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

Yes, that's good advice - but... My brother is in Arizona, my cousin is in North Dakota and I'm in Texas, so until we all get together again, I can't do it. Also, it would be very time consuming to do this and to be sure and record all the events carefully and note ALL the settings for each shot.

With regard to the "bad" copies that I sold, for both of these, I sent them to Canon and asked them to check the lenses out and make sure they meet factory specifications. I then put them up for sale right after getting them back from Canon. I included a copy of Canon's worksheet for the test/calibration/repair and noted that if there was anything wrong with the lens that Canon warranties all their repair for 90 days. Further, one of the lenses was still in warranty. So I felt like I did the best I could to make sure the lenses I was selling were good and certified good by Canon. Keep in mind, that I still cannot say for absolute sure that the problem is not me, or my camera, or that I have unrealistic expectations. I never heard back from either of the buyers so I assume they found the lenses to be perfectly good for their application.

Glenn W. said:

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...

Click to expand...

Hi Daniella,

SO sorry for the typo which confused the issue. I do NOT have a 400/f4 just the 400/5.6 - the same one that you like so well!

I was just wondering why if Canon can make a 300/f4 with IS, why can't they make a 400/f5.6 with IS??

Daniella, are you still shooting birds and BIFs with your 400mm f/5.6 prime? And you consistently use a foot-monopod, if I remember - is that correct?

I really like the IQ I get with my 400 f/5.6 prime, but I keep thinking I want IS. I'm beginning to think ir is more in my mind than reality, so maybe I need to have a therapist work on me to forget the IS and enjoy the 400!

Here's Kestrel I shot just the other day at Gilbert Water Ranch in Arizona.



Daniella, again, sorry for confusing you (and others) with my typo.

Gus

Daniella said:

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.

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.

Daniella68313 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.

Daniella68313 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

Daniella68313 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.

Daniella68313 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?

Daniella68313 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'

Click to expand...

Really nice and you use it well even without IS!

If I can get photos like the Kestrial with my 400 F5/6 when I get it tomorrow I could care less about IS and the zoom factor from 100 to 400. I found with the 100-400 I returned it never left the 400MM setting so why have the others if not going to use....?
--
iloco

Gus Stangeland said:

Hi Daniella,

SO sorry for the typo which confused the issue. I do NOT have a
400/f4 just the 400/5.6 - the same one that you like so well!

I was just wondering why if Canon can make a 300/f4 with IS, why
can't they make a 400/f5.6 with IS??

Daniella, are you still shooting birds and BIFs with your 400mm f/5.6
prime? And you consistently use a foot-monopod, if I remember - is
that correct?

Click to expand...

I sure do but for birds in flight I shoot handheld because I need a fast shutter speed for this so there would be no motion blur from the bird.

I only use the monopod for perched birds and never had a problem missing shots with that. In fact, when I had the IS on my 300mm lens I was always turning it off for birds in fligth because the IS would kick the view in the opposite direction to try to compensate my motion and that would kick the bird out of the viewfinder and out of focus. It was very anoying so I ended up leaving it off.

Now I want to buy a 70-200 F4 because the one I have is slowing down the burst with the 40d. My 400mm F5.6 L is fast enough to AF so that it does not slow down the burst.

I heard that the 300mm F4 is also slowing down the burst with a fast camera like the 40D so this is something else to consider.

My next lens is probably going to be a 300mm F2.8 though, because it is sharp, even wide open with a TC and it is light compared to a 500mm F4.

Gus Stangeland said:

I really like the IQ I get with my 400 f/5.6 prime, but I keep
thinking I want IS. I'm beginning to think ir is more in my mind than
reality, so maybe I need to have a therapist work on me to forget the
IS and enjoy the 400!

Click to expand...

I rarely see a situation where the IS is needed. And when the shutter speed is slow enough, I always get better and sharper pics with a monopod rather than IS but that's me. I once ruined a full serie of a coyote resting in a field of flower because I relied on IS and all shots had motion blur at 1/100s. I guess I can'T hold steady enough for the IS to be efficient at that slow speed.

Gus Stangeland said:

Here's Kestrel I shot just the other day at Gilbert Water Ranch in
Arizona.



