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
#11
[quote name='you2' timestamp='1302436894' post='7524']

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]

Thank you. Considering this was shot through a double-glazed window pane, it turned out really well - had no time ot think, considering how fast and easily terrified these birds are.



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 ....
#12
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1302338609' post='7507']

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. :-)

[/quote]



Thanks Klaus for an excellent review. I wanted to question whether the 3.5 star optical rating could have been a 4 (especially considering what the alternatives are) but I decided against it <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> , knowing all the caveats around the star ratings <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Rolleyes' />



Were you considering to update the existing APS-C review to a test on the 50D or is it not worth the trouble? Would you expect to see much difference?
#13
[quote name='danida12' timestamp='1302512870' post='7532']

Thanks Klaus for an excellent review. I wanted to question whether the 3.5 star optical rating could have been a 4 (especially considering what the alternatives are) but I decided against it <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' /> , knowing all the caveats around the star ratings <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Rolleyes' />



Were you considering to update the existing APS-C review to a test on the 50D or is it not worth the trouble? Would you expect to see much difference?

[/quote]



I considered to do a retest but the main problem is testing space at the moment. 500mm (FF) are about the finishing line and with the 100-400L we'd have been at 640mm. I'm afraid that for the time being I can only test lenses on APS-C with a max. of 300mm - unless I start testing outdoor again (which is a pain).

However, I reckon that the charts would have looked the same as in the older test.

As for the 3.5* rating - I think it has no tendency towards 4* actually. Remember that these are absolute ratings, not relative ones.



FWIW ... I've just ordered the 300/4L IS & 400/5.6L for testing ...
#14
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1302516500' post='7533']

FWIW ... I've just ordered the 300/4L IS & 400/5.6L for testing ...

[/quote]

The 400/5.6L will certainly be interesting to compare. Image quality complaints on the 100-400L tend to come down to it being not as good as the 400 prime. I wonder how that stacks up numerically.



Just for curiosity, will the 300/4L be also tested at 420mm?
<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.
#15
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1302520378' post='7534']

The 400/5.6L will certainly be interesting to compare. Image quality complaints on the 100-400L tend to come down to it being not as good as the 400 prime. I wonder how that stacks up numerically.



Just for curiosity, will the 300/4L be also tested at 420mm?

[/quote]



No, I don't have a 1.4x III here.
#16
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1302338609' post='7507']

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

[/quote]



Will you retest the legacy primes like 20/24/28 and amateur zooms like 28-105 & 24-85?
#17
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1302338609' post='7507']

Very good for such a lens [/quote]



I agree. I think it's Canon's best telephoto zoom.



[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1302338609' post='7507']

no wonder that we haven't seen a replacement yet.[/quote]



With the recent announcement on the 200-400/4, me neither. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Sad' />
#18
[quote name='youpii' timestamp='1302539922' post='7538']

Will you retest the legacy primes like 20/24/28 and amateur zooms like 28-105 & 24-85?

[/quote]



The 20/2.8 and 28-135 IS are on the radar. I will, most likely, skip the 24mm f/2.8 and the two 28mm lenses.

The popular offerings on the third-party side will get a higher priority now.
#19
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1302379791' post='7520']

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

[/quote]





I have taken several thousand pics with my 5D Mark2 and have been satisfied with the 100-400 except in the 330-400mm range. At 100mm, I tested my 24-105, 100mm 2.8 macro EF and 100-400 for comparison sharpness. Used a husky quickset tripod, mirror lock, IR remote, removed UV filters, shot at f 8, same shutter speed, same target (radio tower with numerous detail features). For color, the 24-105 was the warmest, but had the least amount of res, esp. at the corners. The 100-400 had the best overall performance. The mcro was sharpest at the corners, but the contast wasn't as pleasing. Frankly, the high quality of the 100-400 really surprised me. I need to spring for a a big time prime though. Everything I've read points to either the 600/4, or the 400/2.8. The 400/5.6 is not a big enough improvement to justify the purchase. I will keep my 100-400, no matter what.
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)