100-400 F/4.5-5.6 bokeh

[perfectpixel]

Hi All,
I recently purchased the Canon 100-400 F/4.5-5.6 IS and was immdeiately impressed with how sharp it is.
However......
I have a question:
When shooting baseball photos I noticed (and other mentioned) that I was got getting the background out of focus. Even with the lens wide open, the bokeh is pretty poor. Has this been your experience as well? Do you have any suggestions?
See the pictures at: http://www.pbase.com/perfectpixel/vs_pomona&page=2

And, I have a problem:
continued annoying error1 on my 10D when the IS is on (and *I think* only when the camera is in AI Focus mode). Any advice on this would also be appreciated.

Cheers!

[defordphoto]

Less bokeh (not poor) is a disadvantage of a slower/smaller aperture lens. There's nothing you can do about that other than some Photoshop tricks. When your background is as close as a baseball backstop, you need some pretty fast glass to get any kind of decent bokeh at all.

As for the error1, are you trying to maybe pan using mode 1 IS? I have not run into that error myself, but I use IS quite sparingly.

[perfectpixel]

OK, less bokeh is more appropriate. Guess I'll live with it for now.
would I have been better off with my 70-200F/2.8 and a 1.4XTC?

I am not panning in IS1. I have the impression that error1 happens more with IS2, but I need to use it more before I say for sure. With IS off, no errors at all.
Thanks for the response.

[chris.bailey]

the bokeh is actually very good i.e. how out of focus highlights are treated but you are struggling to narrow the depth of field enough to get out of focus backgrounds. This seems strange as I find the DOF on the 100-400 very narrow, even at long distances.

[defordphoto]

OK, less bokeh is more appropriate. Guess I'll live with it for now.
would I have been better off with my 70-200F/2.8 and a 1.4XTC?

I am not panning in IS1. I have the impression that error1 happens more with IS2, but I need to use it more before I say for sure. With IS off, no errors at all.
Thanks for the response.

If your goal was a tighter DOF then yes. But I have both lenses and the loss of the long end of the 400 is quite significant. Like Chris points out the 100-400 actually has a pretty decent DOF, but in your case your background (backstops, etc.) are so close to your subject, I don't know if the 70-200 would have made all that much difference.

Personally I think your shots are fine. There's nothing about the bokeh there I find distracting when viewing your photos.

[kraterz]

The bokeh from the 100-400 is actually pretty darn good when I shoot at 200-400mm with a subject close to me and a distant background. Of course it isn't as good as the 100/2.0, 135/2.0 or some of the other lenses, but very good nevertheless.

[PacAce]

Hi All,
I recently purchased the Canon 100-400 F/4.5-5.6 IS and was immdeiately impressed with how sharp it is.
However......
I have a question:
When shooting baseball photos I noticed (and other mentioned) that I was got getting the background out of focus. Even with the lens wide open, the bokeh is pretty poor. Has this been your experience as well? Do you have any suggestions?
See the pictures at: http://www.pbase.com/perfectpixel/vs_pomona&page=2

And, I have a problem:
continued annoying error1 on my 10D when the IS is on (and *I think* only when the camera is in AI Focus mode). Any advice on this would also be appreciated.

Cheers!

Are you complaining about how much or how little the background is out of focus? Or are you talking about how the out of focus background is rendered? Bokeh has nothing to do with how much or how little the background is out of focus. That's deteremined by your focal length, distance and DOF. Bokeh, on the other hand, has to do with how the out of focus rendering is done, such as how soft it is or how harsh, and the patterns you get in the out of focus background.

Since I didn't see any type of bokeh related problem with the pcitures that I took a look at, I'm assuming that you're complaining about why your background isn't out of focus enough.

What focal length were you using to take the pictures. If you were on the shorter end of the lens, then that might explain it. I get good out of focus backgrounds but I usually always shoot at 400mm.

As for the errors, I have not experienced any type of errors at all with my lens and camera. Maybe it's time to take your camera and lens in for service or repair, as hard as that may be, it may be for the better. :)

Good luck.

[perfectpixel]

Are you complaining about how much or how little the background is out of focus? Or are you talking about how the out of focus background is rendered?


OK. Bokeh is the wrong term to use. So much for sounding learned :oops: :D
As you say, some folks smarter than I complained that the spectators in the background were too much in focus and they found this distracting. Come to think of it, for those shots I was probably closer to the 300mm range, and still wide open.


