I recently purchased a used Canon 30D, and brand new Canon 100-400mm lens.
My questions are, am I seeing the lenses short comings or still on the learning curve of this lenses sweet spots? To me it just seems it's not the sharp as I'd like it to be or have seen in some other samples. Now I know it's not going to be as sharp as the 70-200 F2.8 or even F4 IS, but it just seems sometimes I get crystal clear snaps, and other times even at same settings it's not so sharp. Do I need to look into getting this thing calibrated to the used Canon 30D? I can post some samples if needed, but in general is this a lens that really needs a lot of light to perform well? That is the conclusion I am coming to. And for 1400 bucks I can't tell if I'm disappointed or not..but a lot of it is probably user error and still adjusting to it. Could anyone post some shots of non-ideal lighting conditions with the 100-400mm? I just can't give up this awesome focal range for the sharper 70-200 series!!!
Last question is..what is the best way to determine the sweet spot of enough shutter speed to sustain the longer focal ranges yet keeping enough DOF for clear shots with this lens?
At 400mm, it is a long lens. Plus, the aperture at that focal length is only f/5.6. I hate to tell you that it sounds like you have to improve your long lens holding technique with this lens. Are you shooting with some kind of support or did you just handhold the camera/lens combo?
AGeoJO wrote:
At 400mm, it is a long lens. Plus, the aperture at that focal length is only f/5.6. I hate to tell you that it sounds like you have to improve your long lens holding technique with this lens. Are you shooting with some kind of support or did you just handhold the camera/lens combo?
Thank you for the reply, yes I am hand-holding at 400mm b/c I thought the IS would help, but after doing some research and seeing that it's not the same generation as the new 70-200F4 IS it seems I haven't gotten away from the days of having to lug around monopod.
Without IS and at 400mm, the generally accepted shutter speed should be around 1/500 sec. But still you have to brace yourself and hold the combo really steady. That particular IS of that lens, should give you 2 stop advantage or 1/125 sec. If you use a monopod, you will get at least another 1 stop advantage, 1/60 sec. Again, if you can reasonable hold the setup steady. Yes, use a monopod as much as you can and the monopod will support the weight and make using that lens less tiring.
You can use the IS with a monopod. Do so as if you were hand-holding the lens. However, do not use the IS on a secure tripod because it goes unstable and causes its own image blur.
The info posted above is correct but you may find that the typical 1/(1.6 x focal length) is too slow for your hand-holding technique (or physique) and so a faster shutter speed will not hurt. The IS helps but it is always relative to what you can do without IS. If you experiment wthout the IS active then you'll learn what your limit is as well as eliminate a possible source of variation.
An important consideration if you are new to IS is that this lens needs a full second between starting the IS and being ready to shoot with a stabilized image. During that time it has to get its act together and is not functioning properly. It can actually make things worse than having no IS. Once it is up and running you can use it without further delays but every time you let the IS stop you must allow it to start up again for that full second.
Likewise if you are panning horizontally or vertically then you should use Mode 2 IS because mode 1 can get upset and also cause more problems than having no IS. If you are panning diagonally (as when following a plane or bird in flight) then switch the IS off because it is not intended to work that way even in mode 2.
Even with IS functioning correctly it will do almost nothing to prevent subject motion - just the effects of lens motion. If you are shooting moving targets then you will almost always need a faster shutter speed than for static subjects - possibly much faster.
And then there is the matter of using the camera AF correctly. At 400mm this lens may give you less depth of field than you are used to and that may reveal focus problems that were always there but not particularly evident with shorter focal lengths. If you are using AI Servo mode then do not start the AF until you have the chosen AF sensor on the intended subject or else the camera will track the wrong thing and cause what seems to be focus errors, even though it is working as designed. [but combine this with the need to start IS before you use it - you might have to tap and release the shutter button to initiate the IS and then press it again later when you are on-target]
If in doubt then crank up the ISO. It is easier to remove image noise caused by high ISO than it is to remove image blur caused by too slow a shutter speed.
I have only recently purchased the 100-400 IS having traded it for the 400 prime. I handheld my prime lens all the time and got really sharp shots and handhold this lens as well. I have noticed that I need to stop down a little on the zoom to achieve sharp results in many cases but not all. At 400mm it is not quite as sharp as the prime was but very good. It is nowhere near as sharp as my 70-200 f4 IS but for the reach I feel it is a very good buy although VERY heavy
Be patient with this lens as you should with any new lens. Long lens technique is important and don't expect great results in poor light. I had a 400 L prime, a 500 f/4 IS, a 400 f/4 DO and they all had a learning curve to them and each gave me a few frustrations. I am now shooting the same lens you mention 100-400 L and I am thrilled with it in every way.
