That 100-400 IS Lens Michael Used

[johnvr]

Just read Michael's report on the 1Ds III and his note that he found himself using the 100-400/5.6 L IS lens most of the time. Now, if I'm not mistaken, Michael said several years ago that that lens wasn't good enough to be used with the 1Ds or the 1Ds II (forgot which one) and that he got rid of it.

Therefore I find it surprising he's now using it with a 22MP camera. Maybe Michael will pitch in, but anybody else who has experience with this lens on high MP cameras, what is your experience? Is it sharp enough for that kind of resolution?

[mahleu]

I was wondering the same thing but I guess if it's what you have with you it's better than not taking photos.

[Ray]

I think there is no better alternative that covers the range and does not weigh considerably more. The 70-200/2.8 IS with 2x extender would not be as sharp and I think might weigh more, although I haven't checked the precise weights of both lenses.

I find my copy of this lens is quite sharp at f8 and f11 but a bit disappointing at full aperture. Performance at other focal lengths will be variable, but Photodo tested quite impressive results at 180mm.

One should also bear in mind that lens designs that have been around for a long time, as the 100-400 IS has, can be tweaked and improved by Canon without any major announcements such as a MkII version.

[lbergman]

I don't think Michael ever said he got rid of it.  He did say way back in 2005 that it had become one of his least used lenses.  But hey, preferences and circumstances change.  Sometimes smaller size, lighter weight and versatility outweigh getting the very best sharpness possible, especially when traveling.

[luong]

Michael will say "Horses for courses" :-) Remember it was a light and people-oriented trip.

This type of photography does not warrant carrying a fixed 300 or 400, which are the only focals where the 100-400 is lacking. In the 100-200 range, in terms of sharpness, I find my 100-400 comparable to the much touted 70-200/2.8 (and my cheap, but hand picked 70-300 IS beats them both).

[SeanFS]

I seem to have a very good copy of the 100 - 400.
 I recently took a snap shot of a whale surfacing about half a mile away at 400mm f5.6 that cropped to a very usable 4mp image from a 1ds2. Unless using a tripod I don't think its going to be much less sharp than a prime at that range.
I too  have the 70 -300 IS and while its very light , I don't find it as optically consistent through the range which is why I bought the 100-400 and I have been very pleased with the decision.

 I wonder if Canon hasn't steadily improved this lens as I read Michaels comparison ( which is a couple of years old now) with the 400mm 5.6 prime , which I almost bought , but didn't as I needed more flexibility in one lens. The results I get seem to improve significantly on the samples in that test.

 Its heavy, but worth the weight in my opinion. I used to carry  80 -200 f2.8 and 300mm f4 Nikkors - I'm not sure how I managed that now and the Canon at least isn't as heavy as those two lenses.

Michael will say "Horses for courses" :-) Remember it was a light and people-oriented trip.

This type of photography does not warrant carrying a fixed 300 or 400, which are the only focals where the 100-400 is lacking. In the 100-200 range, in terms of sharpness, I find my 100-400 comparable to the much touted 70-200/2.8 (and my cheap, but hand picked 70-300 IS beats them both).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153369\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

What I have seen the lens is actually pretty good, if you get a good sample. There seem to be significant sample variations.

http://www.photodo.com/product_403_p4.html

The MTF is pretty good, for a zoom. There is significant astigmatism off center, but this is common to zoom. I would expect central sharpness to be very good.

Best regards

Erik

I seem to have a very good copy of the 100 - 400.
 I recently took a snap shot of a whale surfacing about half a mile away at 400mm f5.6 that cropped to a very usable 4mp image from a 1ds2. Unless using a tripod I don't think its going to be much less sharp than a prime at that range.
I too  have the 70 -300 IS and while its very light , I don't find it as optically consistent through the range which is why I bought the 100-400 and I have been very pleased with the decision.

