Three more PIFs from the same series.

Well I'll write some more crap about the 100-400L and 40D. In AI servo, for action, I find the keeper rate of this combo fairly crapulent. Yes, you can get fine shots, but I've stopped using this combo when I know the subjects are fast and erratic moving. It's much worse than on the 1D II with the same lens and much worse than my 20D + 400L combo I once had. When I replace the 100-400L with a 300 f/2.8L I or 500 f/4L IS, the keeper rate soars on the 40D. Still it's nowhere near as good as the 1D II when the action is erratic and the subject is smallish and falls in between the too widely spaced AF points. With large subjects and good contrast the keeper rate improve a lot.

Here are two taken with a 10D and a 100-400. I'll have a look for some surf shots when LR finishes its current export
John
1#
2#

keithreeder wrote:
These are all with the 40D.

You guys know how small and fast-flying Puffins are, right?


They're not great jetski shots, but they're sharp and in focus...

There's a whole lot of crap written about what the 100-400mm and xxD bodies "can't" do.

The prime is faster focusing, but the 100-400mm will acquit itself very well if you put the effort in: I was shoulder-to-shoulder with friends using 1D bodies and 300mm f/2.8s or 500mm f/4s when I shot those Puffins, and while they might have got one or two more good images than me, they didn't get anything noticeably better...








Nice Puffin shots Keith. I would only "shoot" jetskiers with an AK47 - total environmental scumbags in my part of the world.

Colin

The 100-400 can be a bit slow to focus, but with a little light it does OK.

Colin Key wrote:
I would only "shoot" jetskiers with an AK47 - total environmental scumbags in my part of the world.

Same here, Colin - the only reason these got any of my time is that there were already no birds about (probably the jetskiers fault), and I was hoping I'd be able to catch one of 'em spectacularly stuffing up!

Here's how I look at it:

The 100-400mm offers strong performance and image quality with the versatility of a zoom lens. I often shoot from a stationary point and the zoom helps cover things easier.

The 400mm offers better performance and image quality but without the versatility of a zoom. If you can rely on your foot zoom, the 400mm always seemed to have more zip with focusing and a touch sharper image.

I'm finding myself using the 100-400mm more and more cranked out to 400mm's and am considering moving to the prime lens. I'm just trying to determine if I'll miss the zoom.

PetKal wrote:
There have been countless threads of the "100-400 vs. 400 f/5.6" type all over the internet photography fora. The sharpness debate is probably the most popular one.
Typically the 100-400 owners like their 100-400, the 400 f/5.6 owners like their prime lens best. What else is new.

However, there is also a rather commonly held notion that the prime is better for photographing fast action such as running animals or birds in flight. A few, but not all, 100-400 owners do acknowledge that their lens is sluggish to focus.

That is what I'd like to explore in some detail here: the agility of 100-400 lens.
How good have you found the lens for tracking fast objects, be that animals, birds, fast vehicles, sports and such ?

As usual, first hand experience based input is hoped for. Those folks who have used the 100-400 for fast action successfully might wish to include some photo examples........that would be quite helpful.

I have owned both the 400F5.6 and the 100-400mm zoom. I sold the 400F5.6, but still own the 100-400mm. I use my 500mm more than anything and I use it with teleconverters about half the time. The 100-400mm is faster tan the 500mm with a 1.4x TC or a 2xTC attached. I shoot A LOT of action images. It isn't about the Af speed, it's about technique. If you have a sharp copy of the 100-400mm I would use it over the 400F5.6 simply because it's more versatile. Any difference in speed or sharpness just really doesn't matter. The 400F5.6 has a slight weight advantage. The 100-400 has a slight size advantage when packed. If you want to see examples of my action shots, just look at my website or posts I've made here.

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Well I'll write some more crap about the 100-400L and 40D. In AI servo, for action, I find the keeper rate of this combo fairly crapulent. Yes, you can get fine shots, but I've stopped using this combo when I know the subjects are fast and erratic moving. It's much worse than on the 1D II with the same lens and much worse than my 20D + 400L combo I once had. When I replace the 100-400L with a 300 f/2.8L I or 500 f/4L IS, the keeper rate soars on the 40D. Still it's nowhere near as good as the 1D II when the action is erratic and the subject is smallish and falls in between the too widely spaced AF points. With large subjects and good contrast the keeper rate improve a lot.

