I'll be returning the 100-400 this noon and have already placed an order for the 300mm f/4 IS and a 1.4x TC. Thanks to everyone who gave me samples, advice and encouragement. Hope to have the 300 with me for at least 1 year.
Now, I have the 17-35, a Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro (which replaced my 100 macro and 70-200 f/4). The 150, to me, is a good replacement for the 70-200, on which I mostly shot between 150-200mm. +, it's 1 stop faster and it's as sharp or sharper than 70-200 f/4 and, lifesize macro. So, the 150 covers the entire range from 70-200, in a sense, for me. And, with the 300 IS, I'll be getting a sharp, excellent 300mm f/4 IS, a good 420mm f/5.6 with IS and an acceptable 600mm f/8 with IS with my 1.4x and 2x Extenders.
Thanks for everyone who helped me make a decision. Hope to post shots from the new lens next week. I'll be taking it to Eureka Springs, AR for the Cat Shoot next weekend. Hope to get some nice shots there. Thanks all, again. This is a wonderful forum.
Anil
ORIGINAL POST
Much as I hate myself for the buy lens-return lens-buy lens circus yet again, I must say I don't think the 100-400 is worth the $1500. The lens is kinda sharp upto around 300. When I say sharp, I'm comparing it with the 70-200 f/4 and Sigma 150 - both renowned for sharpness, so it may not be a fair comparison. But if the only real sharp portion of the zoom is upto 300mm, then I might as well buy a much cheaper, much more sharper 300mm f/4 IS and add a 1.4x for 420mm f/5.6 and 2x TC in a pinch for a 600mm f/8.
I've narrowed down my replacement to the following
1. Canon 300mm f/4
2. Canon 300mm f/4 IS
3. Canon 400mm f/5.6
I'm leaning toward #1 and might buy it tomorrow to avoid more stress. Any thoughts - if you think I'm being stupid, please tell me so.
Edited by saaketham on Apr 17, 2005 at 09:06 PM GMT
Edited by saaketham on Apr 22, 2005 at 08:56 PM GMT
Please don't take this the wrong way, but how much have you used the lens, and are you sure the shots that weren't as sharp as you wanted were focused properly?
The reason I ask is that I find it very hit and miss to get this lens to focus accurately due to the very shallow DoF at 400mm. I just have to keep shooting, and hope that I get a good shot out of many. I think it's because it's an f/5.6 lens, and you lose the benefit of the more accurate 1 series AF with a lens slower than f/4. Let me give an example - I could tell that it just wasn't accurately locking onto this small bird, so I tried manual focus. It's easy to see that I failed miserably (but this is much better than the AF was doing, I could see that in the viewfinder), and the bird is blurred, but a bit of the tree further back is very sharp, so clearly the lens is capable of delivering this sharpness when focus is perfect. Full frame:
And here's an example of it getting it right, though this was the only shot where it got the focus on the eye, I had to shoot several and reject the rest after looking at them on the PC. Full frame:
It's possible that a 400/5.6, say, would focus better, but I wouldn't be able to handhold it in typical UK weather due to the lack of IS, so that's a non-starter for me. Personally, I've been toying with the idea of the 400 DO to get the more accurate f/4 AF in a more easily carryable lens than the 500 f/4 I already have. Incidentally, the 1.4 TC badly degrades the AF performance of the 500 f/4, I don't know how badly it degrades the 300 f/4's AF.
This is interesting, as I just sent my 100-400 to Canon Repair (just 4 days from warranty ending). It is currently being worked on at no charge. I don't know what they are doing, but I can't wait to get it back and try it out (20D).
I do believe there is a certain degree of trial and error, but I had mostly soft shots at distant objects.
If anyone is interested in the results, PM me. I should have it back within a week.
Alan
The 100-400is is a great lens. But its a known fact its gets soft past 300mm. I replaced the 100-400is with a 300 f4 IS and a 1.4x II convertor. Very happy with this combo. Plus the lens is smaller and lighter.
I'm not trashing the 100-400 totally. Just frustrated with my experience using it. I haven't used it a long time, but I only have 30 days to return it. My main point of defence is that for $1500, this lens isn't pulling its weight. I could get a 300mm f/4 for $ 1100, after the current MIR. And a 1.4x TC for $ 280. Which brings the total to a 420mm f/5.6 L lens with renowned sharpness for a total of $ 1380. And, the 1.4x can be used on other lenses as well, so I think it might be more sensible than the 100-400. Again, it could very well be me, but I've had very good results with the 70-200 f/4, Sigma 150, etc. So, it's kind of frustrating to have soft pics at anything above 300mm.
