Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM - AKA The Dust Pump

[pixelbasher]

I have noticed a small amount of this "wobble" too, but also wondered whether its something to do with expansion and contraction as its quite a lump of "iron", and it does seem to happen more when the lens is cooler ... ?

Interesting point, it is cold at the moment, down to about 12*C, but I can't see why it couldn't be made to be tighter though, it's way overkill if it's for expansion issues. I'll have to wait for summer to see I guess! It's no biggie, I just thought I'd ask to make sure mine wasn't the odd one out

ozzfavors, far out that is one bright red bird!

[KenjiS]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0021-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0029-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0048-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0052-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0067-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0113-Edit.jpg

[damnit]

Interesting point, it is cold at the moment, down to about 12*C, but I can't see why it couldn't be made to be tighter though, it's way overkill if it's for expansion issues. I'll have to wait for summer to see I guess! It's no biggie, I just thought I'd ask to make sure mine wasn't the odd one out

If so then I suppose it depends in what temp ranges its made to work and how much it actually does expand?

Like you said, does seem to wobble a little more than I would like it to do ... summer is approaching, we should get up to around 40ºC or more here, so if I remember, I will report back if I notice any difference.

[tdodd]

I get around 1mm (perhaps less) of rotational play with my 100-400 and 50D. There is no "wobble" as such, i.e. nothing that could affect distance fom lens to sensor or send things off at a squiffy angle.

[pixelbasher]

Yes, mine is about the same Ttod, and you are right, I should have said rotation more than wobble, but I wonder if it's possible to introduce a "rotation" into the shot by being able to shift the lens whilst taking the shot, esp slow shutter? Given you are holding the lens, then pushing down on the right side of the cam. mmm, would it actually affect the image I wonder?

Yeah yeah, I know, I'm just being too fussy now :lol:

[Andy Favors]

This guy was so awesome, was landing within 5 feet of me, and flying within a foot of my head. I played with him for quite a while.

http://i41.tinypic.com/2vmvd3m.jpg

http://i41.tinypic.com/del8oi.jpg

http://i40.tinypic.com/2q3t6ds.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/10hncib.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/2w6cms9.jpg

[RAW-Shooter]

^^^
Those are really neat! bw!

I guess this is a juvenile Cardinal?

[keith breazeal]

Those are REALLY nice! bw! bw!

[KenjiS]

REALLY nice shots!

Reminds me of this one little guy i got recently :D

[Andy Favors]

Thanks everyone. Here is a 100% crop of a female cardinal, handheld, at 1/1000, f6.3, ISO 400, at 400mm.

http://i40.tinypic.com/mb70hh.jpg

[Goincarcrazy]

Those above I believe are called a Titmouse. I thought the same about them being juvie cardinals, but was intrigued to learn such a fact. And VERY nice shots!

[stonyzmom]

Shooting these finches never gets old. They can be really pretty.

http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/5866/finchfest4of1.jpg

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/8985/finchfest8of3.jpg

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/9651/finchfest9of3.jpg

[KenjiS]

Anyone have a good reference for birds >.o

as in naming them...I'm pretty bad at that

[stonyzmom]

Anyone have a good reference for birds >.o

as in naming them...I'm pretty bad at that

Look for something by David Allen Sibley. I use The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America. I'm sure he has an eastern version of the same book.

[In2Photos]

Anyone have a good reference for birds >.o

as in naming them...I'm pretty bad at that
You can start here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=156731

[Burnaby]

My "new" two weeks old lens doesn't wobble, but it does go on looser compared to my other much more snug Canon lenses. I just spotted my first dust speck on one of the inner frontal elements. Not that it matters much, but it sure didn't take long...

[Jacobredphoto]

Some shots from the San Diego Zoo. Horrible lighting for most of that day, very overcast. This was my first time shooting something with "L" glass and I must admit, I'm in love.:cool: Let me know what you think!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3600/3589577644_a7762f313c.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3560/3588738825_857810eeda.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2469/3588734209_1876a85818.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3331/3589526006_a34637569f.jpg

[Jacobredphoto]

More from the zoo!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3643/3588706211_ff479dbdf6.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3393/3589499922_1cdea2036f.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3304/3588677139_c818132f2a.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3592/3588643977_b764907262.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3309/3589423310_455f5b5464.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3639/3588627657_e8a3b17c55.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3657/3588610489_1c07d4854f.jpg?v=0

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3305/3589474374_4bee9aa6a0.jpg?v=0

[Goincarcrazy]

Those are very spectacular shots! the one of the koala sleeping is precious. Love how its actually framed by the leaves. Very well done!

[Jacobredphoto]

Those are very spectacular shots! the one of the koala sleeping is precious. Love how its actually framed by the leaves. Very well done!


Thank you. I was so intent on trying to get the kolas in the glass that I didn't even know notice the ones that were just out in the open, haha.

[JC4]

Back-yard Lily. With 25mm Tube.
http://johncaputo.smugmug.com/photos/552138476_H54LH-L.jpg

[pixelbasher]

Couple of seagulls from this afternoon.

[Olli]

Couple of seagulls from this afternoon.
The second is terrifying. :shock:

[neil_r]

Click on it for bigger

http://www.ambrosiabbs.com/gallery/photo/medium/Mauritius_Jan_2009_NHR4890.jpg (http://www.ambrosiabbs.com/gallery/photo/large/Mauritius_Jan_2009_NHR4890.jpg)

[pixelbasher]

The second is terrifying. :shock:

You thought the snakes in Australia were bad, even the seagulls down here will kill you :lol:


Seriously though, it was just yawning.....or stretching it's jaw? No sound, it just opened up!


Neil_r: That's a real nice image!


