Colin Key wrote:
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
Much faster IMO as well. And if it's not faster, then I'm not sure why it's keeper rate is much higher.
The supertele AF motors are the highest performing in the lens line-up and adding a 1.4x TC will only slow them in so far as the light is reduced and Canon's algorithms slow them.
Here are a couple to continue the show and tell. Sure its not as quick as the 500mm f/4 but it is no slouch either. One very important point to consider is that the 100-400 has very close focusing capability and if you are shooting quick action subjects that are further than 6.5 m away - be sure to switch on the focus limiter (6.5m – infinity). That switch alone will greatly reduce auto-focusing time.
I love my 100-400, and I can't imagine ever selling it.
Mark
Sweet F-18 shot!!
That's the main reason I picked up my 100-400...just wish I had done it before Luke's air show this year in Phoenix. However, I'm glad I wasn't able to test the dust pump option on the second day of the air show. The wind and dust was so bad they had to end the show early.
after researching for long time i decided to buy the 400f5.6L because my main use would be sport and wildlife (especially birds in flight) and both need fast AF. i couldnt be happier after about 4 years of use.
Colin Key wrote:
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
I agree with Colin the 500 plus 1.4tc is way faster. I find the 100-400 afis fast enough but not so consistent on my 1D3. On the 5D2 its another story the 100-400 is very consistent. The Af is faster on the prime 400 5.6. I find the flexibility of the zoom and IS outways any loss in af speed.
Believe it or not, I have not used the 1.4xTC on the 500 f/4 even once.
I guess the reason is that I value AF drive speed and IQ much more than the focal length.
Unfortunately, I also do not have Canon AF drive speed specs on the two lenses in question. What we do know is that Canon's 1.4xTC cuts the speed down by about 50 % by design.
My guess is that 500 f/4 speed is about 0.4-0.5 sec. With 1.4xTC that becomes 0.6 to 0.75 sec.
I am also guessing the 100-400 AF drive speed is somewhere around 0.6-0.7 seconds.
Therefore, I'd say the 100-400 and 500 f/4+ 1.4xTC would have comparable AF drive speeds. Any photographer would have a hard time telling speed differences of the order of 0.1-0.2 seconds. That would then go towards explaining varying opinion on which one is "faster".
PetKal wrote:
Believe it or not, I have not used the 1.4xTC on the 500 f/4 even once.
I guess the reason is that I value AF drive speed and IQ much more than the focal length.
Unfortunately, I also do not have Canon AF drive speed specs on the two lenses in question. What we do know is that Canon's 1.4xTC cuts the speed down by about 50 % by design.
My guess is that 500 f/4 speed is about 0.4-0.5 sec. With 1.4xTC that becomes 0.6 to 0.75 sec.
I am also guessing the 100-400 AF drive speed is somewhere around 0.6-0.7 seconds.
Therefore, I'd say the 100-400 and 500 f/4+ 1.4xTC would have comparable AF drive speeds. Any photographer would have a hard time telling speed differences of the order of 0.1-0.2 seconds. That would then go towards explaining varying opinion on which one is "faster"....Show more →
Like I said before, it's very close, but there are other factors invloved when comparing apples and oranges. Because of focal length, focus limiter settings, start and end focus distance, etc the 500+1.4xTC is likely to be just a little slower, but not always.
This morning I lucked upon a 1/2 dozen Common Terns fishing.
Unfortunately, had the 100-400 on the camera (1DMkIIN).
The lens struggled with smaller, faster and irregular flying targets.
Not only f/5.6 aperture delays the camera's AF response, the AF lens element group just moves slower than 400 f/5.6, 300 f/4 etc. I feel I would have done much better this morning even if I had the 180L.
I suppose one can get some keepers with just about any lens, however, the key difference is in the keeper rate and the effort one needs to put into it.
Thus, I've come to the same conclusion from 3 years ago: the lens goes back to the stationary/slow target duty where it performs very well for me.
Here are three a bit more interesting shots with the 100-400 from this morning.
I am going to buy a used 100-400 tonight. I want it to shoot my son doing crew/rowing. This is an easy event to shoot as far as tracking the subject.
Everything I read here seems to confirm my purchase. For shooting something with predictable movements the 100-400 can handle it. For shooting objects that move in irregular patterns that make it harder to anticipate and lock in the focus, a prime would be better. I want the flexibility of the zoom over the prime, even if the prime is supposed to give a little better quality picture.
My son is moving from basketball to crew. Shooting outdoors in the sunlight with a subject moving in a predictable manner sure is a lot easier than indoor basketball.
That's good, Whayne.......that is not an easy shot to make.
Indeed, the terns are not quite sharp mostly due to AF issues. Mind you, those are large crops as well, so I should call the sharpness just sufficient.
There was no real focus lock on those birds with the 100-400 at that distance and with non-vacant background. To be more specific, focus hunts in and out between the background and the bird, so one releases the shutter when one sees good bird focus appearing in the VF for a fraction of a second. And after a focus loss, rebooting the AF results in a slow focus re-acquisition. And that repeats itself...
As I said before often enough, in my experience the 100-400 is not an ideal lens for those kinds of shots, and I have had better performance from 180L on those very same shot types, not to mention 400 f/5.6 and 300 f/4 non-IS etc.
To be fair, what also needs to be said about the 100-400 and its performance on Common Terns in flight is that the target is a fairly challenging one, as anyone who has shot that species for even an hour starts to appreciate quickly. Although that tern normally doesn't fly very fast when fishing, it does it in an undulating manner....the period of those oscillations is one full wing stroke. The amplitude of such wave is quite large. A flight patter similar to that of woodpeckers except with much shorter wave period and larger dips. Even if one disregards frequent and very sudden changes in speed/direction, such undulating flight causes tracking difficulties.
In comparison, the larger Caspian Tern is much more of a bee-line flyer, very similar to seagulls, and IMO they are more within the 100-400 performance capability.
Sorry, I haven't used a 100-400L, although I had one for very short time. I liked its size, but I wasn't sure if I should have kept it just for that. For action shots, I trust my 300/2.8L for sure even with 1.4x TC, like this one:
Anyway, folks, in order to round up our educational programming on Common Tern in-flight photography with 100-400, here is what the little beastie looks like when it is sitting on its butt.
