Canon 100-400 IS - design "updated" ?

I'm struggling with the decision of adding the 100-400 IS to my gear because of its versatility for BIF and other wildlife shots. Though I' ve seen many photogs using this lens, I've skipped it until now because in the past, I found a lot of the mixed reviews regarding sharpness at the long end. There seem(ed) to be a lot of sample variation, too and in fact, with the two copies from fellow travellers I tried some time ago, the sharpness @ 300-400mm simply was not there - at least not at f-stopps below 8-11 when using this zoom on my 1DsMKII/III and 1DMKIII cameras. Normally, I've been shooting wildlife with the 70-200/300/500/600 mm. Of course I know, that the 100-400 cannot rival with the mentioned primes but I really don't want to sacrifice too much optical quality. On the other hand, the flexibilty of the zoom in the 100-400 range would be very welcome. I could experience this on my last trip to the Galapagos when the f2.8/300mm prime was too unflexible in some situations - especially during the Zodiac rides. Unfortunately, Canon still has no plans of making a high quality f4/200-400 and I don't know anything of a 100-400 II in their sleeves. However, the newer reports on the Canon telezoom at Fredmiranda's etc. sound more positive so that there maybe have been silent improvements of the newer copies. That's why I would appreciate some comments of serious nature photographers using this lens on the 1series cameras (or 5DII). Sorry if this topic has been beaten to death - but I could not find more recent experiences here.

Thank you in advance

Wolfgang
http://www.wjaekel-foto.de

Flexibility is definitely the big benefit of the Canon 100-400 but the AF is marginal for birds in flight - if you lock on early and have perfect technique it can do the job but if you see your subject a little late or get off the subject you don't have much chance of getting the subject back in focus. The 400 f/5.6 is way better for birds in flight due to much faster AF. The 300-400mm part of the range is definitely the weakness of this lens - below that, most copies are very good. You have to be very careful with user impressions not based on unbiased side by side tests as they are often tainted by the fact that the user spent a lot of money on the lens and want their investment to be a good one. There are many that swear that their copy is as sharp or sharper than primes but again the same problem taints the objectivity. I have shot with and tested many copies of this lens including copies where the owners swore that their copy was super sharp and ones built in the last couple of years. They are almost always sorely disappointed when their lens is tested next to say a 400 f/5.6 prime or compared to something like the Nikon 200-400. You will find the occasional person who has both the 100-400 and the 400/5.6 (like I used to until late last year) and their zoom is sharper than their prime. In situations like this, I would argue that either their 400/5.6 is back or front focusing or has some other problem such as a mis-seated lens element, contamination, etc.

This is and has been a very volatile subject here and on other photography forums so I'm sure you will get many comments on how incredibly sharp their lens is. That is great, only they need to be happy with it. But you can not get any objective data from dramatically downrezzed photos posted on the internet. Virtually any lens if focused properly will look fine at 750x500 pixels.

But as you say, the versatility of the lens is fantastic and that counts for a lot and by stopping down to f/11, as long as you can get enough shutter speed, the lens is usable. There are other options in this range from 3rd party manufacturers but unfortunately those aren't any better and are usually worse.

As for Canon plans, nobody knows what their plans are around this.

I have to agree with EJ. The 400 / 5.6 is a great BIF lens. Absolutely crisp images and with no IS.

I would consider the 28 - 300 Canon L and the 400/5.6 combination for more versatility.

I have an older 100 - 400 and get some great shots but, friends have newer versions and I think their images are more crisp.

I think that the 1 D MK III and 1 Ds Mk III both have very sensitive focusing and it takes a lot of practice to figure out what the camera is doing.

