Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon 100-400 fine detail? - sorry, long

Go to last post
Not correct...I printed the 6400ISO Iguana in the tree at 13x19
 
Remember - no noise reduction was done on the image files you saw. I'm not really worried about how the shots will show up at various print sizes. I've been processing and printing photos for enough years (probably over 65 years, if we count my "wet processing" years before digital) to know that. Once I clean them up a bit, the files I put on my gallery will produce good (not great, but good) prints at 10.5X7 inches, or even a little larger than that. Will they be galley quality? Of course not. Would they satisfy you? Maybe not. But all they have to do is satisfy me.
 
See almost any of my posts above - I won't have the chance to take a tripod. I will be able to stabilize the camera/lens to some extent, with a bean bag on the edge of the vehicle. That will help some.
 
Sounds good Bill. Remember, keep your shutter speed over 1/800sec. at 400mm...and good shooting!
 
After the discouraging experience I had with my rented 100-400, I knew that at minimum, I need a lot more practice with the lens. After returning my rented 100-400 and letting a couple of weeks go by, I rented a second 100-400 from Lensrentals.com . I didn't record the serial number of the first lens, but just from its appearance, this is definitely not the lens I rented originally. The difference between "then" and "now" is amazing, and it's a very nice surprise!

With this lens, I still miss focus occasionally, but under good conditions I can hand hold the lens at its 400mm focal length and shoot at 1/250 to 1/500 sec, and see no evidence of camera motion at 100% mag. About 80-90% of images are in sharp focus, and I have hopes of getting to a true 90-95% with more practice (and with keeping shutter speed at 1/1000 sec whenever possible).

Now I'm wondering if the first lens I rented was out of specs. I did not do MFA on it. The present lens clearly doesn't need MFA on my 70D body.
 
I've been pleased using the 100-400 for "close up" shots. Here are two examples, both shot at 1/500 sec handheld with IS on at about 6-10 foot distance. Both with the standard DPP 4 processing with the standard sharpening settings.

100% crop
100% crop

26784ffabf8c4cb9abb3522201437e21.jpg
 
Bill, just think what you could have done and doubled your keeper rate if you kept your shutter speed at 1/800sec?
 
Absolutely right!! That's the next batch of tests I need to do. Unfortunately, skies are very dark today, with intermittent thunderstorms - so I don't think I want to walk around around with a $1700 lens which doesn't belong to me.

FWIW - from yesterday's series of tests, probably 150 shutter activations, I see that I occasionally get very sharp images at 1/250, and *usually* get sharp images at 1/500. But you're right - 1/800 to 1/1250 or thereabouts is the way to go, if the light permits it. I'm thinking of using shutter priority and auto ISO, and seeing what I get out of that.

In poor light those fast shutter speeds aren't always possible, without pushing ISO waaaay up there. I'm already at 3200 for some of the shots in deep shade. I've set the upper limit of my Auto ISO at 3200. Above that level, noise is just too severe and DR too limited for my taste, even processing with Topaz Denoise or DxO.
 
Bill, you may already be aware of this.

Pay attention to the slight slowness of the 100-400 to focus and stabilize. (Mainly to Stabilize.)

I sometimes blamed my slower shutter speed for softness, when in fact I just needed to wait that extra second for the 100-400 to do its thing. This can easily mislead you in perfecting your shutter settings.

If you play with it in a very very quite room you can get a feel that lag and perfect your timing of half pressing the shutter first. The 100-400 definitely takes a little bit longer then what we are in the habit of.

mailman is correct though, faster is usually better when light permits. :)

Ken
 
Last edited:
Bill:

I'm late to the party, as usual, but here are some quick observations on the 100-400, which I've owned since film days.

1. As others have pointed out, you need a higher shutter speed than 1/focal length on a crop camera -- and then some.

2. Use focus adjustment to tune the lens to the camera.

3. The 100-400 doesn't play well with many filters. Once I realized this, I removed the filter forever -- and it was like having a new lens.

The 100-400 is a challenging lens but you can make great photos with it once you figure it out.

Bob
 
bill hansen said:
Are my current results with a Canon 100-400 lens and a 1.4X TC anywhere near those of other people here?

Renting a Canon 100-400 for a few days, and practicing for a trip later this year. On this trip, I'll need as much "reach" in terms of focal length, as I can get - and some subjects will require demonstration of fine detail. This is the first time I've used a 100-400 in about 8-10 years. Some observations - all these apply only to shots at 400mm, about 25-30 yards away from the subjects:

(1)When I shoot a subject which is about 25-30 yards away, I've been surprised at the loss of fine detail at 400mm, even stopped down to f8.0.

(2) A 1.4 TC doesn't seem to help. No matter how hard I try, I can't see any benefit in terms of fine detail, from using the 1.4X TC. I have both the Canon 1.4 (Original version) and the Kenko 300Pro DG (not the DGX). I'm using both of them with the pins taped, and focusing in good and mediocre light is okay - a little hunting on occasion, but generally good focusing. With the TC, focusing in poor light is not possible. I don't see a difference in image quality between the Canon and the Kenko.

(3)Also, images shot without the TC, cropped and upsized to match the magnification of shots taken with the TC mounted, seem to be at least as good as those with the TC mounted.

Do these observations match the experience of others here? I've seen some posts which claim that use of a TC isn't really better than upszing a 400mm image shot without the TC - and I've seen quite a few posts which report that the TC helps a lot.

I've put into my DPR gallery one large JPEG file SOOC without a TC, and two files without the TC which were cropped to match the magnification of shots at 400mm with the TC mounted, and then then resized so they'd print at about 8X12 inches.

(I like to use the golden retriever as a subject, because his fur is fine enough to provide a good "real world" test of resolution.)

I'd be grateful for comments, ==>if you have time to view these in my gallery<==. The small versions here won't help. Also, please remember these were shot at 400mm and about 25-30 yards away from the subjects.

Is the detail in the SOOC, uncropped image about what others are getting? How about the detail in the 8X12 versions?











--
Bill Hansen
Ithaca NY, USA
Click to expand...
Not every 100-400 is created equal. If after using a tripod AND mirrorlockup and careful focus or live view with AF and f/8 the images are still soft, it likely isn't as good a copy as some who have responded. Unfortunately you likely won't have the equipment to verify all aspects of the lens.

I'd suggest the 70-300mm might be a far better bet, much newer and likely much sharper, even though only 300mm. but add on the 1.4x TC (teles pins or non reporting TC) and it shouldn't be too bad.
Even the Sigma 50-500 or the Tamron 150-600mm would be good alternatives. Again, your mileage will vary on each copy.
Naturally even a different copy of the 100-400 would be worth trying. Can the rental company send you a different copy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top