I can't compare the lens' bokeh to any other lenses, but the sharpness I get with my 100-400L (@400mm, wide open) is quite good. In practical situations it's hard to see a difference with f/8. I also just bought the lens and didn't get any misfocussed shots when I was out with it on Saturday (and I'm really not a very experienced photographer).
So maybe you have a lesser copy of the lens or your camera-lens combination focusses incorrectly. If you're not happy with it; by all means return it.
The 100-400 is my single most favorite lens for wildlife photography - I also have a 300/4 and a 500/4, and while they are sharper, my 100-400 is not that far behind either.
Well i really think you want to sort out "exactly" what you want to use the lens/combo for prior to parting with your money.
The 300F4 with a TC cannot take shots requiring a focal length of only 150mm.
That is the whole point of the zoom and to compare a 100-400 to a prime is unfair on both.
If you are shooting long then by all means go prime but if you require the flexibility of the zoom then the 300F4 wont cut it.
You really need to sort out what you need it for and then buy appropriately.
The 100-400 offers great flexibility which i use every day i go out carrying the lens.
This photo was taken less than 2 seconds after taking a 150mm side view of the same F18 taking off.Thats not possible either with a prime or a second body.
The shot has been jpg'd to within an inch of its life to give you some idea of how good the 3MB original was.
Anyway sort out what you need the length for then buy appropriately but dont expect a 100-400 to be as sharp as a 300F4.But by the same token don't expect the 300F4 to be anywhere near as flexible as the 100-400.
Have fun.
Darren
Just FYI... the 100-400L can be had from Dell for around $1200 if you wait for some good coupons. I have one on the way, and It took me a long time to get the courage to spend $1000+ for it, but I'm confident the 100-400L is worth it. We've all seen the photos that it's capable of producing...
I also have the 70-200L f/4, and I have some of same problems as earlier posters with focusing on the "correct" object. I have some soft birds and SHARP (and I mean SHARP!) tree limbs and brick walls. My skills (or lack thereof) are still being developed. After all, that's why it's not called a Point and Shoot.
This one of your shots, for example, looks very front-focused: http://www.pbase.com/saaketham/image/42040292/original
If you look at the bit of the tree that the bird is on, when it reaches the bottom of the frame it's the sharpest part of the image.
I pretty much always shoot with my 100-400 at f/8 when using it at 400mm, and even then the DoF is wafer thin. f/11 would be better, but with the lack of light we typically have in the UK, I'd need to increase the ISO past 400.
Some of your shutter speeds look a little low, too, based on my experience. I generally try for at least 1/200th when shooting at 400mm, despite it having IS. Birds can move very fast, and any movement during a 1/125th shot will ruin the sharpness.
When you see other people posting really sharp shots of birds, they have generally got very close indeed to the subject. The closer you get, the better the AF works, because the bird is a bigger target for it. I find if I don't get close enough, pretty much the best I can hope for is to get the focus on the edge of the bird, ending up with a sharp wing, and soft front of body and head, for example.
If you do return it and get a 300/4L IS instead, I'd be very interested to hear about the results you get with the new lens.
One other suggestion besides the plan I mentioned earlier for testing for front- or back- focusing....Have you tried shooting with the IS off while on tripod? This requires improved technique of course, but it may help. I can usually get away with leaving the IS on on my 100-400L tripod-mounted. Occasionally I get a knocking sound and the image starts to jump around, so I shut down the camera and reset. But I have a 300/4 IS, and with it, the image quality goes to blazes if I leave IS on and lock it down on a tripod. Possibly your 100-400L is less tolerant of being locked than my 100-400L.... ...Show more →
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.
Ditto to that, my initial results with the 100-400 weren't very good either but there were enough gems in the dirt for me to realize the potential was there.
This one of your shots, for example, looks very front-focused:
Maybe it is a case of camera-lens combo not working perfectly in tandem. Or maybe I'm screwing up the focus. But, like you saw in the pics with the Sigma 150 and even my 70-200 f/4 (second copy), I do get the focus right. So, it might be that I'm not used to the lens yet and need more time as someone already suggested.
I'd be very interested to hear about the results you get with 300 f/4
Of course.
Have you tried shooting with the IS off while on tripod?
I did, but it's so windy in Stillwater all the time these days (at least when I have the time to go out and shoot) and, my tripod's a POS from Walmart that the slightest breeze shakes the lens a lot. But I'll test it for front-back focus issues as I'm seeing this in most of my photos.
100-400L can be had from Dell for $1200 with good coupons.
Are there any valid coupons at the moment? Thanks.
300F4 + TC cannot take shots requiring a focal length of 150mm.
True, but I rarely take photos of sports of fast-moving subjects, except sometimes I do like to take pics of (dirt) bikers. And, I have a sharp 150mm prime. Of course, it's not easy to switch lenses to get 150mm for something that'll have disappeared by that time.
Thanks for all your help, folks. I'll
- Shoot with and without IS on the tripod
- Test for front-back focus
- Stop the lens down to f/8 or f/11 and see the difference in sharpness. But there goes my background blur at those narrow apertures
- Shoot at 300-350mm instead of all out at 400mm, where the lens is known to be soft
saaketham wrote:
I did, but it's so windy in Stillwater all the time these days (at least when I have the time to go out and shoot) and, my tripod's a POS from Walmart that the slightest breeze shakes the lens a lot. But I'll test it for front-back focus issues as I'm seeing this in most of my photos.