Yes, putting the 100-400 on a 1D series camera really brings out the best from this lens. There is a small loss of resolution compared to the 1.6 though.

Use my 100-400 all the time on jumping horses and several times on motorbike races (180mph fast enough?)

Works great in decent light. On dim days my sigma 120-300 has to come out. If the light is good then I would always be carrying the 100-400, it's just so much more flexible and a more reasonable weight.

So basically my experience is the 100-400 is good so long as it is not a dim day.

John H Smith wrote:
Use my 100-400 all the time on jumping horses and several times on motorbike races (180mph fast enough?)

Works great in decent light. On dim days my sigma 120-300 has to come out. If the light is good then I would always be carrying the 100-400, it's just so much more flexible and a more reasonable weight.

So basically my experience is the 100-400 is good so long as it is not a dim day.

John,

I agree with most of your comments, but the 100-400mm is a bit heavier than the 400mmF5.6, not lighter.

JimN wrote:

I shoot A LOT of action images. It isn't about the Af speed, it's about technique.

Well, technique is a dominant factor in whatever we do....from photography to needlepoint.

However, given a certain level of skill and the same camera, lens selection influences the speed and stability of AF in the following two ways:

* Lens focus group drive speed. (Expressed as time it takes for the lens to focus from infinity to MFD). The 85L MkI is 1.2 sec. 200 f/1.8 is 0.6 sec. 300 f/2.8 IS is about 0.3 sec. Those are big differences.

* A larger aperture lens sheds more light on the camera's AF sensors. More light means that the AF routine is executed faster. For example, in low light it is not the lens focus drive which delays the AF response......it is the camera's AF system which starts to falter on deficient light contrast-phase data.

PetKal wrote:
JimN wrote:

I shoot A LOT of action images. It isn't about the Af speed, it's about technique.

Well, technique is a dominant factor in whatever we do....from photography to needlepoint.

However, given a certain level of skill and the same camera, lens selection influences the speed and stability of AF in the following two ways:

* Lens focus group drive speed. (Expressed as time it takes for the lens to focus from infinity to MFD). The 85L MkI is 1.2 sec. 200 f/1.8 is 0.6 sec. 300 f/2.8 IS is about 0.3 sec. Those are big differences.

* A larger aperture lens sheds more light on the camera's AF sensors. More light means that the AF routine is executed faster. For example, in low light it is not the lens focus drive which delays the AF response......it is the camera's AF system which starts to falter on deficient light contrast-phase data.

Yes, what you say is true, but the impact on action photography when comparing the 100-400mm and the 400mm F5.6 is so minimal that it matters only in a very small number of situations. The other factors such as weight, size, versatility, and cost are more significant. To me the only one that matters enough to sway the decision is versatility. That's assuming you have a sharp copy of the 100-400mm.

JimN wrote:
PetKal wrote:
JimN wrote:

I shoot A LOT of action images. It isn't about the Af speed, it's about technique.

Well, technique is a dominant factor in whatever we do....from photography to needlepoint.

However, given a certain level of skill and the same camera, lens selection influences the speed and stability of AF in the following two ways:

* Lens focus group drive speed. (Expressed as time it takes for the lens to focus from infinity to MFD). The 85L MkI is 1.2 sec. 200 f/1.8 is 0.6 sec. 300 f/2.8 IS is about 0.3 sec. Those are big differences.

* A larger aperture lens sheds more light on the camera's AF sensors. More light means that the AF routine is executed faster. For example, in low light it is not the lens focus drive which delays the AF response......it is the camera's AF system which starts to falter on deficient light contrast-phase data.

Yes, what you say is true, but the impact on action photography when comparing the 100-400mm and the 400mm F5.6 is so minimal that it matters only in a very small number of situations. The other factors such as weight, size, versatility, and cost are more significant. To me the only one that matters enough to sway the decision is versatility. That's assuming you have a sharp copy of the 100-400mm.

