yippeee! a deal on the 100-400L zoom

[figment]

Never used but pre-owned [Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (Image Stabilizer) USM Autofocus Lens USA] @ my local dealer was traded for a 35-300.

The dealer let me put it on lay away for $0 and the cost is just a bit over $1k.

I know this lens is not highly rated, but it should be great fun for my outdoor nature stuff. This will be my first IS lens...

And I can pick it up after April 15th:)

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

Hi,

Before you do check out the Sigma 80-400 OS.
I decided to buy that after reading some reviews about the 100-400L and must say I LOVE it, and it's about the same price as the Canon.

See my review on this forum.

Greetings,
Frank

[defordphoto]

Figment: The 100-400L is probably THE most underrated lens that Canon has. You will be amazed at the results you will achieve with it. I absolutely love mine in spite of a minor AF problem that Canon eventually resolved. It's an awesome piece of glass. Here is an example of what the 100-400 can do:

gallery at: http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/index.htm

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/img_4264_std.jpg

[figment]

That my friend, is an AWSOME picture! I doubt I'll ever match it...

[J.A.F. Doorhof]

8) :shock:

[defordphoto]

That my friend, is an AWSOME picture! I doubt I'll ever match it...

The key is, you can. You will be using the exact same lens that was used to capture that shot. Sports shooting is a matter of being in the right place at the right time. That in itself takes skill as you learn the sport you're shooting. Then the photographic skills kick in.

I can hardly wait until this new season starts...

[figment]

I can hardly wait until this new season starts...Thanks for the encouragement :) I'll be at Grattan in June. Motorcycles are my real passion. I have 3...but my Z06 is a close second.

[IanD]

Jim,
I love looking at that shot.
The heat waves are really impressive but what grabs me is the drivers eyes locked on the pit guy at the left wheel.
You can almost hear him saying "Give me the sign, give me the sign, let me outta here."
The esscence of pit lane.

[defordphoto]

I kinda like that shot too! :) Also if you go to the gallery and view the sequence it's pretty cool.

[defordphoto]

I can hardly wait until this new season starts...Thanks for the encouragement :) I'll be at Grattan in June. Motorcycles are my real passion. I have 3...but my Z06 is a close second.

Cool! I'm hoping to shoot some bikes this year too over at PIR.

[GenEOS]

Figment: The 100-400L is probably THE most underrated lens that Canon has. You will be amazed at the results you will achieve with it. I absolutely love mine in spite of a minor AF problem that Canon eventually resolved. It's an awesome piece of glass. Here is an example of what the 100-400 can do:

gallery at: http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/index.htm

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/img_4264_std.jpg
Nice series of shots RMF. Did you do a USM when you posted with BreezBrowser? The vapors look a little oversharpened. But I know the originals are awesome. Great work. Why does the Exif say "self timer 65 seconds"??
I can't wait for CART to come back to Houston, if ever. Or we get the track built in Alvin for Nascar...

[Jim_T]

Unlike RFMSports.. I find mine a tad soft at 400mm..

I have to give the images a bump of contrast and USM to make them more to my liking.. But otherwise, it's a great lens.. It's really sharp at all the other focal lengths.. I'll be keeping it for a long time to come :)


http://members.shaw.ca/jamestownsend/mallard.jpg

[Tom W]

What is it with you Jims and your "L" glass? :D

You both have some excellent pictures there. Jim T - that is sharp as a tack, not to mention a pleasing effect from the light and shadows. And of course, RFM already knows that I like the motorsports photos.

[defordphoto]

Nice series of shots RMF. Did you do a USM when you posted with BreezBrowser? The vapors look a little oversharpened. But I know the originals are awesome. Great work. Why does the Exif say "self timer 65 seconds"??
I can't wait for CART to come back to Houston, if ever. Or we get the track built in Alvin for Nascar...

I left BB at its default so yes, it did actually add its own USM on top of what I applied in PSP. There was no USM applied to any specific area. The vapor roils are as they were shot and they always are amplified in high-speed shots, so while they are not as our eyes would see them in real life (they are 'frozen' in high-speed shots), they are certainly not oversharpened. If I had shot that at a much lower speed, you would not see them much at all and they'd just become part of the general background bokeh.

[defordphoto]

Unlike RFMSports.. I find mine a tad soft at 400mm..

I have to give the images a bump of contrast and USM to make them more to my liking.. But otherwise, it's a great lens.. It's really sharp at all the other focal lengths.. I'll be keeping it for a long time to come :)


I beg to differ Jim. That shot is as sharp as they come. You can almost touch the water droplets on that duck. We're shhoting two different (pardon the horrible pun) animals here. Feathers will appear less sharp than the shiny paint, chrome wheels and livery of a ChampCar.

[defordphoto]

Why does the Exif say "self timer 65 seconds"??

That's some thing that Photoshop did when I processed the photo. Amazing that software that costs that much can't figure out how to deal properly with EXIF info. I hear CS isn't any better...

[Dale]

Why does the Exif say "self timer 65 seconds"??

That's some thing that Photoshop did when I processed the photo. Amazing that software that costs that much can't figure out how to deal properly with EXIF info. I hear CS isn't any better...

If you are shooting RAW use BB to copy the EXIF info to the photo altered by PS/CS.

[scottbergerphoto]

I love the 100-400 as a walk around spontaneous portrait lens:
http://www.pbase.com/image/20905204.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/22395551.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/22395556.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/22395550.jpg
Scott

[defordphoto]

Why does the Exif say "self timer 65 seconds"??