As for the errors,.....Maybe it's time to take your camera and lens in for service or repair, as hard as that may be...


Nooooooooooooooo!!! perish the thought! I'll just live without the IS. Unless you think it might be the lens, because I could just return/replace the lens, it's only 2 weeks old.

[Scottes]

I took a look through several of the pictures and saw that just about all were at smaller apertures. I saw only one out of 8 at 5.6. If you want the background out of focus next time try Av mode and lock it at f/5.6. This will maximize the out-of-focus background.

But of course you'll need to play a bit, since it all depends on subject distance, and then distance from subject to background. I think you did a good job on several of them.

[Scottes]

I happened to take this picture today. 100-400 L IS @400.

This looks like good bokeh to me. If I'm wrong, please let me know, and why. I can tell bad bokeh - I'm not always sure I can tell good bokeh.

http://www.itsanadventure.com/postimages/goosebokeh.jpg

[scottbergerphoto]

The 100-400 IS L is a great lens. Judge for yourself:

http://www.pbase.com/image/20905204.jpg

Regards,
Scott

[defordphoto]

Well crap. I guess I have to post my infamous 100-400 shot since Scott posted his trademark photo! ;)



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

[Scottes]

You two guys need new 100-400 images. I've seen them 100 times each.

Mainly because I went back to look at them every time I debated the 100-400. And now I have one.... Knowing you guys is expensive.

:)

[defordphoto]

You two guys need new 100-400 images. I've seen them 100 times each.


I have thousands...Let me go look...

[defordphoto]

Okee dokee...here ya go...


http://racefamily.racinglines.com/MiscPhotos/2447med.jpg

[Scottes]

Scott, you're up. What else can you wow us with?


You know, maybe this isn't a good idea. I may end up with 2 of these lenses...

Oh, well. At least I won't be married once I do buy another.

[Belmondo]

Hey, how about a train picture?

[defordphoto]

Hey, how about a train picture?

How about a plane too, to complete the story...

[chris.bailey]

Scott/Jim

Any excuse to roll out those two shots and very fine as they are, always a pleasure to renew aquantaince, the question at the start of this thread was the quality of the bokeh. Neither of those two shots really show that as there is little by way of out of focus highlights in either of these shots. I have looked through my 100-400 long shots and dont have much either that shows. The closest I can muster is this

http://www.pbase.com/image/25235964.jpg

Notice how the out of focus elements in the background have nice soft edges. To my mind that is good bokeh. Cheap or inferior lenses can have the reverse so that the fringing around out of focus elements adds a false sharpness to them.

[scottbergerphoto]

Phewww! I can't slip anything past you guys. OK! Here's a different one.

http://www.pbase.com/image/20056669/large.jpg

Scott

[Scottes]

Phewww! I can't slip anything past you guys. OK! Here's a different one.

Yep, another great shot illustrating the 100-400.

Hold on a sec... Checking availability... Placing order... Moving funds to my Cayman account... Emailing the wife to let her know I placed the order... All set.

[Avarond]

Did someone mention trains? Not with the 100-400 though.

http://www.avarond.fotopic.net/p2968390.html




Does fog count as an out of focus background?

[DamienB2]

Planes? :) Even when it's dull and cold and windy and wet and 'orrible, the 100-400 does a pretty good job...

http://www.thunder-and-lightnings.co.uk/pp2/conc1713.jpg

[lime]

perfectpixel,
Depending on your focal length, aperture, subject distance, distance of foreground/background to the subject, I don't think the 100-400 can blow out the background (bokeh) as well as the 300 2.8, 400 2.8 and some others. Probably part of the reason why the pro's opt for the wider/faster lenses.
A couple of samples taken w/ my 10D + 100-400 @400 wide open.

Very distracting background (relatively close to subject)
http://www.pbase.com/image/17496254.jpg


Background not as distracting (further away from subjects)
http://www.pbase.com/image/17496395.jpg

Hope this helps and please correct me if I'm wrong, 'cause I'm still learning.

[burkdog]

Ok, so which one do I buy, the 100-400 IS L, or the 70-200mm f/2.8L?

[scottbergerphoto]

Actually BOTH! Each excels at what their designed for. The 70-200/2.8 is a much faster lens for sports/action shots particularly at indoor arenas and situations where light is a limiting factor.
Scott.

[Scottes]

Yeah, I got both, too.

You'll save money if you stop looking at pictures around here.
Or reading the EOS group.
Or the Processing forum - PS CS or a lens - they're both expensive.


