cool:. About the outer space helmet in your living room... whatever makes you happy Fabs... :D
Well, I'll chime in. My 100-400 was purchased in 2005 and has been in for cleaning and calibration once. Yes it gets dusty. The cleaning occurred after a trip to Tanzania. Regarding my use of the lens it is extremely versitle. I love the focal range and the ability to hand hold it with the IS. For many birding images I rely on my 500 and 500 with tCs. However, last year with the Forns on Anhinga Trail and at Shark Valley, most subjects were too close for the 500. The 100-400 ruled!
Here is an image from then. My 500 could not have gotten this. The subject was just too close. So flexibility is important. The 300 F4 and 1.4 while my wife uses it a lot, still doesn't offer the flexibility needed so often.
On my upcoming trip back to Tanzania iI am sure the 100-400 will be used a lot.