That's some thing that Photoshop did when I processed the photo. Amazing that software that costs that much can't figure out how to deal properly with EXIF info. I hear CS isn't any better...

If you are shooting RAW use BB to copy the EXIF info to the photo altered by PS/CS.

Oh you can do that? Cool! I'll have to try that. Any hints on the menu where it's at?

[Dale]

[That's some thing that Photoshop did when I processed the photo. Oh you can do that? Cool! I'll have to try that. Any hints on the menu where it's at?

In BB highlight the applicable RAW file(s) thunbnail. Menu>Tools>Copy EXIF>select the folder that contains the file(s) you want to copy the EXIF to.

[defordphoto]

Thanks Dale! If I ever fail to learn something new about photography every day, then I'll sell my equipment and take up knitting. :shock:

[Burninfilm2]

I don't know which ratings you are reading, but speaking as a 100-400 user, it is IMHO one great lens. I know several other photographers who have this lens too & they all feel the same way..Bob <><

[figment]

I don't know which ratings you are reading, ...<><http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400-do.shtml
is one. The other is a lens rateing page posted here a few days ago...
http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F100

[defordphoto]

Scott and I must have "special" 100-400's then. Our's (obviously) far outperforms the one tested in that review of the 400 DO.

[Rob Larsen]

Here are another few samples with the Canon at 400mm. The soaking wet fur on the snout gives a highly sharpened affect to the slightly over sharpened picture. I lazily left default BB USM on while reducing a batch of pictures in which some were already PS processed. The football pic has only native BB USM applied.

http://www.roblarsen.com/gallery/moose/mischief-calf_std.jpg

http://www.roblarsen.com/gallery/csu/616_1625_std.jpg

The last image is the culmination of a 5 shot sequence showing the CSU QB break several tackles on his way to a touchdown. The rest of the sequence is found at http://www.roblarsen.com/gallery/csu/index.htm

[defordphoto]

I see Rob also has the ultra-sharp version of the 100-400L. :) WOW! :shock:

[figment]

what is "BB" and "USM" in this context "USM" cant be related to the lens motor can it?


-100-400 anticipation blues

[scottbergerphoto]

what is "BB" and "USM" in this context "USM" cant be related to the lens motor can it?


-100-400 anticipation blues
BB is BreezeBrowser, www.Breezesys.com
USM is Unsharp Mask, sharpening action in Photoshop and PSE2
Scott

[Lisard]

Every time I visit this forum I found myself speachless and turning green from the envy. :( I am just starting to learn and every time I think I got a nice shot I realize that so many SUPER PROFESSIONAL people out there. Will I ever be able to shoot THAT nice? :oops: I don't want to go to any school, will just watch you guys... :roll:

[KennyG]

Figment: The 100-400L is probably THE most underrated lens that Canon has. You will be amazed at the results you will achieve with it. I absolutely love mine in spite of a minor AF problem that Canon eventually resolved.

I agree, this is one superb lens. Mine is sharp all the way to 400mm and the only lens I have to beat it is my 300mm 2.8L IS which costs 3 times as much. It is a must-have in lenses.

10D with the 100-400L

http://www.stiuk.dial.pipex.com/op-mg-04.jpg

http://www.stiuk.dial.pipex.com/op-v-ym.jpg

[Burninfilm2]

I read the comparison review between the 300mm & the 100-400 & also the narrative stating that the shots were taken from a tripod with the IS both on & off. After looking at the photo from the 100-400 shown on the site, which was not sharp, I must conclude that the shot used was from the 100-400 with the IS on & from the tripod. That would certainly explain why the photo wasn't sharp. I have experienced the same problem when I use a tripod with the 100-400 & forget to turn the IS off. Either that or I am also lucky & have the "Sharp Model" 100-400 IS..hahaha..Bob <><

[figment]

Scott and I must have "special" 100-400's then. Our's (obviously) far outperforms the one tested in that review of the 400 DO.agreed... it almost looks like the 100-400 picture is doctor'd to look fuzzy, idunno...

[Jon Borcik]

Do you guys (Rob & Jim) ALWAYS shoot in Raw Format?

I purchased BreezeBrowser, but have not had a lot of experience or success post processing the pictures to my liking yet. So what's the secret?

I have the 100-400L lens also and agree that it is an excellent performer!
I shot a lot of soccer and lacrosse action with it and have not been disapointed. I also agree that your photos get a lot better once you learn the sport and anticipate the action.

:)

[martcol]

Here is an example of what the 100-400 can do:


Do you think you could make that the last photo you ever post? It makes me feel inadequate!

Seriously though, what a fab photograph and a great advert for the lens.

Well done

Martin

[defordphoto]

Do you guys (Rob & Jim) ALWAYS shoot in Raw Format?

Absolutely not. I shoot both RAW and JPEG. My sports shots that I have posted here were ALL shot in JPEG.

[Jon Borcik]

Glad to know I'm not the only one who shoots sports shots in JPEG!
:shock:

[defordphoto]

Glad to know I'm not the only one who shoots sports shots in JPEG!
:shock:

At the Portland ChampCar race all the shooters I talked with were shooting JPEG.

[Rob Larsen]

Do you guys (Rob & Jim) ALWAYS shoot in Raw Format?


I typically shoot in RAW mode which is about 90% of the time. I like the control I have with C1 DSLR while converting to adjust white balance and exposure if necessary in addition to applying a "soft" sharpening. This is usually the extent of my edits. If I'm doing snapshots or photos which I feel I will never desire to post-process, I'll shoot JPEG. The football shots were all done JPEG with only BB defaults applied during reduction.