Yes, it's a re-hash, but 100-400 vs 400f/5.6 vs 300f/4 for birding

Gus Stangeland said:

A much better alternative would be to get the 400/5.6 without IS - which is much sharper all the way around!

Click to expand...

I am much happier with the 400mm prime than with the 100-400mm zoom lens. I know that some owners of the 100-400mm get great pictures with theirs, but it seems that not everyone is lucky enough to get a good one.

If you go to the B&H web page for the 100-400mm lens and read the reviews, they also are mixed, especially for results at 400mm. It's a shame that a lens at that price point has such inconsistent quality.

One might say it is the photographer and not the lens, but I didn't do anything different except change lenses, and the results with the 400mm prime are much sharper. Not to mention is it a less expensive lens than the 100-400mm zoom lens.

Orb . . .

Gus Stangeland said:

OK, so the bottom line to this thread seems to be that you pay a
stiff price for having a Canon 400mm f/5.6 lens with IS - and that is
you just will NOT get decent (let alone sharp) images. Results seem
to be BETTER with IS turned off, but then what is the point of buying
an IS lens only to turn it off? A much better alternative would be to
get the 400/5.6 without IS - which is much sharper all the way around!

Click to expand...

Funny you mention that, because I'm coming to the same conclusion.

Today I took a few shots of bald eagles with the IS turned off and got some better results, but still far short of the quality photos others have posted on this thread. I'm deciding if I should try sending my lens back to Canon for an adjustment/tune-up or just go ahead and buy a prime lens, either the 400 or the 600. My instincts are telling me (probably because of the other posts here) that I should just drop my 100-400 into the river and order the prime. It really has been frustrating, as you are no doubt aware. But thanks for your initial post; it's been helpful to learn others are having the same problem. That is, it's making it easier for me to go ahead with the prime purchase...

Yes, I'm aware that a lot of birds keep moving, but there are many times where a bird is perched absolutely still. Like a hawk, kestrel or eagle, far away on a post. Having IS to stabilize the lens is a BIG help over trying to hold the 400 prime steady. When I take pictures of stationary birds with my 400 prime, I use the burst mode and usually take 4 or more shots at a time. Invariably one of the shots will look better than the rest and that can only be because at that particular time, the camera was steady. Fortunately flash cards are cheap, but the problem is having to look over at least 4 times as many shots just to find the good one.

I AM happy with the 400 prime - will never sell it, but I miss both the IS and the zoom. A few days ago, while birding, a flock of wild turkeys came strutting right by my cabin. I SO wanted some good pictures of them, but with my 400 prime, all I could do was take some head shots. There have been many other times also when I'd like to zoom back but can't.

Hung Pham said:

I know IS helps alot for composing, but 80% of the time, birds are
moving, so IS won't help.
don't know why you HAVE to find a good copy of 1-4 while you can be
happy with the 400mm prime.
and for those times you carry the 1-4, do you actually use the zoom
or constantly at 400mm?
I am really happy with my 400mm prime just got last week.

Click to expand...

You might be interested to know that I recently sent my new 100-400 lens back to Canon in Irvine for calibration/repair/adjustment. It was in warranty (and still is) so it didn't cost me anything. They supposedly did something to it, butdidn't explain it to me. But anyway, when I got it back, it was just as bad as before.

Also, I sent 2 of the 3 of my previous 100-400 to Canon for repair, along with my XT camera. But they all came back with the same problem. I have NO clue as to what standards they test a lens for, but apparently image quality is not one of them!

The Ron Guy said:

Gus Stangeland said:

OK, so the bottom line to this thread seems to be that you pay a
stiff price for having a Canon 400mm f/5.6 lens with IS - and that is
you just will NOT get decent (let alone sharp) images. Results seem
to be BETTER with IS turned off, but then what is the point of buying
an IS lens only to turn it off? A much better alternative would be to
get the 400/5.6 without IS - which is much sharper all the way around!

Click to expand...

Funny you mention that, because I'm coming to the same conclusion.

Today I took a few shots of bald eagles with the IS turned off and
got some better results, but still far short of the quality photos
others have posted on this thread. I'm deciding if I should try
sending my lens back to Canon for an adjustment/tune-up or just go
ahead and buy a prime lens, either the 400 or the 600. My instincts
are telling me (probably because of the other posts here) that I
should just drop my 100-400 into the river and order the prime. It
really has been frustrating, as you are no doubt aware. But thanks
for your initial post; it's been helpful to learn others are having
the same problem. That is, it's making it easier for me to go ahead
with the prime purchase...

Click to expand...

you already know that the IS needs half or a second to settle down, so I guess IS is not a factor that cause your images to be unsharp.

Have you considered carry 2 bodies, one with the prime, one with a 70-200 for example?

Gus Stangeland said:

Here is an example of what I am seeing. These two photos were taken
at almost exactly the same time. Left one with 100-400mm lens on a
brand new XTi and the right one taken with 400mm f/5.6 lens on a 40D.
Maybe some people (including Canon) think the left image is OK, but
to me it is essentially junk.

Click to expand...

Is that a 100% crop?

Just a thought, the 150 - 500 has IS but is not designated as EX so may be close to the old 170 - 500 but with the benefit of IS. If so unless they have improved it a lot it's not likely to give the quality you seek at 500mm. Comments based on my own non DG version which I replaced with the 400/5.6. I'd wait for tests before you buy.

I have been following your thread and posted several days ago. I don't know if this will help or hinder but here are a couple of links where I posted recent shots taken with my 100-400, the first in less than ideal conditions.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=26806083

The second was in better conditions but I had to back off to 275mm as I was fairly close.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=26833569

I don't have time now as I have to head for bed but I can download a couple of more shots to show that good copies of the 100-400 do seem to exist....at least I hope mine is okay....even in older hands but not a very experienced user.

Bill

--
http://www.pbase.com/willvan
Canon 40D Sony H1 & H5 Fuji F30

I have my own thoughts on this 100-400 vs 400 matter:

100-400 is a good lens at 400 wide open if you do not crop the image. I have just tested two new 100-400 few days ago against my 400L. Both 100-400L were unaceptable soft when cropped.

100-400 seems to be very popular lens, in some reviews it received very good marks on par with 400L. I never happened to meet such a good copy of 100-400.

I wish there were 400L5,6 IS too. But this IS desire is just sometimes overestimated. I am quit happy with 400L and dont see any alternatives now. I wish I could afford 400 DO IS 4. 500 f4 is just to heavy for me.

Lets see what sigma 150-500 OS brings.

You said you had a brother and/or a cousin who have the 100-400mm IS lens and it works good for them and/or on their cameras, etc...

I personally think that you should take side by side comparisons of their lenses on your camera, your lenses on their cameras, etc... Make a CD/DVD of the results including documentation that explains each and every one of the photos... If you can show definitively that your relatives lenses work on your camera as well as their cameras, and your lens won't work acceptably on ANY of the cameras... Then send the freaking thing to Canon and DEMAND with letters to the Chuck Westerfield or some other high level person at Canon and insist that they fix the darn thing.

In my opinion... if you can document that other 100-400mm lenses are significantly better, then Canon can and/or should fix or replace the one you have with one that works...

Where the heck did you sell the other bad copies of that lens anyway? and what exactly did you tell the buyers when they asked about how it performed etc... ?

If I were in your shoes and could prove what your saying... I would NEVER let Canon off the hook... I'd hound them day and night till they did something about the problem.

Gus Stangeland said:

You might be interested to know that I recently sent my new 100-400
lens back to Canon in Irvine for calibration/repair/adjustment. It
was in warranty (and still is) so it didn't cost me anything. They
supposedly did something to it, butdidn't explain it to me. But
anyway, when I got it back, it was just as bad as before.