It's a lens that can definitely wow you should things be ideal. Is it possible there is a problem with the technique you are using? I've had mine for about 6 or 7 months now, and am only beginning to finally get the images I've been striving for with it. What shutter speeds are you shooting with? Aperture? Tripod? Handheld? IS on or off? Any examples to show?
If you are going to rely on TCs for more length with every shot, simply go longer with the lens itself.
I owned the 100-400 for a short while and admittedly didn't give myself much time with it but the speed bugged me more than any softness I observed. Not enough sun where I live for me to justify owning it.
I currently use the 135L, 70-200 2.8 IS and the 300f4. I feel I have a very sharp 70-200 but it just can't compare to these 2 primes. It would be hard to give up the big zoom for its flexibility but you just can't beat the quality of these primes. That 300 2.8 or 2.8 IS must really be something.
The flexibility of the 100-400L is really nice. Mine seems to sharpen up quite a bit if I back off the maximum focal length just slightly to 365 or even 380mm. You probably recall the picture of the ospreys on their nest I sent you along with a 100% crop. It may be worth your while to do a test by pointing the lens at a brick wall or something similarly flat (flat is important for this) quite aways away (20 yards or more) and taking a series of manually focused shots, starting deliberately focused too far away , and manually nudging the lens a bit between each shot until you have gone through the area of sharp DOF and are clearly focused too near. (you could do that in reverse of course). If the autofocused shot is not sharp, but any of the manually focused shots aren't sharp, you probably have a problem with the camera focusing a teeny bit too close or too far away with that particular lens.
The point of this is to check if your camera and lens are attuned to each other so that the combination autofocuses correctly. I've not experienced this myself, but I've seen accounts by some people who found that their camera and lens weren't autofocusing properly, and got things fixed by sending the camera and lens to Canon for synchronization.
If you found that you got a nice sharp photo in the above exercise, you'd have to choose between either sending your camera and lens (probably all lenses) to Canon to be calibrated together, or (more likely) send the 100-400L back, and buy another one, probably from a different source.
Have you considered biting the bullet and going for a 300/2.8 lens? To be anywhere near the same cost, you'd have to go for a non-IS version, either the old Canon or a third-party lens. I still think you'd prefer the 600mm focal length (plus crop) over the 400 or 420mm focal length when shooting birds.
Edited by MikeBinOKlahom on Apr 18, 2005 at 07:17 AM GMT
I broke down and bought a 300F4L IS last month for sharp pictures and am quite happy with the lens. Not so happy when it comes to the 300 + a tamron SP 1.4x T/C. Plus got screwed on the rebate
However, the 100-400 is on my next lens list and with the current rebate, am inclining towards purchasing it. Looking to buy this myself, Do you have a 100% non-resized crop of the lens at 400mm and one at 800mm with the 2x T/C that i may look at.
Do you have a 100% non-resized crop of the lens at 400mm and one at 800mm with the 2x T/C that i may look at. 400mm 400mm 800mm with Canon EF 2x TC
As for the images posted earlier, it's true that some of them look alright, but like I said before, they're highly downsized, so they look alright. When I say its not sharp, I'm comparing to cheaper primes like the 300mm f/4 IS or 400mm f/4 IS. Some pics from these lenses show so much feather detail, and the bokeh is so creamy that it leaves me dissatisfied with the 100-400. Maybe I'm just being an_l.
I'm tempted to buy this lens after looking at your pictures. I don't understand why you don't like the images. The DOF is extremely shallow and very little of the pictures are in focus. The red flowers are almost all out of focus except for a few small places, it looks like you focused on some of the leaves in front of the flowers. The parts that are focused look fine. All they need is some Photoshop work to make them pop.
I don't understand why you don't like the images.
Ok, compare this pic taken with a Sigma 150 at the same place at about the same time. Look at the difference in bokeh! No processing - straight-from-the-camera. I understand that the Sigma was at 150 and is a macro lens. But for $1500, I would hope to get much better bokeh than what I get from the 100-400.