 I wonder if Canon hasn't steadily improved this lens as I read Michaels comparison ( which is a couple of years old now) with the 400mm 5.6 prime , which I almost bought , but didn't as I needed more flexibility in one lens. The results I get seem to improve significantly on the samples in that test.

 Its heavy, but worth the weight in my opinion. I used to carry  80 -200 f2.8 and 300mm f4 Nikkors - I'm not sure how I managed that now and the Canon at least isn't as heavy as those two lenses.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153377\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[michael]

It's a lens that I hate, for several reasons, but when you need that range with IS there's nothing else available, so it's what I used.

Not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but versatile.

Michael

[Digiteyesed]

It's a lens that I hate, for several reasons, but when you need that range with IS there's nothing else available, so it's what I used.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153409\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have one as well, and I'm pretty happy with it. I traded up from the Canon EF 75-300 f4/5.6 III, so the new lens is quite an improvement. Maybe someday I'll be able to afford one of the even flashier lenses. :-)

[rainer_v]

i just bought one, and meanwhile it looks pretty sharp,- i wonder if dust will become a problem,- it pushes out so much air at the back lens that i wonder what will happen in a dusty environment ?
any experience from someone?

[CJL]

I've literally owned 9 or 10 different copies of that lens, but I finally found one that is quite sharp.  If you can find a good copy, it's hard to beat it for versatility.

[walter.sk]

I've been using the 100-400IS for about 7 years now.  When I got my 1Dii 3 years ago, I had the lens and the camera optimized by Canon.  As you know, it is possible to get a camera that is within factory specs but at one end of the acceptable range, and a lens that is at the other.  Apparently, Canon did a great job with my camera/lens combo.

My 500L 4.0 certainly blows away the 100-400 at max aperture and is sharper and more contrasty, period.  However, careful focusing with the 100-400 enables me to get perfectly acceptable bird-in-flight shots at 13x19, especially with judicious use of Focus Magic and PKOutput sharpening.  I don't oversharpen, and I have never got negative comments about the softness of the lens.  I also find that to get enough depth of field to keep a bird's beak and eye both in focus, I seldom use the lens wide open.

I also do a lot of city shots, and have found nothing better than the 100-400, which I use in combination with the 16-35L, another "problematic" lens.  90% of my city shots are done with these 2 lenses, and I know their limitations.

My biggest gripe about the 100-400 is its ability to suck in dust when I zoom rapidly from 400 to 100, but I do like the push-pull action  on that lens more than a rotary zoom ring.

[airchinapilot]

The 100-400 is my first L lens and forgive me for revealing my newbiness but it is knocking my socks off. Before that I had a loaner Sigma 50-500 and this 100-400 is clearly the winner in clarity and in the forward and background bokeh.

Actually I should say that I had a 100-300 L before and so I am used to the push-pull mechanism. I think it is very natural when hand-holding and is less of a pain than trying to manipulate a zoom ring while your focusing as well. Yes, I am still manual focusing rather than trying to take advantage of the AF.

Hopefully I will get to a point where I can discern the quality differences between the 100-400 and its prime cousins.

[DiaAzul]

Barring personal preference about the push-pull design, this lens now suffers from a very outdated image stabilisation system.

Compared with the 70-300IS DO, the 100-400 is severely lacking in the usability/weight/Image stabilisation, however, does compensate with slightly better image quality. If there is a lens that is ripe for a refresh this must be one of the leading contenders.

[John Sheehy]

I think there is no better alternative that covers the range and does not weigh considerably more. The 70-200/2.8 IS with 2x extender would not be as sharp and I think might weigh more, although I haven't checked the precise weights of both lenses.

I find my copy of this lens is quite sharp at f8 and f11 but a bit disappointing at full aperture. Performance at other focal lengths will be variable, but Photodo tested quite impressive results at 180mm.