I have a newish refurb. I use it on a 1d2n mostly for whales (why I bought it). It's used in all kinds of light from bad, dark light and too bright contrasty light (usually on the long end). I've posted before that, like you, I struggled with purchasing this lens given its funky reputation and from example files and prints I have viewed. Frankly, I was quite prepared to hate it and send it back. Turns out I really like it (I have very sharp 70-200 f/4, 300 f/4 IS and 500 f/4 IS's to compare it to). As far as I'm concerned, it's a very useful keeper. AF is quick enough to deal with whales but I haven't used it with eagles or other birds yet. The image quality is really quite adequate on my copy at all apertures and focal lengths. Perhaps a bit softer on the long end, as others have said, but not by any means unusably softer. I'd suggest you take a gander at my orca and humpback and SSL shots I've posted recently but as EJ has pointed out - you really can't tell anything about IQ from small web posted shots. If you're really interested, I can send some 100% crops of things. Sadly, the pixel peeping tests I did when I 1st rec'd the lens have been deleted so I can't send them your way.

Anyway, I highly recommend trying a newer copy. Rent one, buy a refurb or used copy, whatever, but it really is worth trying to see if it meets your needs. And heck, I've even gotten used to the push/pull thing!

Cheers!

I sure wish Canon would add IS to the 400 f/5.6. I think they would sell a good many because It's a sharp lens with good contrast and very easy to carry long distances but limited by its slow glass. I haul around a 300 f/2.8 with a 1/4 extender, but I'd love to be able to put the 400 on and not worry so much about speed loss.

I've used a couple of 100-400 lenses but been ambivalent enough about the IQ not to buy one.

--Gib

If Canon added IS to the 400/5.6 lens it would be very heavy, much larger and wouldn't be the same lens!!!

There is a 400 2.8 and a 400 f4. Both have IS.

Check the weight and price on those puppies.

So Canon has beat you to the game by providing a 400 mm with IS.

I think we all would like to have long IS lenses that are feather light!!

I don't think a 400 f5.6 IS would be larger or all that much heavier. The 70-200 f2.8L is available in both IS and non-IS versions. The sizes are exactly the same, and the weight difference appears to be 15% (B&H gives the weight of the IS with and without the tripod collar, but gives only one, unspecified weight for the non-IS lens). The weight differential between the IS and non-IS versions of the 70-200 f4L is even smaller, only 9%, and again the sizes are the same.

I would have to agree with you that if Canon can do it on the 70 - 200, both an IS and non-IS form, then it is reasonable to presume that they could do it on the 400/5.6.

I just love that lens!! Even though it is non-IS.

Cliff Beittel wrote:I don't think a 400 f5.6 IS would be larger or all that much heavier.

If you compare the 400 5.6 prime to the 100-400 IS there is a lot of difference in the weight. So if Canon did offer IS to the 400 5.6 I think there would be a substantial weight gain. Personally I like my 400 5.6 just the way it is.

I cannot comment on the f5.6/400mm, but since I have the f2.8/300mm IS and f4/300mm IS + 1,4x I probably won't consider this lens additionally.
As mentioned in my first posting, I had tried two copies of the 100-400 from fellow travellers some time ago and I was absolutely not content with the results at the long end. That's why I've been of the opinion, that it makes no sense to put this mediocre zoom on a high res camera such as the 1DsMKIII or 5DII. I also agree with E.J., that many buyers certainly tend to justify their purchase. However, on a recent nature photographer's festival near Munich, the CPS guys lent me the lens again for testing it on my 1DsMKIII. Based on my previous experiences, I was surprised that the results came out pretty good - though they're not in the same league as with the L- tele primes, of course. But stopped down a bit, the sharpness seemed pretty good to me and even @ f5.6 some shots came out acceptable with this copy. Today, I uploaded some examples of the full sized files on my server. Since the achilles' heel of the zoom seems to be the long end, I was mainly interested in the results at 400mm @ f5.6 (and f8). You can download the unprocessed raw files from the link below and I would very much appreciate your comments and evaluation:

http://www.wjaekel-foto.de/100-400/testfiles.html

BTW, I also had the chance to test the f3.5/TSE II, f 1.4/24mm II and f 5.6/800mm during the event. While I'm not yet totally convinced that the upgrade of the 24mm II over the 24mm I is worth the extra money, the 3.5/24 TSE is a superb lens and much better than the original. As for the 800mm, the results are simply stunning. I additionally uploaded a few examples of the tele for those who are interested in them. For me, this lens is too expensive - at least as long as I don't want to trade in my 600mm. But back to the topic:
Regarding the Nikon f4/200-400, it's certainly not in the same league as the Canon zoom considering its price of around 6400 € compared to 1400 € of the 100-400. But I would be glad if Canon finally made a similar lens. The CPS told me that they had informed Canon JP that they could sell 500 copies of a f4/200-400 zoom in a heartbeat. But so far there's nothing at the horizon. I don't know if the 100-400mm is too slow for many shooting situations and f4 certainly would be much better. Nevertheless, as I mentioned in another posting, I talked to some serious Nikon pros who had sold or skipped the 200-400 because they were not content with the sharpness. So in the end it seems to be a good idea to find a dealer who has several copies on stock before I come to a decision - as Joe has advised me.

So far, thank you very much for your comments

Best regards

Wolfgang

I am one of those guys who recognizes that the 100-400mm is a flawed lens, however it is so darned versatile. I have taken more keepers with that lens, I dare to say that I have more from it than all of my longer prime lenses. At some point good light, good subject, good composition and good post processing can make MTF curves a trivial subject.

DarrenMcKenna wrote:

Cliff Beittel wrote:I don't think a 400 f5.6 IS would be larger or all that much heavier.

If you compare the 400 5.6 prime to the 100-400 IS there is a lot of difference in the weight. So if Canon did offer IS to the 400 5.6 I think there would be a substantial weight gain. Personally I like my 400 5.6 just the way it is.

Comparing a prime to a 4x zoom is comparing apples to oranges, zooms tend to have a lot more elements in their design and are much heavier because of it.

Scott Fairbairn wrote:
Comparing a prime to a 4x zoom is comparing apples to oranges, zooms tend to have a lot more elements in their design and are much heavier because of it.

Scott, my point is that a 400 5.6 with IS will be heavier then the 400 5.6 non IS

According to Canon's website, the 400 f5.6 is 2.8 lbs., while the 100-400 is 3.1 lbs. The 100-400, probably because of its bulk and balance, feels heavier than it is, but the actual difference is only .3 lb. or about 12%. Based on the 70-200 f2.8L/70-200 f2.8L IS and the 70-200 f4L/70-200 f4L IS comparisons, IS adds no size whatsoever, but between 7 and 12% in weight. So a 400 f5.6L IS could be expected to match the size and shape of the current lens, weigh no more than the 100-400, and feel lighter than the 100-400 (barring a new, lighter design and materials as in the 800 f5.6 which could make a new 400 f5.6 even more attractive, but also more expensive).

Here is my 100-400 rant... And I promise not to do this on every thread about this lens..

I think the 100-400 is "great"... not "world-class", but great.

At the risk of sounding like one of these 100-400 owners who thinks their lens is the best, I'll just say that (my copy at least) is truly "very good"... If you have good light and good technique, the lens will not disappoint. I have many many great keepers with this lens and it is, in my opinion, perfectly capable of professional grade photos, both displayed online, and in large prints.

However, it is nowhere near the optical quality of a 300 2.8 IS or a 400 2.8 IS... But how could it be?... It's a relatively slow zoom lens that covers a long range. Honestly, if you compare it to any other lens out there that covers a range of 300mm or more, it's at the head of the pack optically.... Lenses like the 300 2.8, 500mm F4 and the 600 f4 are works of art. They are exceptional. This does not mean the the 100-400 is garbage, it just means that it's not up to par with the best primes in the world that also cost 4-6 times as much as it does, or more... this should be expected. Some of the detractors of this lens would have you believe that it is on the same level as the atrocious 75-300 plastic lens that Canon makes... This is simply not the case.
Most people who put the 100-400 down constantly on forums are those with the luxury of using the world-class primes most of the time...
People may argue how much better the 400 5.6 is too, but again, it's a prime versus a wide-coverage zoom.

