I'm hoping that I like this 100-400 lens. I just bought one on Friday from Dell for a total of $1180 after the Canon $50 rebate. I had a 20% off coupon and a stackable 10% off coupon so couldn't resist the deal. I've been wanting a little more reach and hopefully this fills the void.
I could of got a steal of a deal on the 1DMK2 for $3240-$500 rebate = $2740. Luckily for me tax killed the deal plus I didn't have the money.
saaketham, your probably smart in returning it. I think there are some bum 100-400 out there, unfortunately. In my case, I noticed mine back focusing on my D60 once the lens hit f/5.6 wide open -- where it was as sharp as can be on my A2e film camera in the same situations. While I couldn't narrow the problem down completely, I had it serviced and functioning at spec when I sold it. At this point I have come to the conclusion that it was a camera focusing issue due to the slow focusing aperture and the extremely shallow dof at 400mm.
I hope you get everything worked out, I know how frustrating it can be!!
Saaketham,
one thing to think about when upgrading your tripod is the ballhead you use. It should hold at least your heaviest set-up with some spare capacity. Also, if you're using a larger lens like the 100-400, try to stay away from the smaller ballheads as they are not really made to handle large glass and you'll find your long lenses flopping around more than you like.
At least that has been my experience, for what it is worth.
A tripod made the biggest difference in my shooting. I spent more on the tripod than any lens (so far), and it was worth it. BTW, the 100-400 is next on my list.
I rented a 100-400 L for a weekend last year, and I was underwhelmed by it as well. Most of my use for it would have been at the long end, and it didn't do a thing for me. I got the 400 5.6L as a result, and I have used it with my 1.4x TC. Even though I lose AF with that combo it pleases me more than the 100-400.
I have been attempting to send a PM to Twistphoto but when I click on the PM Icon nothing happens. Can someone here tell me if there is some feature I need to have activated in the forum to do this? What am I missing here?
I just ordered my new 100-400 an hour ago. I purchased the lens after going to a local photo shop here in Montanaand trying out thier copy they have for sale. I used it at all focal lengths from 100 through 400 mm and that baby was sharp as a razors edge with no question. I hate to think there is another quality control problem with this lens as there seems to be with Canons other tele photos such as the 70-200 line.
Just got my lens back from Canon service. All the paper said was overhaul. http://www.pbase.com/nexxus_nc/100400&page=all
First shot out-of-the-box is the white trellis. Distance is about a hundred feet.
Shots of birds: distance is about 50 feet.
All AF, IS, mini tripod mounted on deck railing.
Better!
Alan
Edited by twistphoto on Apr 21, 2005 at 04:53 PM GMT (Reason: "I'm happy" changed to "better".)
twistphoto wrote:
Just got my lens back from Canon service. All the paper said was overhaul. http://www.pbase.com/nexxus_nc/100400&page=all
First shot out-of-the-box is the white trellis. Distance is about a hundred feet.
Shots of birds: distance is about 50 feet. All AF, IS, mini tripod mounted on deck railing. I'm happy! Alan
I mean no offence or insult, but most of the bird pics are blurred, soft and out of focus, when viewed in ORIGINAL mode. This is exactly my problem as well. I can get large subjects to appear relatively sharp, but with smaller ones, it just doesn't cut it for me. And, I'm using a tripod and remote.
Most of the bird pictures are out of focus, and some have motion blur because the bird is moving and shutter is slow. What's causing the focus problem? What does the lens look like when it's focused?
Here are a couple of mine from this afternoon. I'm really trying to like this lens. These pics are aceptable, but nowhere close to the sharp, creamy bokeh images from the 300 f/4 or such primes. I guess I'm just talking myself into the prime. I like shooting primes, especially ones that are good at macro, like the 300 f/4 with extension tubes.
Looks sharp enough to me. Bokeh for the 100-400 is rather messy and definitely not as good as the primes. However, it is the convenience of the zoom that is more important for me. If you know you're going to shoot at 300mm most of the time, then by all means get the prime, otherwise, get the zoom.
saaketham wrote:
creamy bokeh images from the 300 f/4 or such primes.
The background will be more blurred with a 400mm lens if the f-stop and image magnification are the same. That tends to negate the advantage of the bigger aperture on the 300mm.
The background will be more blurred with a 400mm lens if the f-stop and image magnification are the same. That tends to negate the advantage of the bigger aperture on the 300mm.
What about the bokeh? I've seen some really "creamy bokeh" shots of birds and flowers with the 300 f/4. Blur might be the same, but the quality is definitely, IMHO, different. I tend to shoot mostly between 300 and 400mm with the 100-400.
One reason could be the cheap tripod (clamp-pod) I was using. I should upgrade my old slik for something substancial, judging by some of the posts here. I just don't have patience when I want to shoot. Most of the time my shots are hand held.
ALan
You have to compare the bokeh under identical conditions. It's easier to get creamy bokeh when you're close to the subject and the background is far away. That doesn't necessarily mean that the "creamy" lens is better if they were tested with different subjects and different backgrounds. If you want your bokeh to look better, get closer to the subject.
Anil, I think there must be something wrong with your 100-400 if you've taken a lot of shots and haven't got a single decent shot out of it. Here's an example of what I've got from mine at 400mm f/8 (1Ds II). Full frame:
Also, the picture of the duck and crop of its eye that I posted on page 1 of this thread was taken at 400mm f/8 with the 100-400. I think you should return yours, though I'm not sure if you're better off trying a 300 f/4 or another copy of the 100-400. It sounds like you've talked yourself into thinking the 300 f/4 is the better option for you, so I'd say go for it, you'll always be wondering if you don't give it a try.
Edit: BTW that shot was handheld, I don't subscribe to needing a tripod with this lens, what you need is to get as close as possible to the subject - I was perhaps 3m away for that shot.
saaketham wrote:
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.
You do give something up for the convenience of a zoom, especially one that has a 4x range. The Canon does sacrifice a little image quality. Having said that, I'm surprised yours gets that soft at 300mm. Even on my 1Ds, I get acceptably sharp shots up to about 360mm or so. I suspect there is significant sample variation in the 100-400L.
As interested as you are in birds, I doubt you'll be happy with a 70-200 of any sort, even with a teleconverter. Especially if you are unhappy with the images of the 100-400L!
Based on what you say, sounds to me like you need to choose between the 300/4L (IS or non-IS, though I recommend IS) or the 400/5.6L
Steve, No offense but you have the best of the best when it comes to bodies... I would be surprised not too see that kind of detail... I have only had the lens for 2 days and I can def see the learning curve especially handholding.... I really like mine so far, especially at 400...
ISO 640 F/8 1/250 Handheld.... (I didn't remove noise, no PS, except for convert to sRGB)
is that for $1500, this lens isn't pulling its weight.