You know, it's damn nice of Pekka to run this place without cost to us, because this place is pretty darn expensive.
:)

[perfectpixel]

perfectpixel,
Depending on your focal length, aperture, subject distance, distance of foreground/background to the subject, I don't think the 100-400 can blow out the background (bokeh) as well as the 300 2.8, 400 2.8 and some others. Probably part of the reason why the pro's opt for the wider/faster lenses.
A couple of samples taken w/ my 10D + 100-400 @400 wide open.

Very distracting background (relatively close to subject)
see Limes original post above for these images

Background not as distracting (further away from subjects)

Hope this helps and please correct me if I'm wrong, 'cause I'm still learning.

Lime.
Thanks alot. Glad to see someone understood what I meant and has the same images as I do. I think some of our friends here thought I was dissin' the 100-400. Far from it!

Of course I canot control the distance to background, but from now on I will make sure to shoot Av @ widest aperture rather than Tv <1/500. Hope this will help. Somehow it feels wrong to not be shooting at F8 with such a long lens.
I'm afraid the *best* solution would be an F/2.8 long lens, and I can't afford/justify that (unless someone here needs an assistant :D in which case Email me!)
Thanks.

[defordphoto]

PP: I don't think anyone here thought you were dissing the lens. I don't feel it came across that way. It is what it is. When you have background that close there's only so much you can do. Even with a 2.8 lens. Have you tried blurring the BG in Photoshop? I have never tried that method and am not sure how realistic is looks, but I've seen people do some pretty amazing things with that software.

I'm sure it can be done.

Nothing more annoying than getting a good shot and having the BG screw it all up. Or setting up the right shot and you can't take it because of the BG being too busy.

[perfectpixel]

PP: I don't think anyone here thought you were dissing the lens.
OK. Good. No problem :D

Have you tried blurring the BG in Photoshop? I have never tried that method and am not sure how realistic is looks, but I've seen people do some pretty amazing things with that software.
I'm sure it can be done.

Yep it can be done and I've done it. I came across a very nice action that does it too. However, I'm not too keen on that kind of post processing. Every once in a while to rescue an otherwise good photo would be OK, but not as a matter of routine. I'm just trying to learn to use my equipment to best advantage first. Glad to see I wasn't far off.
Thanks!

[CyberDyneSystems]

You two guys need new 100-400 images. I've seen them 100 times each.

Mainly because I went back to look at them every time I debated the 100-400. And now I have one.... Knowing you guys is expensive.

:)

DITTO! ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!

And RFM's shot,. it ain't Bokeh.. it's heat vapor! lol
Get a bunch of "salamander heaters and make your own bokeh! :lol: :lol: 8) 8)

[Jim_T]

Bokeh applies to things that are *way* out of focus.. With DOF, some things can be just a bit out of focus.. In that case, things just look a bit out of focus.. Not much can be done. That's what's happening in the original shot in this thread....

My Idea of bokeh is when you have a background that is very out of focus. You don't see the objects that well, but you see a 'pattern'

The bark and tree branches in this deer shot show what I think is 'nice' bokeh displayed by the 100-400L.. Look at the twigs on the bottom left and the tree bark on the top right.

Of course, bokeh is subjective.. Some may like the bokeh of one lens while others don't

http://members.shaw.ca/jamestownsend/2deer.jpg

[defordphoto]

Bokeh applies to things that are *way* out of focus.

That's not entirely true either... Here's a good explanation of what Bokeh means in the world of photography:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/bokeh.htm

[Jim_T]

I've read the stuff on bokeh.. and yes, I guess I didn't express myself right :wink:

What I meant was that the MORE something is out of focus, the more the bokeh effect can be seen. Something that's slightly out of focus won't show bokeh as much...

[defordphoto]

I've read the stuff on bokeh.. and yes, I guess I didn't express myself right :wink:

What I meant was that the MORE something is out of focus, the more the bokeh effect can be seen. Something that's slightly out of focus won't show bokeh as much...

You're in good company Jim as really none of us explained it properly! :)

Your second paragraph says it all, in Reader's Digest version.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Wow,. a two headed deer! :shock:

Now there is something you don't see every day. :roll: 8)

[morenoar]

Since I have only had my 100-400 lens for about a week. I have not had a chance to take many pictures. I have 2 posted on my Pbase acount. 1 was done while driving (not recommended) and nice beautiful day. The other was indoors and only resized. Tell me what you think. Please


www.pbase.com/morenoar