Of course, what E.J. says is definitely true regarding the look of photos that have been optimized and re-sized for the web... You cannot tell much of a difference there, and the true test of a lens's capabilities are seen in large prints or 100% crops. Flaws can disappear at 500x750 pixels.

As far as the weaknesses of this lens go, it is completely unforgiving in poor light. With my 300 2.8, I can shoot at ISO 1600 under a muddy, overcast sky and if the photo is good otherwise, I can make it work in Lightroom or ACR... With the 100-400: forget about it, the lighting must be at the very least adequate... If you do use the 100-400 under these conditions with a high ISO, your photos will most likely be a dull mess that cannot be helped in PP. You simply have to be aware of the lens' capabilities. Low light performance is not one of them.
I do find the lens to be slightly sub-par at infinity focus... Maybe this is just an issue with my copy..
Also, even in good light, you will notice fine details like patterns of fur and feathers viewed at 100% to be weak in contrast and almost have a "chalky softness" for lack of a better term. Again, this is something that only us discerning photographers really notice... And lastly, the bokeh on this lens, (even wide-open) cannot match that of the fast primes... If conditions are ideal, you can definitely get good bokeh and some decent separation between your subject and the background, but never the creamy look of a 400 2.8

Now, in defense of the lens, some of the things that other people bring up have never been an issue with me. For example, many people say that it's quality degrades greatly beyond 350mm... With my copy, this is not an issue. My 100-400 gives good results from 200-400mm and doesn't weaken when fully extended. Also, my copy does not suffer much at all when paired with the 1.4x tc... I have had great results using the 1.4 in conjunction with the 100-400. I have not, however, used the 2x tc with it to see what the results are like...

ok.. rant over. hehe

A good 100-400L can be very good. Mine matched my 400 and was much more versatile so I sold the 400 5.6 prime.
Image quality isn't a big reason to choose between the two IMHO.

Neither one is as sharp wide open as my friends 300/2.8 IS prime.

Warts and all, the 100-400L is my most used lens.

However, I've tried several 100-400L and they are a tad variable. Best to hand pick one.

Cliff Beittel wrote:According to Canon's website, the 400 f5.6 is 2.8 lbs., while the 100-400 is 3.1 lbs. The 100-400, probably because of its bulk and balance, feels heavier than it is, but the actual difference is only .3 lb. or about 12%. Based on the 70-200 f2.8L/70-200 f2.8L IS and the 70-200 f4L/70-200 f4L IS comparisons, IS adds no size whatsoever, but between 7 and 12% in weight. So a 400 f5.6L IS could be expected to match the size and shape of the current lens, weigh no more than the 100-400, and feel lighter than the 100-400 (barring a new, lighter design and materials as in the 800 f5.6 which could make a new 400 f5.6 even more attractive, but also more expensive).

I would have never believed it, a friend of mine has a 100-400 and it feels much heavier then my 400 5.6 So with more speculation, why doesn't Canon come out with a 500 or 600 5.6 IS ?

As I have said in other threads, I use this lens 99% of the time when photographing from my kayak. I have used it for 99% of my loon photographs and those are my largest sellers! Purchased in 1999 and repaired once. I am happy to have it and couldn't do without it.

I am surprised how defensive owners of the 400/5.6 get when people discuss the addition of IS. I don't think Canon is going to replace the non-IS model nor are they going to compete. Just look at the 70-200/4 series: Canon came out with an IS version (of an optically more complex model) with no loss of quality and attached a hefty premium. If &/or when there is a Canon 400/5.6 IS model I would not worry about a trivial weight increase but just how much it will cost (probably around $2000?). I have a difficult time holding the 400mm steady so I'm hoping that Canon will come out with an IS version of this great lens. Now if Nikon got their act together and came out with their own 400/5.6 VR I, for one, would seriously think about investing in their gear.

Jim

Jim:

See if you can borrow a Bushhawk from someone.

It makes the 400/5.6 a breeze and gives added stability.

I find it easier then a monopod or tripod for BIF.