100-400mm Canon f5.6 Good and Bad

[popeshawnpaul]

Many on here know I hate the 100-400mm f5.6.  I can sum it up like this:  It does nothing good but does everything ok.  I've taken some heat for this so I wanted to post a few pictures to illustrate my point.  Before I rip the 100-400 I want to say that some copies are relatively sharp.  For those decent copies, I don't like the background blur the lens provides at f5.6.  For those that shoot with water or sky behind their subjects, this lens can work fine and produce nice images.  For those of us trying to isolate a pronghorn from trees or a deer from brush, it doesn't work well.

Here are two sets of photos, one full size and one a crop of the head on the photo.  The first photo was taken with the 100-400mm lens with my 7D camera.  The second set was taken with Tom's 400mm f2.8 with a 1.4x teleconverter.  The size of the pronghorn in the image was relatively the same and the background was the same.  Here are the images:

This is the 100-400 f5.6 at full size.  You don't notice much quality difference when you take a full frame image and simply crop it to 800 pixels.  A couple things to notice though is the lack of hair detail and the blur of the trees in the background.  Notice how the trees are more in focus than the 400mm shot below.  This background blur really helps to set the pronghorn off in the image.


Now here is the crop of the pronghorn in the 100-400 lens.  Notice the lack of good hair detail.  If you had to crop the image you would lose detail in the animal.


Here is the full size image from the 400mm f2.8 lens.  This shot was taken with the 1.4x teleconverter so it was at f4.  Had the shot been taken with the straight lens it would be even more detailed.  The fact that a lens can blow another one away with a teleconverter on is a testament to the remarkable quality you can get with a good prime lens.


Here is the crop from the 400mm lens.  Notice the hair detail in the picture over the 100-400mm lens crop. 



In conclusion, it is obvious the fixed lens blows the zoom away.  You don't have the versatility of the zoom but you end up with a much better image.  You might wonder what the price difference is and it is significant.  The 100-400 is around $1100 and the 400mm f2.8 is around $6000.  However, I could have run this test vs the 300mm f4 and I have little doubt the outcome wouldn't have been the same and that lens sells for less than $1000.  Even vs the 300mm f2.8 or the 400mm f4, the fixed lenses would blow this lens out of the water.  In fact, my old Tokina 400mm f5.6 fixed lens would beat the 100-400mm lens in image quality and it sells for about $100.  For those that are sticklers about image quality, the 100-400mm lens may not be for you.  It's not a lens that will be in my photo bag until they improve the lens.  This is a fun debate and I welcome anyone else to add a different viewpoint on the subject.  These are the difficult decisions many here go through when they buy a lens and having information can help the decision making process.

[Timber]

I agree with you pope. The 100-400 f5.6 was my only wildlife lens until I bought the 400 2.8 a few months ago. The zoom feature on that lens is nice, but the image quality is not very good. I plan on selling mine, is anybody interested?

[boneaddict]

Would that lens and a D40 bod take better pics than your average point and shoot?   I was trying to think of another alternative in the price range.  I was thinking the 300 f4

[popeshawnpaul]

The only thing close is the 300mm f4 L IS and you can couple that with the 1.4x.  Before I slam the 100-400 too hard, I should show a few nice pictures I've taken with it.  I'll post a few when I get a chance.

It's better than a point and shoot by a long shot.

[Hornseeker]

Yeah...show some of the good ones!!!   

[jackelope]

i have a tamron 100-300 f4-5.6 that i paid $100(used) for attached to a 1st year digital rebel that takes better pics than my fz18 took before it got stolen.

[Tom Reichner]

Before I slam the 100-400 too hard, I should show a few nice pictures I've taken with it.  I'll post a few when I get a chance.

It's better than a point and shoot by a long shot.

I've gotta say that I agree with you, Shawn. If I were completely happy with my 100-400 I never would've bought my 40 f2.8. Nor would I lug it around with me - it truly is "the battleship". 

But I must say that at times the 100-400 can and does produce some very nice images.  The problem I have with it (besides not being reliable sharp) is that it will only produce nice background blur when the background is far behind the subject, and also when the background is very even in shade and color.  Otherwise, the backgrounds are just not smooth.  They get a weird "digitized" effect in which the blurred area looks pixelated (this is different from noise).

All that being said, I will say that there are times when the wide range in focal length is very helpful.  And when conditions are near perfect the image quality can be very good.  Here are a few examples of times when it performed reasonably well:

[boneaddict]

Think those would qualify Ernie.  Pretty sharp for not so sharp.    Many times with this 400, I wish I had one that I could zoom down to 200mm instead of being fixed at 400.  i think the fact it doesn't weigh 12 pounds might be nice too.   Again though, that 300 F4 seems pretty reasonable and seems like a great lens.  I think thats what Slider is shooting.

[huntnphool]

 Is it going to get you cover shots for Field and Stream, no, but not everyone on here can go out and drop 4k-6k on a couple lenses to cover everything in the 100-400mm range. I understand your dislike for the lens but you should also emphasize that for some looking to get into the game, $1500 can get you a camera and lens that will get you images that 99% of the people on here and their friends will find completely adequate.

 Again, is it tack sharp, no but I would rather see someone using a 100-400 and having fun than someone using a point and shoot wishing they could get better picks.

[huntnphool]

Just to help clarify what Pope is talking about, if you look at the buck above that I posted you will notice the snow and bushes in the background beyond the buck. For pros like Pope, Tom and a few others, although not would you would say is in focus, they are in fact TOO in focus for magazines and distract from the buck itself. Because of this, this lens is not the best for these type of pics. If you are shooting critters like Tom posted, and the background is much further away, you can isolate the subject better and get away with the 100-400mm. Hope this helps.

[Ricochet]

I guess that's the nice thing about shooting Nikons, we have the option of buying the 200-400 f4 VR.  The convenience of a zoom with excellent image quality.  Unfortunately it also has a $6k price tag.  

[boneaddict]

Quality glass is certainly reflected in the price tag.  No matter if its that other company or Canon.

[boneaddict]

When Timber was considering his new 400, I think my quote to him was "If you can wait until you can afford it, you'll never get it."   

[Bean Counter]

Pope, etc:

Can you guys recommend a third lens to add to my wife's camera setup? I bought her a Digital Rebel XTi. She has the cheapy kit lens (EFS 18-55) and the cheap, plastic f/1.8 50mm prime lens. I would like to buy one that I could take and shoot pics of wildlife at a distance. I dont' need an all around lens, just one for this specific purpose. Obviously it would have to be decent at low light without a flash.  I'd like to keep it under $500, and I'm willing to buy used. What's the best lens I can get in that range? How about that 75-300mm with IS @ Costco for $550ish? Thanks.

 

[Jesse Jaymes]

I wanted to say Thank You to all of the "big names" posting above.  I frequent here more and more, and this just happens to be one of those very "ironic" times when I was researching lenses for about 2 hours yesterday.

Most know I am relocating to WA.  Will be in Chewelah on the 25th of this month(damn it's cold up there already).

Always had a camera with me, as I am out and about in a professional capacity a majority of the time.  Have gotten some decent shots (by mortal standards) that people can actually see some of the critters I've run into.  Nothing compared to the above.

With a new EOS DSLR camera for a BD gift in August, I am a semi new interest and hobby.  Starting to read as much as I can and give it a go.

And it is exactly threads like this that I enjoy.  Being able to pool from the masses with actual experience is a fantastic resource.  And as stated, as a hobbyist, who is also pretty broke at this time, a $6000 lense to see if I like the whole photography thing is a bit out of reach.

Just read about primes vs zooms and the benefits of both.

I would like to ask:

I hate mm as a designator of "power"  as a lifetime shooter, why can't they just make it an "X"?  Point being, with a prime of 300 or 400, what is the approximate range that a decent shot can be made?  If a moose is grazing in a meadow or clear cut, and I can get to within 80 yards, is a 300mm lense going to do much for me?

[huntnphool]

Bean Counter, for me there are two lenses that are a must to have for shooting critters and covering a wide range of shots, the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 400mm f/4 IS DO. With these two lenses there is almost nothing you cant do when shooting deer, elk, sheep, goats etc.

 The 400mm 2.8 IS is a nice lens but at that size and weight packing it into the hills will require a sherpa unless you are built like Bone, but even he uses his point and shoot way too often because of the bulk. The 400mm DO is half the weight, half the price and I believe just as sharp. It makes spending the extra money on the 2.8 out of the question for me. By the way, most of those Canada picks Pope has been posting are with the 400mm DO.

 Back on topic though, until you are ready to spend the coin on the 400 DO, the 100-400 will get you in the game.

[boneaddict]

Its hard for me to relate distance to what I can take a picture of.  First of all, one of those cool things about fixed power lens, is that when you put a double or 1.4 on it, it generally seems to still take a pretty clean shot.  So essentially, I have my 400, throw a doubler on it, now its 800 F5.6 (I think) if not F4 with the 1.4.  Then throw in teh crop factor with the camera I have and its even more. 

If you shoot a sharp image, then its amazing what you can crop.

[Timber]

When Timber was considering his new 400, I think my quote to him was "If you can wait until you can afford it, you'll never get it."   

That quote from bone was the final straw for me. My only regret about buying the 400 2.8 is that I wish I had bought it sooner.

Here are a few random examples of what the 100-400 f5.6 lens can do given decent light. Two of these pics wouldn't have worked with a fixed power lens, because the animal was too close.

[Hornseeker]

Nice pics Timber!! YOu selling that lens??

[Timber]

Yeah, I want to sell it and buy a 70-200 2.8. I've been too lazy to put it up for sale anywhere. Are you interested? PM me if you are.

[popeshawnpaul]

Since others have posted some good 100-400 pictures I'll hold off.  One comment above was it won't get many field and stream covers but people don't have 4-6k for a lens.  It can get some covers as some of the good pictures posted show.  However, the 300mm f4 L IS can get covers and is a big step up from image quality than the 100-400 and it's cheaper.  Couple that with a 1.4x and you can do some good work with that combo for about $900.   

[popeshawnpaul]

I hate mm as a designator of "power"  as a lifetime shooter, why can't they just make it an "X"?  Point being, with a prime of 300 or 400, what is the approximate range that a decent shot can be made?  If a moose is grazing in a meadow or clear cut, and I can get to within 80 yards, is a 300mm lense going to do much for me?

The "x" designation just doesn't work well for photography.  Suppose you had a 25mm lens, then you would have to say you have a 1/2x lens.  Or 12mm, that would be a 1/4x.  What if you had a 17mm?  It would get confusing on the wide angle.

300mm will get you good shots from 50-20 yards.  400mm will get you to 70-30 yards.  300 is fine with a crop camera with animals that can get easy to approch but wild animals require 400mm+.  400mm is the perfect all around focal length for mammals, IMO. 

[e55komp]

prime vs zoom, prime will always be more clear, you also have to remember us working stiffs cant afford a 100mm, 200mm 300mm 400mm prime lens in our arsenal , maybe not even a 200mm IS prime lens with a 1.4x. so cost wise the 100-400 may be more logical in some, actually most of our cases. people are are mostly hobbyists wanting to take pictures of their kids, dogs ect.. at 20 feet away. having a $2k dollars lens for just long range photography of animals in the wild just might not be practical. the 100-400 can product amazing pictures as long as you know its limitations and work with the camera/ lens combo enough.