Daniella, again, sorry for confusing you (and others) with my typo.

Gus

Daniella said:

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'

Click to expand...

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'

Hi,

Great shot of the kestrel. I rarely get that good of a shot with my 400mm prime lens. Usually have to do some sharpening in PP unless the lighting is great and the bird fills most of the frame.

Would you mind posting your EXIF data? Also, how far away from the kestrel were you (how much of the original frame did it cover)? Were you shooting RAW, JPEG? What were your picture quality settings? - I always shoot in RAW with Neutral picture quality and all parameters set to zero.

How much and what PP did you do? Did you have any color fringing to remove?

Thanks,

Orb . . .

EXIF

Exposure Time = 1/4000"
F Number = F7.1
Exposure Program = Aperture priority
ISO Speed Ratings = 400
Exif Version = Version 2.21
Date Time Original = 2008-02-12 12:56:12
Date Time Digitized = 2008-02-12 12:56:12
Components Configuration = YCbcr
Shutter Speed Value = 12 TV
Aperture Value = 5.63 AV
Exposure Bias Value = -0.33EV
Metering Mode = Spot
Flash = Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Focal Length = 400mm
User Comment =
Subsec Time = 0.48"
Subsec Time Original = 0.48"
Subsec Time Digitized = 0.48"
Flashpix Version = Version 1.0
Color Space = sRGB
Exif Image Width = 600
Exif Image Height = 800
Interoperability IFD Pointer = Offset: 976
Focal Plane X Resolution = 4438.356
Focal Plane Y Resolution = 4445.969
Focal Plane Resolution Unit = inch
Custom Rendered = Normal process
Exposure Mode = Auto exposure
White Balance = Auto white balance
Scene Capture Type = Normal

OK, thanks for explaining further about how difficult it would be to do the extensive tests with your family members gear and for your explanation as to how you dealt with selling the other lenses, etc... I once had to deal with a lens focus issue where I went around asking co-workers if I could borrow their Canon bodies to test a lens, and I know it can be very difficult to do this kind of thing.

Unfortunately I think being able to show Canon definitively how your lens is inferior to other lenses of the same type, is probably your only easy way to force Canon to resolve the problem... and/or if your not 100% sure then it does seem to be somewhat difficult to run the problem further up the flag pole...

At one time I was really coveting the 100-400mm L lens... However, the more I read about it, the less I covet that lens. While I know there are some (possibly many) who like that lens a lot, I have my doubts that it would ever satisfy my current desire for sharpness in a lens. (particularly in a lens that costs $1400)

Looking at photozone.de's review/testing of the lens, I think this is not as sharp as I would like to see from a $1400 lens. (particularly wide open, which is what I believe really tells you the most about how well a lens performs)

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/204-canon-ef-100-400mm-f45-56-usm-l-is-test-report--review?start=1

If it makes you feel any better, there is at least one other "L" that gets a much worse is test result... the 35-350mm L...

http://photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/192-canon-ef-35-350mm-f35-56-usm-l-test-report--review?start=1

(not sure why anyone would buy that 35-350mm lens, at least if those tests are truly representative of that lens's performance)

For me I'm finding that if a lens isn't capable of getting close to, or going into the 'excellent' area on photozone.de's test results, then if/when I try the lens myself I just tend to be disappointed with the lens's performance myself. Now, I don't think my own observation are being swayed by those photozone.de tests, but I do know that the lenses I have had experience with, my own satisfaction is very closely correlated to those test results... In short, based on photozone's testing of the 100-400mm "L" lens, I do not think I would ever buy that lens, at least not without first being able to try it myself and verify that I was happy with it's performance.

Gus Stangeland said:

With regard to the "bad" copies that I sold, for both of these, I
sent them to Canon and asked them to check the lenses out and make
sure they meet factory specifications. I then put them up for sale
right after getting them back from Canon. I included a copy of
Canon's worksheet for the test/calibration/repair and noted that if
there was anything wrong with the lens that Canon warranties all
their repair for 90 days. Further, one of the lenses was still in
warranty. So I felt like I did the best I could to make sure the
lenses I was selling were good and certified good by Canon. Keep in
mind, that I still cannot say for absolute sure that the problem is
not me, or my camera, or that I have unrealistic expectations. I
never heard back from either of the buyers so I assume they found the
lenses to be perfectly good for their application.

Glenn W. said:

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...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

will it be sharp wide open?

I see absolutely no point paying that much for a 500mm F5.6 range if I would need to stop down to F8 to get the sharpness I ABSOLUTELY want.

with my 400mm F5.6 I can put a 1.4x and get tack sharp shots wide open and that's F8 equivalent. The only reason I would want to pay that much and get a 500mm F5.6 would be to be able to actualy shoot at F5.6 most of the time.

Now that's the real question. All the sigma lenses I got so far needed a good stoping down to be at their best sharpness.

Chez Wimpy said:

Gus Stangeland said:

3. Is there a 3rd party lens that would be 400mm or more,

Click to expand...

check

Chez Wimpy said:

and have IS

Click to expand...

check

Chez Wimpy said:

and is equally as sharp (have as good or better IQ) than the 400mm
f/5.6?

Click to expand...

Thats the question, and we don't know yet, but if Sigma plans to
charge $2400 list for the new 150-500mm HSM/OS zoom, it will very
likely be in the ballpark. Worth it to wait and see IMHO.

--
-CW

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:

will it be sharp wide open?

I see absolutely no point paying that much for a 500mm F5.6 range if
I would need to stop down to F8 to get the sharpness I ABSOLUTELY
want.

Click to expand...

Remember the Sigma is f6.3 at 500mm it just tells the body it's f5.6 to maintain focus
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08013102sigma150500.asp

Daniella68313 said:

with my 400mm F5.6 I can put a 1.4x and get tack sharp shots wide
open and that's F8 equivalent. The only reason I would want to pay
that much and get a 500mm F5.6 would be to be able to actualy shoot
at F5.6 most of the time.

Now that's the real question. All the sigma lenses I got so far
needed a good stoping down to be at their best sharpness.

Chez Wimpy said:

Gus Stangeland said:

3. Is there a 3rd party lens that would be 400mm or more,

Click to expand...

check

Daniella68313 said:

and have IS

Click to expand...

check

Daniella68313 said:

and is equally as sharp (have as good or better IQ) than the 400mm
f/5.6?

Click to expand...

Thats the question, and we don't know yet, but if Sigma plans to
charge $2400 list for the new 150-500mm HSM/OS zoom, it will very
likely be in the ballpark. Worth it to wait and see IMHO.

--
-CW

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'

Click to expand...

Hi,

Thanks for posting your EXIF data. Your data is different from what my XTi exports, and I have a few questions:

Howard S said:

Exposure Program = Aperture priority
ISO Speed Ratings = 400

Click to expand...

Howard S said:

Exposure Time = 1/4000"
Shutter Speed Value = 12 TV

Click to expand...

Wow, this was fast - you must have had great light, even with ISO 400. What is the shutter speed value?

Howard S said:

F Number = F7.1
Aperture Value = 5.63 AV

Click to expand...

Does this mean that the shot was at f/5.6 or f/7.1??

Howard S said:

Exif Image Width = 600
Exif Image Height = 800

Click to expand...

Is your shot a 100% crop, or a reduced res photo? Don't understand the 600 x 800 otherwise. Did you do a lot of PP on the image?

Congrats on such a great image.

Orb . . .

I purchased two brand new 100-400 lenses, and evaluated them carefully side-by-side.

One lens exhibited softness and reduced contrast, at f5.6/400mm. Stopping down to f6.3 increased sharpness and contrast significantly. Likewise, zooming out to around 370mm also increased sharpness and contrast significantly.

The second lens was very sharp at f5.6/400mm. There was very little improvement by stopping down or zooming out.

My tests were done with high power high speed speed flash to eliminate camera shake effects. I made multiple shots of dollar bills to insure good focus. There was absolutely no doubt the two lenses were distinctly different.

My results convinced me that there is definitely variation in the quality of this lens. I have read about others seeing the same increase in image quality by stopping down slightly or zooming back. Based on my experience, I would suggest that lenses that exhibit this behavior are not the best versions of the 100-400.

I'm very happy with my copy that was sharp at f5.6/400mm. (I returned the lower quality lens.)

My bottom-line . . .

1) I know for sure, based on direct comparison, that this lens does have significant variation in quality.

2) Based on my limited sampling, if your lens gives significantly better image quality at f6.3 vs f5.6, there is a good chance you do not have a high quality version of this lens.

3) I firmly believe there are great copies of this lens, but you may have to work or be "lucky" to get a superior quality version.

I only have experience with two copies of this lens. I am sharing my findings because I see very few posts where people have compared two copies side-by-side.

Rebeluser

All taken with 300/4 IS and Canon 1.4tc (& 40D). All handheld except the hawks.

Pat











--
http://lookoutphoto.com

RebelUser said:

I purchased two brand new 100-400 lenses, and evaluated them
carefully side-by-side.

Click to expand...

And people wonder why so many people get duds. Instead of sending in for service, the few good copies are scarfed up, and the bad ones returned....

Nice shots, Pat. Do you have those in a larger size? The resizing seems to have caused some jaggies.

If you send a lens back to the retailer returned do to 'defect', they should send it back to Canon.

I for one, more or less refuse to buy a lens that doesn't work correctly and will pretty much always return it rather then sending it in for a 'repair'... There is absolutely no reason I should have to send a brand new lens in for a repair, that's what 'returns' are for.

On the other hand... I have never purchased two identical lenses with the full intent of returning one...

I buy one at a time, and feel no guilt about returning if it is defective. In fact I just returned a defective 70-200mm F4 L (non IS) lens...

If a retailer is turning around and re-selling a lens that was returned as 'defective', it's their problem not mine. As far as I know, that kind of thing is illegal.

Montana500 said:

RebelUser said:

I purchased two brand new 100-400 lenses, and evaluated them
carefully side-by-side.

Click to expand...

And people wonder why so many people get duds. Instead of sending in
for service, the few good copies are scarfed up, and the bad ones
returned....

Click to expand...

I agree with you 100% as long as its in the time frame for returns.

I returned my 100-400 for a refund and the supplier payed the return shipping. B&H have been very good with customer service I have found.

My problem was not as much sharpness as IS not stablizing the pic before I snapped the shutter. It was taking a very long time to settle down. AF was not focusing as it should. Manual focus was as it should have been.

SO yes I hope this copy goes back to canon for repair before anyone else gets ahold of it.

I will have a 400 F5/6 delivered tomorrow so will see how this one goes. If not up to specs it will be returned also. To much money involved to not send back if a bad copy.
--
iloco

Montana500 said:

RebelUser said:

I purchased two brand new 100-400 lenses, and evaluated them
carefully side-by-side.

Click to expand...

And people wonder why so many people get duds. Instead of sending in
for service, the few good copies are scarfed up, and the bad ones
returned....

Click to expand...

I wonder if you made a poll, whether you would see more people getting duds in countries were returning lenses is so easy, compared to countries where this isn't so normal.

buying two lenses isn't something I would do either. (I'd rather test them in the shop) but the information sure is usefull.

It's not often that you see a comparison in a completely identical situation.

Glenn W. said:

If you send a lens back to the retailer returned do to 'defect', they
should send it back to Canon.

I for one, more or less refuse to buy a lens that doesn't work
correctly and will pretty much always return it rather then sending
it in for a 'repair'... There is absolutely no reason I should have
to send a brand new lens in for a repair, that's what 'returns' are
for.

Click to expand...

I just bought a brand new 300 F4 IS that was not focusing properly(could be the IS too). Rather than sending it back so someone else gets it, I sent it in to Canon. If Canon cannot rectify the problem, I will get a refund from them.

Glenn W. said:

If a retailer is turning around and re-selling a lens that was
returned as 'defective', it's their problem not mine.

Click to expand...

As far as I

Glenn W. said:

know, that kind of thing is illegal.

Click to expand...

The defective 70-200 you bought was probably someone elses return..... It's a never ending cycle if they don't get sent in to Canon. Dealers sell returned lenses all the time. They don't send returned lenses back to Canon.

Not really sure what your point was in posting these images - they are way too small (file size rather than image size), too noisy, over saturated and over sharpened. Very, very poor I.Q.

Colin
--
http://www.pbase.com/accentor