One should also bear in mind that lens designs that have been around for a long time, as the 100-400 IS has, can be tweaked and improved by Canon without any major announcements such as a MkII version.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153321\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There is no doubt in my mind that 100-400s from 2003 and earlier were not as good as the current crop in general, and there were a lot more lemons.  Anyone who tells you that the lens is soft at the long end has one of these lemon copies.  A good copy is *sharpest* at the long end, and that is exactly what the Canon MTF charts say should be.

[John Sheehy]

i just bought one, and meanwhile it looks pretty sharp,- i wonder if dust will become a problem,- it pushes out so much air at the back lens that i wonder what will happen in a dusty environment ?
any experience from someone?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153511\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, it collects dust inside the lens, which may have a very slight impact on contrast, but mine is 3.5 years old and full of dust inside, and still has very good contrast.  I don't think it really pushes much air inside the chamber, though, once it is attached to the body, because then the air escapes and rushes in more easily out in the moving tube area with the chamber relatively sealed.  I have never noticed more sensor dust with this lens than any other.  It think the mirror and the shutter motions are what cause dust to go from the chamber to the sensor, for the most part.  The lens is generally pumped when the shutter is closed.

My biggest complaint about this lens is that the bokeh is not stellar to begin with, and deteriorates quickly when you start adding TCs.  A good copy is sharper than any Canon sensor can deal with at f/11 and 400mm.

[John Sheehy]

Barring personal preference about the push-pull design, this lens now suffers from a very outdated image stabilisation system.

Compared with the 70-300IS DO, the 100-400 is severely lacking in the usability/weight/Image stabilisation, however, does compensate with slightly better image quality. If there is a lens that is ripe for a refresh this must be one of the leading contenders.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154240\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I didn't realize how relatively feeble the IS is until I bought a 70-200 f/4L; I've taken tack-sharp images with that at 200mm*1.4 and 1/13 seconds.

However, as I use the 100-400 mainly on birds, I don't really want to go too slow with the shutter speed; I prefer at least 1/250 or 1/320 for most bird photography, and that is fast enough for stability's sake at the image level, even with 2x of converters.

[Ray]

There is no doubt in my mind that 100-400s from 2003 and earlier were not as good as the current crop in general, and there were a lot more lemons.  Anyone who tells you that the lens is soft at the long end has one of these lemon copies.  A good copy is *sharpest* at the long end, and that is exactly what the Canon MTF charts say should be.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154255\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dear me! It looks as though I missed out. The very existence of the Canon 100-400 IS was one of the reasons I switched from Minolta to Canon around the year 2000, but I didn't buy the lens till I got my first DSLR, the D60, around July 2002.

It's very marginally sharper at f8 than at f11 (at 400mm), but noticeably softer at f5.6.

However, the greatest impediment to tack sharp images, as always, is lack of a sufficiently fast shutter speed.

[01af]

The very existence of the Canon 100-400 IS was one of the reasons I switched from Minolta to Canon around the year 2000, but I didn't buy the lens till I got my first DSLR, the D60, around July 2002.

I do see reasons to switch from Minolta to Canon (in particular back in 2000 - 2002). But the 100-400 is not one of those because there is a fairly nice AF Apo 100-400 mm lens in the Minolta line-up. It's a tad slower than the Canon (1:4.5-6.7) and the barrel is mostly plastic but on the other hand it's a lot cheaper, shorter, and lighter---and has basically the same image quality. And when used on a digital SLR body then it even is stabilized (got sharp hand-held shots from it on a Dynax 7D at 400 mm and 1/15 s). However it does not go well with tele converters.

-- Olaf

[Ray]

I do see reasons to switch from Minolta to Canon (in particular back in 2000 - 2002). But the 100-400 is not one of those because there is a fairly nice AF Apo 100-400 mm lens in the Minolta line-up. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=156381\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The Can 100-400 IS certainly was one of the reasons and a good reason because it has image stabilisation and no lenses for Minolta back in 2000-2002 had image stabilisation.