Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Are there any happy users of Canon 100-400 L lens on a 1DsMkIII  (Read 5051 times)
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« on: May 31, 2009, 05:35:16 AM »
ReplyReply

I have a Canon 100-400 lens and for the past 2 Canon DSLR bodies that I have owned (1Ds MkII and now the MkIII). I have not been very happy with the results from my 100-400 lens especially on the MkIII.

I sent it back to Canon and they replaced a collar and did the calibration thing. I also used LensAlign to dial in the micro adjustment on my 1Ds MkIII body. The images are still a little soft at the long end (350-400mm) using even medium apertures.

I was curious what other owners of this lens are experiencing.

In contrast, I also own the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS and the 70-200 f4 IS and both of these lenses are tack sharp, but they don't have enough reach for my kids' sporting events.

Bud
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1065


« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2009, 10:41:43 AM »
ReplyReply

i recently tested 100-400 on new 5D2 using imatest and was pleasantly surprised at the increase in resolution over the 5D.  there wasn't much difference in resolution between the 70-200 f4 at 200 and the 100-400 at 400 (i believe the 100-400 is a good copy, but don't really know about the 70-200).  center resolution is about the same my 300 f4 +1.4x, but the converter introduces a lot of barrel distortion and really knocks down resolution at the edges - without the converter the 300 is sharper than the 100-400.

my experience with the lens on crop frame cameras is that wildlife prints to 13x19 are quite satisfactory, but that's about the limit.  my tests indicated little difference between 640mm equiv on a 40D and a 5D2 equivalent crop.  won't have an opportunity for real field use with the 5D2 until July.

so i think a GOOD COPY of the 100-400 can be satisfactory on a high resolution camera -- unfortunately it remains the only game in town (although a number of people use converters on the 70-200 lenses, i think these combinations are significantly worse than the 100-400 and with limited data i think this problem is more noticeable with high resolution cameras)
Logged
joedecker
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 142


WWW
« Reply #2 on: May 31, 2009, 10:45:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: stever
so i think a GOOD COPY of the 100-400 can be satisfactory on a high resolution camera -- unfortunately it remains the only game in town ...

I just went primes above 200 (300/4 IS, 500/4 IS, 400/5.6), and am glad I did.  *shrug*
Logged

Joe Decker
Rock Slide Photography
http://www.rockslidephoto.com/
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #3 on: May 31, 2009, 11:46:57 AM »
ReplyReply

There's a big opportunity here for either Canon or Nikon (okay, and Sony) to scoop the market with a good quality zoom in this range.

My own copy of the 100-400 is sharpest at F8, but only very slightly sharper at F8 than at F11. At F5.6 it's noticeably softer, even softer than at F11.

A typically sharp 35mm format lens, is sharpest around F5.6. A 100-400 IS which is sharpest at full aperture would be terrific. I'd buy it in a flash.
Logged
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 690


WWW
« Reply #4 on: May 31, 2009, 02:52:31 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree with the previous posters. A major Canon overhaul is many years over due for the 100-400 L and the basic 50 1.4. IMHO.

Bud
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
DaveCurtis
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 454


WWW
« Reply #5 on: May 31, 2009, 03:22:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I went with the 400mm f4 DO. It holds up well on the 1DsMkIII. The 100-400mm seemed to struggle even on my old 1D MrkII.
Logged

Romy Ocon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9



« Reply #6 on: June 02, 2009, 07:14:18 AM »
ReplyReply

My 100-400 works well with my 5D2.

Bird at 400 mm wide open:
http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/111371882/original


100% crop of the above:
http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/image/111379028
Logged

Philippine Wild Birds in HD video - http://exposureroom.com/members/RomyOcon.aspx/videos/
EdRosch
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 86


« Reply #7 on: June 02, 2009, 07:54:28 AM »
ReplyReply

I would add, don't be tempted by the Sigma 120-400 OS, which on the surface would seem to be a good alternative.  I was so sucked in when I first came out and I failed to do my proper research on Sigma.  Sucked is the operative word, my lens failed (autofocus) died last March and was immediately returned under warranty.  Now, three months later I've been informed that they just got the parts and I may have my lens back in a couple of more weeks.  Even before failure, it was not a great performer and the OS tended to go crazy and cause the image to vibrate wildly instead of stabilize.   I mentioned this in my cover letter, but it remains to be seen if this was addressed.  I have since learned that a major lens rental outfit has ceased carrying it and it's 150-500 sibling due to a near 50% failure rate.