Fair enough, Jim, I understand now where you're coming from.
Yes, in a very practical and general sense, those factors you've mentioned are the key.

JimN wrote:
I agree with most of your comments, but the 100-400mm is a bit heavier than the 400mmF5.6, not lighter.

He means the 100-400mm is lighter than the Sigma, Jim.

JimN wrote: The 100-400mm is faster than the 500mm with a 1.4x TC ............. attached.



Anyone else disagree with this? I use both lenses on a 1DMk3 and almost always have a x1.4TC on the 500mm but would say that the latter is decidedly faster at AF.

Colin

If you are shooting a subject for which a single focal length prime will cover your needs, it is likely that it will be a bit faster and your keeper rate may be higher in terms of framing and sharp images. (Though, for most people, this is as much an issue of shooting technique as it is of equipment in the majority of situations.)

If you are shooting subjects that will not always be at a consistent position or distance you'll lose potential "keepers" due to not being able to adapt to subject size and distance with the prime, where you can often get the shot with the zoom since it can change FL.

Not saying that either is "better" than the other in a general way, just that the choice depends a lot on the circumstances.

Take care,

Dan

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Well I'll write some more crap about the 100-400L and 40D. In AI servo, for action, I find the keeper rate of this combo fairly crapulent. Yes, you can get fine shots, but I've stopped using this combo when I know the subjects are fast and erratic moving. It's much worse than on the 1D II with the same lens and much worse than my 20D + 400L combo I once had. When I replace the 100-400L with a 300 f/2.8L I or 500 f/4L IS, the keeper rate soars on the 40D. Still it's nowhere near as good as the 1D II when the action is erratic and the subject is smallish and falls in between the too widely spaced AF points. With large subjects and good contrast the keeper rate improve a lot.

Colin Key wrote:
Anyone else disagree with this?

I can't disagree (no experience), but I was surprised to read it...

keithreeder wrote:
JimN wrote:
I agree with most of your comments, but the 100-400mm is a bit heavier than the 400mmF5.6, not lighter.

He means the 100-400mm is lighter than the Sigma, Jim.


Oops. My bad. I misread his post.

Colin Key wrote:
JimN wrote: The 100-400mm is faster than the 500mm with a 1.4x TC ............. attached.



Anyone else disagree with this? I use both lenses on a 1DMk3 and almost always have a x1.4TC on the 500mm but would say that the latter is decidedly faster at AF.

Colin

Colin,

It is very close (both the 100-400mm and 500mm + 1.4xTC are F5.6 lenses). The difference depends on the setting of the focus limiting switch and the difference between the starting and ending point of focus. Since the 500mm is more likely to have to travel farther, it is more likely to be slightly slower. The difference is almost non-existant. I guess that was my point. The 100-400mm is quite fast and almost identical to any F5.6 combo I have used.

Jim, you get me close enough in your boat to them birds, and I'll show you how an old 80-200L zoom can kick those fat 500 f/4 and 100-400 a$$es.

PetKal wrote:
Jim, you get me close enough in your boat to them birds, and I'll show you how an old 80-200L zoom can kick those fat 500 f/4 and 100-400 a$$es.

Just let me know when you are ready. I'll get you as close as you want to be. The rest of what you mentioned is easier said than done. We'll see. So far my fat old 500F4 is undefeated.

Some more old PIF shots with 100-400. Please note from the standpoint of camera AF the #1 and #2 were easy. The #3 was a bit harder. That's why I only managed to establish focus on the bird as it was landing.

Nice pigeon shots. You are just kidding around about your challenge aren't you?

JimN wrote:
keithreeder wrote:
JimN wrote:
I agree with most of your comments, but the 100-400mm is a bit heavier than the 400mmF5.6, not lighter.

He means the 100-400mm is lighter than the Sigma, Jim.


Oops. My bad. I misread his post.


=============

Yes, sorry could have put it clearer.

Basically I find the 100-400 great for action in good light. If the light is poor then I find I need to switch to my Sigma 120-300 f2.8.