EB-1 wrote:
I'm on the third 100-400, and not yet the newest cosmetic version. Canon put the crappy switches on the newer lenses to prevent klutzes from accidentally changing settings. Unfortunately this makes it very difficult for changing settings without naked and strong skin on the fingers.
EB
That's a good point. People in cold climates should complain. Not about anything in particular though.
PS - My 4 year old 100-400 is a great lens. The most important aspects are it's flexible and fun.
yauyi, My copy performs much like yours...perhaps Canon enforced its QC on this lens a bit more after finding many complaints pertaining to this lens. What ever the case be, I am very happy with my copy.
I bought my 100-400 in September last year, And I have been very impressed with this lens! I got a nice sharp copy, And I find I also like to use it for close up stuff. I might even get some extension tubes so I can get even closer.
Here is a photo I took of some dragonflies with my 100-400 at 400 f/5.6:
Wow, looks like there are more people who are happy with the sharpness of their copy than I had expected. thank you guys for sharing all those stunning shots!!
Romy is one of those people I mention who have a great copy of this lens, and often praise about his 100-400 on other forum you guys are the reason that I was willing to gamble in hope of getting a good one The bokeh of this lens is not the smoothest, and it is obvious in harsh lightning with busy background or foreground, now that I think about it....the choppiness looks similar to my 24-105, maybe it is a 4x zoom thing?? It is not bad when I get closer to the target, and if the background and foreground objects are further away though. Oh yea, hand holding at 400mm(640mm in 1.6x) can be challenging so I'll need more practice for sure.
I'm doing the good ol' dollar bill test comparing sharpness with and without the Kenko 1.4X extender, I had to tape 3 pins and notice the AF hunt a bit, but it's good enough to use in good light with high contrast, the image quality with the 1.4x is impressive, but for some reason the EXIF file does not report the actual focal length and the real F number, why? is it because of the taped pins? the exposure did show that it is half of what I'm getting without the extender....strange.
40D with Kenko Pro 1.4x
560mm
f/5.6 (wide open, should be f/8.0?)
1/1500s
ISO 200
MLU enable
10s timer (don't have a cable release)
Rig is setup on el-cheapo tripod I bought about 10yrs ago from Best Buy
Weather condition: Sunny and clear sky
Note: by the way, forgot to mention these are all 100% crop, the target is about 10ft away from the camera. Image stabilizer was off except the last one that I hand held without extender.
40D with Kenko Pro 1.4x
560mm with Kenko Pro 1.4x
f/8.0 (should be f/11.0?)
1/750s
ISO 200
MLU enable
10s timer (don't have a cable release)
Rig is setup on el-cheapo tripod I bought about 10yrs ago from Best Buy
Weather condition: Sunny and clear sky
not sure if you notice but I saw a very tiny sharpness increase wtih 1 stop down when viewing on my 37" 1080p LCD (1920x1080 res.), but the difference is so small that I'm sure it can be level out if I bump up 1 notch of sharpness in DPP.
40D with Kenko Pro 1.4x
560mm
f/11.0 (should be f/16.0?)
1/350s
ISO 200
MLU enable
10s timer (don't have a cable release)
Rig is setup on el-cheapo tripod I bought about 10yrs ago from Best Buy
Weather condition: Sunny and clear sky
this one looks almost identical to the wide open shot, weird. 2 stops down did not gain any sharpness even when I pixel peep the detail at 300%...maybe due to the crappy tripod I was using.
Fred Relaix wrote:
I am getting mine next week in New York, and I am already planning a trip to the Bronx zoo the following day! I cannot wait. Before that I tried one from a FM member leaving in Paris and was really impressed, here are a 100% crop from my test of the lens, 5D, 400mm f/5.6, some sharpening, EXIF included.
Hope you get a good copy of this lens too, maybe check the lens date code just for the heck of it By the way, maybe it's just me but I think the last two BIFs photos are kinda over-processed, they looks unnatural on my monitor...but i like the composition though.
I’ve got a UV02 which I bought in June 2007; I’m not really impressed by its sharpness, especially 400mm wide open... I hope it’s only user error, but I feel that it’s the lens too.
Going to purchase another copy some time and check it out, but congratulations with your one!
aero145 wrote:
I’ve got a UV02 which I bought in June 2007; I’m not really impressed by its sharpness, especially 400mm wide open... I hope it’s only user error, but I feel that it’s the lens too.
Going to purchase another copy some time and check it out, but congratulations with your one!
thanks. have you tried yours on tripod with MLU? I have to admit...initially I thought most copies are either mediocre, or plain unacceptable! and kept hearing stories that it's rare to find a good copy, I also saw someone from another forum reported that he is on the 4th copies and still not happy with it, stories like that really had me worry for awhile. But it looks like there are more people who own a good copy and are very happy with it than I had expected. I went back to the-digital-picture.com and read the review again, the report pretty much reflect that of my copy as well, in the shorter zoom range I do find that stopping down 1/2~1 stop do increase sharpness somewhat. But virtually no gain in sharpness for me at the longer range where the lens start at f/5.6 instead of f/4.5. This lens make a very nice addition to my 24-105 for sure.
I was at a photography club meeting last night with a district sales manager from Canon and he was discussing the 100-400 L and I asked if there were any plans to update the lens (IS, etc) and he said no (of course he also said he's the last to know anything). I sold my sharp copy recently because it was my most used lens (ok, I'm trying to force myself to do things differently.....) and if they do update the IS then I'd have a good reason to buy a new one... no such luck. bummer.
I bought one in Feb., and am completely satisfied with the optical quality. Out of curiosity, I did careful testing at various apertures (mirror lock-up, etc.), and found only a tiny improvement in micro-contrast from f/5.6 to 6.3, and again from there to 7.1 (at 400 mm). This was on a 1DMkIII. AF is accurate and consistent. Considering the versatility of the lens, I could hardly be happier, other than wishing for the latest version of IS. The IS on this lens is certainly helpful, but not up to the level of the newer lenses.