Oh, and if you're wondering, very soft at 400, needed to be stopped down at lower lengths to be acceptable, but not great at any time optically.

A very poor lens backed up by worse customer service.  BEWARE

Ed

BTW- I have to add about Romy's bird above  WOW!  If I could be guaranteed a copy that good, I'd jump on the Canon 100-400 like a hungry hound on a porkchop!  Unfortunately, I've also seen posted samples that aren't much better than my Sigma at its best, so quality control seems to be variable.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2009, 07:59:23 AM by EdRosch » Logged

Gary Gray
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


« Reply #8 on: June 02, 2009, 09:37:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't have the 1DsMKIII, but I do have the 1DsMKII, a 5D and a 50D.  Been using the 100-400L on all my Canon bodies for some time now.  I am quite satisfied with the 100-400L on the 1DsMKII.  I'm certain I have a good copy of the lens, images maintain good sharpness and low distortion across the frame and all focal lengths.  Yeah, at 400mm it softens just a tad, but nothing unusable and in comparison to every other zoom in this range, and I've owned about all of them, the 100-400L is the best in class IMO.  There is no sharper or more versatile telephoto zoom lens in this focal range, and it works great on the full frame bodies.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2009, 09:38:24 AM by Gary Gray » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #9 on: June 02, 2009, 10:22:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Romy Ocon
My 100-400 works well with my 5D2.

Romy,
Your 100-400 works well on any Canon DSLR dosen't it? It's a cherry-picked lens   . Don't ever sell it. Those are lovely, clear and sharp shots of the birds.
Logged
Geoff Wittig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1017


« Reply #10 on: June 02, 2009, 12:08:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: budjames
I have a Canon 100-400 lens and for the past 2 Canon DSLR bodies that I have owned (1Ds MkII and now the MkIII). I have not been very happy with the results from my 100-400 lens especially on the MkIII.

I sent it back to Canon and they replaced a collar and did the calibration thing. I also used LensAlign to dial in the micro adjustment on my 1Ds MkIII body. The images are still a little soft at the long end (350-400mm) using even medium apertures.

I was curious what other owners of this lens are experiencing.

In contrast, I also own the Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS and the 70-200 f4 IS and both of these lenses are tack sharp, but they don't have enough reach for my kids' sporting events.

Bud

I wouldn't exactly say I'm a happy user, but I do use the 100-400 on my Eos-1Ds III with some frequency with decent results. I guess it sort of depends on your expectations. For hand-held wildlife shots it's pretty decent, mostly because autofocus and IS functions are 'good enough', and the center sharpness is 'good enough', while the soft corners don't matter very much for a white tailed deer near the center of the frame. It sure would be nice to have a real f:4 zoom with real "L" level sharpness, though.

For landscapes I have a love-hate relationship with this lens. Stopped down to f:8 or f:11, it will at apparently random intervals yield remarkably good sharpness even out at the corners, while other frames are disappointingly soft. The problem is clearly camera shake; this lens's primitive 1st generation IS is not usable on a tripod, and the camera/lens/tripod collar/foot rig is too wobbly to get sharp images without luck and careful technique. I find if I use mirror lock up, tighten everything down, and put a firm hand on top of the tripod collar I can get about one frame out of three sharp enough to print to large sizes.

If and when Canon ever decides to produce a circa 200-400 f:4 L zoom, I'll be the first guy to lay down my plastic.
Logged
Romy Ocon
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9



« Reply #11 on: June 05, 2009, 03:57:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, Ed and Ray!

Quote from: Ray
Romy,
Your 100-400 works well on any Canon DSLR dosen't it? It's a cherry-picked lens   . Don't ever sell it. Those are lovely, clear and sharp shots of the birds.

Yup, my copy of this zoom is unbelievably sharp, I guess I won't sell it even for USD 2K. I even dared to compare it to my 500 f4!

http://birdphotoph.proboards.com/index.cgi...&thread=353



Romy
Logged

Philippine Wild Birds in HD video - http://exposureroom.com/members/RomyOcon.aspx/videos/
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6819


« Reply #12 on: June 05, 2009, 04:27:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm also using a 100-400 on a 1Ds Mk 3. I'm mostly satisfied with the results. It's certainely not "boxing" in the same category as the 300/400/500/600/800 L primes but its versatility and moderate size/weight are great assets for me. That being said, it's about time that Canon updates this lens with better optics, weather sealing and a new IS unit.
Logged

Francois
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad