Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
next PZ Lens Test Report - Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 USM L IS
#1
Very good for such a lens - no wonder that we haven't seen a replacement yet.[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/609-canon100400f4556ff"]http://www.opticallimits.com/canon_eos_ff/609-canon100400f4556ff[/url]



Puuh, I'm finally starting to see the end of the (full format test) tunnel in EOS land. :-)





#2
My favourite lens in terms of usage, probably 50% of all my shots ever are with this lens. Interesting how consistent the performance is with aperture. I thought there was a slight improvement from stopping down slightly, but I guess that could also be attributable to the increased depth of field giving that impression.



I really couldn't say mine ever gave me a dust problem, at least no more than any other extending lens.



Still, there's room for a mk2 I think, if more physically than optically. I wonder how many sales have been lost from the push-pull as opposed to the more common twist zoom. I actually prefer push-pull here as it is faster and more accurate to me. An updated IS system and weather sealing would be a given I think. Maybe an upgraded AF motor system (e.g. memory preset) might be useful, and I don't think anyone would ever complain of even more optical performance...
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#3
I'm a bit surprise about the resolution numbers (even at 400mm) which seem decent given some of the complaints. Then again the images don't look that crisp but maybe I'm confused (i.e, i see all these sharp images on the web but perhaps I don't realize the magnification factor or post processing). To be honest I sort of like things in the film days when things were a bit simpler <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />

-

I wonder if canon silently updated this lens over the years.
#4
[quote name='you2' timestamp='1302363399' post='7511']

I'm a bit surprise about the resolution numbers (even at 400mm) which seem decent given some of the complaints. Then again the images don't look that crisp but maybe I'm confused (i.e, i see all these sharp images on the web but perhaps I don't realize the magnification factor or post processing). To be honest I sort of like things in the film days when things were a bit simpler <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Smile' />

-

I wonder if canon silently updated this lens over the years.

[/quote]



This is at 400mm @ f/5.6

[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/active/magic/get.jsp?id=1243362564_rkMPm&format=v"]http://www.opticallimits.com/active/magic/get.jsp?id=1243362564_rkMPm&format=v[/url]



Looks plenty sharp to me.
#5
Thanks for the review Klaus,



I'm amazed to see the 100-400 performing quite well, even

given that its design is many years older than that of the 70-300L

which you reviewed not too long ago.



Rainer
#6
Yea. When I made my comment it was off of the pictures of the ducks; the feathers seem to smear but again it might be simply the sharpness factor in the post processing. The actual resolution seems very decent. The bokeh is a real negative though. Still I'm very surprise by the raw resolution numbers. For me personally I normally shoot in the 25-100 range; but in college I spent many weekends in the Rockies and keep thinking about returning with a camera in which case I would need some sort of long lens (several times i cross path with herds of elks and similar up at the mountain lakes).



[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1302368124' post='7512']

This is at 400mm @ f/5.6

[url="http://www.opticallimits.com/active/magic/get.jsp?id=1243362564_rkMPm&format=v"]http://www.opticallimits.com/active/magic/get.jsp?id=1243362564_rkMPm&format=v[/url]



Looks plenty sharp to me.

[/quote]
#7
[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1302368459' post='7514']

Thanks for the review Klaus,



I'm amazed to see the 100-400 performing quite well, even

given that its design is many years older than that of the 70-300L

which you reviewed not too long ago.



Rainer

[/quote]





The magic has a word - fluorite.



#8
[quote name='you2' timestamp='1302369854' post='7515']

the feathers seem to smear

[/quote]



They do, but not because the lens is soft, it's just the very limited DOF at work here.



That's one of the lessons to learn with a long lens: there's hardly any subject flat enough to fit the DOF of a long lens, even if it's stopped down. This can be a real challenge in the field for both the photographer and the camera's AF.



-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com

#9
Occasionally, an image taken with the 100-400L may need a bit extra sharpening, but then, so does almost every long lens, which is what people often tend to forget. It also can focus quite close, and with the 500D achromatic close focus doublet it even reaches 1:1 zoomed in at 400 mm at a very decent distance from the lens, great for chasing dragonflies, and other easily disturbed creatures.



As to the IS, the balance of the lens really helps a lot too, provided one holds it the way it was intended. The focusing and zoom ring are coupled, in the sense that when you zoom, the focusing room moves with it, and vice versa (independent of focusing, however). That means that one can hold it by the focusing ring for one-handed operation for both zooming and focusing, if the latter is required, f.e., to turn the focusing ring just that little bit because the AF system decided to focus on a little twig just next to the main subject, or because the wind was blowing the object just a little bit away, or just to put the sharpest or focusing point just a bit further ahead or backwards. It also makes zooming and focusing very fast, zoom out to find a subject, zoom in to magnify and frame. And th efocusing ring also happens to eb the perfect spot to hold th elens for very good balnce. Despite the 2-stop IS, I managed to shoot at 1/45s at 400 mm with my APS-C cameras when I still had those for a > 50% return rate in sharp photographs. With IS off I needed ~ 1/750s or faster. I also tested this against a Sigma 170-500 and a few Tamron 200-500s, and with those at 500 mm I needed a minimum of 1/1000s to 1/1200s to get a reasonably sharp handheld picture. I got the Tamron first, but returned it two weeks later, got the 100-400L despite it really being out of my budget by a fair amount, but I have never looked back.



It is the only zoom lens left in my arsenal, and for a reason. I consider it a great lens for longer distance macros and closeups (even if that sounds contradictory <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />), for landscapes, sport, wildlife, flowers and candids (despite the white colour).



The biggest problem really is focusing accurately, i.e., from a user and user error perspective, especially in a dynamic environment, as DoF even at F/5.6 at longer FLs is rather thin <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' />. Get it just a bit wrong, and th epicture will not be optimally sharp.



A lot of people seem to have problems with the zoom mechanism, but I do think that if one gets used to it, one realizes that for such a lens there is no better way, especially for handheld photography, because of the balance and extremely fast method of working this makes possible.



The picture below I had on the main wall of my living room for a while now, printed at 60 cm X 90 cm. It certainly beats the winter blues <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Big Grin' /> :



[Image: flower-side-01.jpg]



And here one taken with 1D Mk III, juvenile songthrush, about 1/3 crop of total image:

[Image: songthrush01.jpg]



Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
#10
Thanks Marcus. I guess I fail to realize how thin the dof really is (even at small aperture for long lenses). I mean I think about dof when composing an image but having grown use to short lenses intuitively I don't sense just how thin it is @ 200mm or even 400mm.

-



Very nice image Wim; esp the one of the juvenile songthrush; the lighting really helps with emphasizing the details.



[quote name='mst' timestamp='1302377989' post='7518']

They do, but not because the lens is soft, it's just the very limited DOF at work here.



That's one of the lessons to learn with a long lens: there's hardly any subject flat enough to fit the DOF of a long lens, even if it's stopped down. This can be a real challenge in the field for both the photographer and the camera's AF.



-- Markus

[/quote]
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)