Now, here is a tidbit to consider also, I don't know your processing abilities so take this in a open manner, there are some incredible images that pass through these forums, many simply are outstanding in every aspect. If you are looking for 'sharpness' only it often is the result of how the image is processed. I think in a short period of time you will grow to love this lens and realize its abilities are mostly up to the user and long lenses will magnify our mistakes so be understanding of that.
Hope this was helpful, keep shooting it, use center point for focus, use One Shot mode on static shots. If in doubt use more ISO to get your shutter speed up then realize where your cutoff is handholding with IS, everyone is different and Tony is quite masterful at the slow speeds handholding, not me
When I had a copy of this lens some time back, I had trouble getting consistently sharp (or in focus if you will) shots wide open. You might try stopping down a bit. I got pretty consistent results stopping down to f6.3 and also backing off on the focal length just a tad.
You should be able to shoot hand-held with IS down to about 1/180s with consistent results. Adjust your ISO and DOF to achieve that SS or faster.
saywhuut wrote:
I recently purchased a used Canon 30D, and brand new Canon 100-400mm lens. ...
...it just seems sometimes I get crystal clear snaps, and other times even at same settings it's not so sharp.
You just said the lens is capable of producing high quality images, which generally means the not-so-good results are usually the photographer's fault.
Examples always help, but basically it just sounds like you are expecting too much from the lens. 400mm is quite long and f5.6 max aperture does not equal low-light shooting fun. IS is great, but it is not magic. Focus on your technique. I find that I can shoot down to around 1/160th at 400mm with that lens, sometimes down to 1/100th, but I have to pay attention to what I am doing (stance, breathing, etc.) and even so it can be tough to get razor-sharp detail.
Indeed, the push-pull design doesn't bother me that much.
I recently re-acquired the 100-400 and oh my what a pleasant surprise. My copy is tack sharp across all focal lengths and at 400mm, I swear it looks almost as sharp (if not as sharp) as the 500 at f/4. Optically speaking, I find nothing lacking about this lens. The most notable change that Canon could do IMO would be to add the latest generation image stabilizer.
I agree with lots of the other comments. I acquired a 100-400mm about 2 years ago. It has taken me around 18 months to get to grips with getting good shots at 400mm. Now I'm delighted with how sharp the lens is.
I did some tests with my lens mounted on a tripod shooting a Turkish bank note that has some very fine detail on it, I actually found that f5.6 @ 400mm was sharper than f8.0 @ 400mm. I now shoot wide open all the time at 400mm unless there is a reason why I need the extra DOF. The lens is pretty much as sharp as I could want it to be and actually better than my 70-200mm F4.0 which I always thought was superb.
it's a great lens and sharp and I agree with the one person about tracking with this lens to me it's the only shortcoming I see. Today I was shooting some BIF shots and I missed a few and I was thinking damn I wish I had a 400 5.6 but the zoom is more practical for me.
Did you guy your lens new? Reason I ask is it seems more people have better luck with the UW date code
saywhuut wrote:
Now I know it's not going to be as sharp as the 70-200 F2.8 or even F4 IS...
Not sure I agree with that.
Anyway, the nits I can come out with for the 100-400 are flimsy hood design, less than ideal manual focusing ring system, AF a bit slower than its prime brother and I'd prefer a twist zoom rather than a push-pull. My 100-400 is as sharp as my 400 5.6L at 400 mm wide open though.
tanglefoot47 wrote:
it's a great lens and sharp and I agree with the one person about tracking with this lens to me it's the only shortcoming I see. Today I was shooting some BIF shots and I missed a few and I was thinking damn I wish I had a 400 5.6 but the zoom is more practical for me.
Did you guy your lens new? Reason I ask is it seems more people have better luck with the UW date code
Given its design intent as well as the price, it's hard to criticise the 100-400.
Yeah, I know, f/5.6 is not f/4......however, look at the money one has to dish out to get 400mm @ f/4.
Therefore, I can only find two areas for improvement:
(1) Copy-to-copy consistency. They should be all very good to excellent.
(2) AF drive is distinctly sluggish. Although I suspect Canon might have had a good reason of making (leaving) it such, we don't know that for sure.