Also, I sent 2 of the 3 of my previous 100-400 to Canon for repair,
along with my XT camera. But they all came back with the same
problem. I have NO clue as to what standards they test a lens for,
but apparently image quality is not one of them!

Click to expand...

Here's a wide open shot from my new 300 F4 IS, Gus. No PP:



Unfortunately, the focus is off so it's being sent in. Brilliant lens otherwise.

Gus, I think your 100-400 might be working as it is supposed to on your XTi. Here’s a full-sized crop out of my XTi with my 100-400 IS at 400mm and f/5.6 with parameters set to Faithful and sharpness and contrast turned all the way down as low as they go:



I think that is pretty representative of what I what I got from that combo.

Here’s the full frame scaled down:



You might just have to stick with the 400mm f/5.6L USM to get the level of sharpness that you are after. In my experience the 300mm f/4L IS USM w/EF 1.4x II doesn’t do any better than the 100-400 IS.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/

I have used and tested the 300 f/4 with and without the Kenko Pro TC. By itself it is an awesome lens with excellent contrast and sharpness. With a TC it degrades quite noticeably. The friend who loaned it to me has made the same observation with both Kenko and Canon 1.4x TCs. It isn't so bad that I wouldn't use it with a TC, but with the TC it is less sharp than my Sigma 400 f/5.6 APO (non-macro version). I would not recommend the 300 f/4 + TC over the 400 f/5.6 or the 100-400 IS for birding.

Just last Sunday I was out with a buddy who has the 100-400 IS and a 40D. He has processed those shots and I have seen them, they are quite impressive. He is not having the back focus issue that you demonstrate in your later postings. He let me take command of this setup for a bit and I found the focusing to be amazingly fast.

-Gene L.
http://ttl-biz.com

I noticed in an earlier post you mentioned that he uses P mode and you are using Av mode. Were his titmouse shots taken with the same aperture settings as you were using? I have noticed that stopping down the 100-400 improves things quite a bit.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/

what lens is that? is that the 400mm F4 DO? if so I had no idea there made it without IS.

Gus Stangeland said:

I have a 100-400mm lens (4th one I've bought) which still does not
produce in-focus images with any of my cameras, XT, XTi and 40D. I
also have a 400mm f/4 non-IS lens which works very well with all
cameras, takes very sharp pictures, but I really miss the IS. I
understand that the 300mm f/4 IS lens works quite well with a Tamron
1.4x TC.

1. Should I buy a 5th 100-400mm lens and hope it will be sharp, then
sell my current one?

Click to expand...

I think if you like to shoot wide open, you better avoid the 100-400 as it is a zoom and only a few copies of that lens are really sharp. Most have seen are not as sharp as prime lenses.

Gus Stangeland said:

2. Should I buy a 300mm f/4 IS lens and use it with a Tamron 1.4x
(which I already have) ?

Click to expand...

same thing..this is no better than the 100-400 IS. Putting a tc on it does not give you sharp images unless you stop down to F8 or so.

Gus Stangeland said:

3. Is there a 3rd party lens that would be 400mm or more, and have IS
and is equally as sharp (have as good or better IQ) than the 400mm
f/5.6?

Click to expand...

Not that I know of.

Gus Stangeland said:

I really like the IQ I get with my 400mm f/4 lens, but I'm tired of
constantly watching the shutter speed and tired of worrying about OOF
shots because I'm not holding the camera steady enough.

Click to expand...

huh? 400mm F4 not fast enough?? did I get that right?

I do almost

Gus Stangeland said:

ALL of my shooting hand-held on birds. The way small birds flit
around and hide behind branches, etc, there is no way I can use a
tripod or even a monopod. I have to be able to move the camera
rapidly.

Click to expand...

you can use a small monopod with foot like I use as this will give you far better results than IS anyway and it is easy to move around.