Thanks for all your help, folks. I'll
- Shoot with and without IS on the tripod
Given your above synopsis of your tripod, I'm not sure any lens is going to have a fair chance. The 100-400 is one of the lenses Canon recommends turning off the IS while mounted on a tripod.
- Test for front-back focus
You might be better off doing that test indoors with a target. Your lens/body combo might have issues, but it sounds like you have way too many other variables right now to do any determination from general pics.
- Stop the lens down to f/8 or f/11 and see the difference in sharpness. But there goes my background blur at those narrow apertures
- Shoot at 300-350mm instead of all out at 400mm, where the lens is known to be soft
Regardless of whether you choose to keep the 100-400 or go another route for over 600mm FOV, if one of your primary concerns is sharpness at maximum FOV, you really should buy a sturdy tripod/head combo and use a remote release. As you've found out, focusing is going to be a challenge initially and that isn't going to change going to a 300/4 w/tc.
If "bokeh" is just as important as sharpness, as would seem to be the case from your earlier posts, you need to consider a used 300 2.8. You can't compare fairly a macro lens bokeh at a lesser focusing distance to a slow telephoto.
Given your above synopsis of your tripod, I'm not sure any lens is going to have a fair chance. The 100-400 is one of the lenses Canon recommends turning off the IS while mounted on a tripod. Regardless of whether you choose to keep the 100-400 or go another route for over 600mm FOV, if one of your primary concerns is sharpness at maximum FOV, you really should buy a sturdy tripod/head combo and use a remote release. As you've found out, focusing is going to be a challenge initially and that isn't going to change going to a 300/4 w/tc
I do use a remote release !
If "bokeh" is just as important as sharpness, as would seem to be the case from your earlier posts, you need to consider a used 300 2.8. You can't compare fairly a macro lens bokeh at a lesser focusing distance to a slow telephoto.
300 f/2.8 - wish I had that kinda money to spend. I do need a better tripod for sure. The one I have now is a 4-year old one which I bought when I first got a camcorder. Speaking of bokeh, the 300 f/4 seems to produce good bokeh!
It sounds like you don't really need the flexibility of the zoom. Everything always comes down to focal length. If you need the zoom, keep the zoom. If you need the length more, buy a prime. That's all there is to it.
I bought this lens 2/10/05 and have not been happier .I upgraded from a bigma. Here are some shots
Wow. #1 and #3 are sharp, at least to my standards. Mind telling me what the focal length and exposure settings were for those shots? Maybe it is a simple matter of the focus not hitting the target in my case then. hmmm
#1 1/1600s f/5.6 at 400.0mm iso200
#2 1/200s f/5.6 at 400.0mm iso400
#3 1/3200s f/5.6 at 400.0mm iso400
I use center point focus and all were handheld. # 2 was a quick shot to capture the moment and was in the shade . But for 1/200 hand held its good for me. I like this lens for the versitility.
It has nice bokeh too http://www.pbase.com/jra111/image/39914715.jpg
1/1600s f/5.6 at 310.0mm iso400
Buy a better tripod and I'd almost be willing to bet the ranch that your shots will improve dramatically. Get rid of the walmart legs, and go get a set of Bogen/Manfrotto legs. The 3021 series is their most popular and for good reason. While they are no Gitzo legs, they are still very good. There is also the 055MF series that is carbon fiber and nicely priced.
Shoot with IS off, when you are on the tripod. Also if you are shooting any birds, get the idea of handheld out of your head. A gimbal style head is needed to shoot any bird action. Also don't expect miracles from attaching a 2X. Teleconveters degrade image quality on almost any lens, let alone a zoom. Unless you are shooting a 300/2.8 don't expect miracles from a tc.
Lastly, I think some of your shots are not bad at all. It might not be the quality of an image taken with a 135L or similar but I think the lens is fine. Maybe a fine tune adjustment is needed which Canon will do if you send your gear into them. Keep your shutter speed up, your ISO low, and your aperture around F7.1 or F8 and I think you'll get some nice captures.
My main requirements
- Should include head, cannot justify spending more on a costly head since I'm no pro
- Should allow low-level photography for macros in the field
While I'm at it, I'm also thinking of getting a monopod as well. So I can go into museums, etc that don't allow tripods. Thanks.
You should always get a tripod that can hold 40-50% more than your maximum needs. Also take into consideration your typical working height, maximum height, minimum height, etc. If you are below 5' 5", the 3001 may fit the bill but is still a little on the lightweight side, should you ever wante heavier gear. Every ounce counts. I had a 3021 that was rock solid, but had to sell bc it was so heavy with the head. The legs with head alone totalled out to 7lbs I think. My current setup, a Gitzo 1228/Acratech head/Wimberly sidekick weighs 1/2 of that, and holds probably double. I think the 3021BPRO has the ability to allow for macro work. the 3001PRO/BPRO would also allow for the same. Anything with a PRO in it using the horizontal column adapter. Check out this link, and you'll learn a ton. I am not saying do every bit the way Thom is outlining, but he gives a good understand of support.
Mind telling me what the focal length and exposure settings were for those shots? Maybe it is a simple matter of the focus not hitting the target in my case then. hmmm