Gus Stangeland said:

I really wish Canon would come out with a 400mm f/5.6 lens with IS.
Your comments and recommendations would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

why do you want a 400mm F5.6 if you already have the 400mm f4?

Gus Stangeland said:

Gus

Click to expand...

--



http://www.pbase.com/zylen

'Never argue with an idiot, they drag you down to their level and beat you with experience'

Daniella said:

Daniella68313 said:

2. Should I buy a 300mm f/4 IS lens and use it with a Tamron 1.4x
(which I already have) ?

Click to expand...

same thing..this is no better than the 100-400 IS. Putting a tc on
it does not give you sharp images unless you stop down to F8 or so.

Click to expand...

Actually that's why I bought the 300 F4 IS, Daniella. I can use the lens at F8 (locked in AV mode) during the day at 420mm when animals are more wary, and use the 300 F4 aspects at low light when they are less wary and more plentiful. I'm looking forward to getting my TC in a few days.

I can't find the original pictures that I used for this comparison, for some reason. But I think these ARE 100% crops.

Montana500 said:

Gus Stangeland said:

Here is an example of what I am seeing. These two photos were taken
at almost exactly the same time. Left one with 100-400mm lens on a
brand new XTi and the right one taken with 400mm f/5.6 lens on a 40D.
Maybe some people (including Canon) think the left image is OK, but
to me it is essentially junk.

Click to expand...

Is that a 100% crop?

Click to expand...

Thanks, Greg!

That's disappointing news, that a full crop cannot be expected to be any better than that. Full crops on my 400 f/5.6 are usually sharp as a tack. Yes, there is some image degradation due to the MUCH smaller number of pixels available to display the picture, but the picture itself is still very sharp.

Based on some suggestions from other repliers, I did a quick test this afternoon of my 100-400 on my 40D. All shots were handheld at 400mm, P mode, first with IS on in Mode 1, then IS on in Mode 2, then IS off. I'm still on an out-of-town trip so don't have much time, but a quick look at the IQ of the images indicates that there is noticable improvement with IS on and Mode 2 as well as IS off, over IS on with Mode 1. So it kind of indicates that the IS is messing up the images. The IS seemed to stabilize very quickly but I still waited several seconds before taking the shots.

PeaceFrog said:

Gus, I think your 100-400 might be working as it is supposed to on
your XTi. Here’s a full-sized crop out of my XTi with my 100-400 IS
at 400mm and f/5.6 with parameters set to Faithful and sharpness and
contrast turned all the way down as low as they go:



I think that is pretty representative of what I what I got from that
combo.

Here’s the full frame scaled down:



You might just have to stick with the 400mm f/5.6L USM to get the
level of sharpness that you are after. In my experience the 300mm
f/4L IS USM w/EF 1.4x II doesn’t do any better than the 100-400 IS.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/

Click to expand...

Greg, he didn't catch the Titmouse on the watering dish - his shots were more in the shade. So even though he had his camera on P, his settings were f/5.6 and 1/500 sec. I agree with you that there might be improvement in using the 100-400mm lens in more of it's "sweet spot", like f/8. I have tried that and have not noticed any appreciable improvement in IQ. But I need to re-test that again.

PeaceFrog said:

I noticed in an earlier post you mentioned that he uses P mode and
you are using Av mode. Were his titmouse shots taken with the same
aperture settings as you were using? I have noticed that stopping
down the 100-400 improves things quite a bit.

Greg

--



http://www.pbase.com/dadas115/

Click to expand...

For bird pictures, the 70-200 would be way too short. Even a 300mm is too short. But I DO carry my XTi with the 100-400 and mu 40D with the 400 f/5.6. But if I want good pictures to take home, I better not use the XTi with 100-400 because they will invariably be all bad.

Hung Pham said:

you already know that the IS needs half or a second to settle down,
so I guess IS is not a factor that cause your images to be unsharp.

Have you considered carry 2 bodies, one with the prime, one with a
70-200 for example?

Click to expand...