Some more birds.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Great shots, jacob.

[KenjiS]

That second one scares me for some reason..

[Andy Favors]

Don't know why, but I kinda like this one.......

http://i44.tinypic.com/mmz9z.jpg

[Sydor25]

http://sydor25.com/Pictures/Kauai_5.20.09-0697.jpg

[-g-]

Very nice, James!

[KenjiS]

Don't know why, but I kinda like this one.......

http://i44.tinypic.com/mmz9z.jpg

wow! Great catch!

I never seen to get any good backgrounds for any of mine..ah well i try anyways..I think maybe its the lack of low bushes around here...

[damnit]

Click on it for bigger

http://www.ambrosiabbs.com/gallery/photo/medium/Mauritius_Jan_2009_NHR4890.jpg (http://www.ambrosiabbs.com/gallery/photo/large/Mauritius_Jan_2009_NHR4890.jpg)

It is indeed a very nice shot, as are most of them here ...

Neil - more out of personal curiosity than any real criticism, but this shot seems to be lacking just a touch of brightness or maybe its slightly underexposed (for my taste at least) ... although it might also be that I have just updated my graphics drivers and not recalibrated my screens yet.
Again not really criticising as it is a lovely shot but just a little flat to me ... but I am interested to hear yours and others views on this, as I think (if its not my screens that are "out") that I personally would have tried brightening it up just a little in PP to give it a little extra pop.

[neil_r]

Lee I sort of see where you are coming from. I process on calibrated monitors so the colours I output are usually the ones I am aiming for. ;-)

I like the subtlety that I tried to get here and for me the gentle colours of the petals combined with the yellow separate themselves well from the background.

I may go back and have a play with the sliders now though :-)

[Andy Favors]

wow! Great catch!

I never seem to get any good backgrounds for any of mine..ah well i try anyways..I think maybe its the lack of low bushes around here...

Thanks, :D This one was actually high up in a tree. I'm surprised it turned out as well as it did.

[damnit]

Lee I sort of see where you are coming from. I process on calibrated monitors so the colours I output are usually the ones I am aiming for. ;-)

I like the subtlety that I tried to get here and for me the gentle colours of the petals combined with the yellow separate themselves well from the background.

I may go back and have a play with the sliders now though :-)

:D ... thanks for the reply and glad you were not offended ;)

[KenjiS]

Click on it for bigger

http://www.ambrosiabbs.com/gallery/photo/medium/Mauritius_Jan_2009_NHR4890.jpg (http://www.ambrosiabbs.com/gallery/photo/large/Mauritius_Jan_2009_NHR4890.jpg)

Whoa the colors and tone and everything remind me of one i did a while back with my 200mm f/2.8L! Shockingly close...Well maybe not on reflection..mines a tidge brighter pink...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_2990.jpg

Though a different variety, they are related :) And i linked because its not a shot with my 100-400..just funny :3

[tdodd]

Lee I sort of see where you are coming from. I process on calibrated monitors so the colours I output are usually the ones I am aiming for. ;-)

I like the subtlety that I tried to get here and for me the gentle colours of the petals combined with the yellow separate themselves well from the background.

I may go back and have a play with the sliders now though :-)
It is a lovely shot but I also feel it looks just a little dim. I downloaded the larger version and opened it in Lightroom. There is quite a gap at the right of the histogram and the image will take about +1.3 exposure adjustment before anything other than specular highlights start to indicate as blown. I use a calibrated monitor and to my eyes, tweaking the JPEG, it looks like around +0.9 on exposure and blacks at +5 brings it alive more. That isn't to say that, artistically, there isn't a place for the softer and more subdued look - very calm and serene - of the original.

[neil_r]

It is a lovely shot but I also feel it looks just a little dim. I downloaded the larger version and opened it in Lightroom. There is quite a gap at the right of the histogram and the image will take about +1.3 exposure adjustment before anything other than specular highlights start to indicate as blown. I use a calibrated monitor and to my eyes, tweaking the JPEG, it looks like around +0.9 on exposure and blacks at +5 brings it alive more. That isn't to say that, artistically, there isn't a place for the softer and more subdued look - very calm and serene - of the original.

I am intrigued now, please post it up if you still have it.

[tdodd]

I am intrigued now, please post it up if you still have it.
I've attached the histogram from the larger image without any further edits. Consider that your border of black and white pixels is skewing the histogram a little. There is not much going on at the right hand side.

I've also attached my edit of the smaller image, adjusted in Lightroom with +0.9 on exposure and +5 on blacks....

[Andy Favors]

now that one pops

[tdodd]

now that one pops
I think so :) Now add in little gentle vignette....

and maybe kick up the exposure another notch to +1.1 and increase Vibrance to +26.... (this would probably work better from the original file)

[FlyingPhotog]

Click on it for bigger

It would appear that I'm in the minority but honestly, the original is fabulous and I wouldn't change a thing.

Just my $0.02...

[neil_r]

I am going back to have a play with the original now ;-)

Thanks guys......

[-g-]

It would appear that I'm in the minority but honestly, the original is fabulous and I wouldn't change a thing.

Just my $0.02...

I would have been quite happy with it as well.

[Andy Favors]

I can't decide if i like this one or not. I think the flash is way too obvious. Not to mention cropping bad. It's full frame. Thoughts?

http://i44.tinypic.com/34fnmug.jpg

[Andy Favors]

Just for kicks, here's 100% for anyone interested. Quite sharp, :D

http://i41.tinypic.com/vzkkrc.jpg

[damnit]

I think so :) Now add in little gentle vignette....

and maybe kick up the exposure another notch to +1.1 and increase Vibrance to +26.... (this would probably work better from the original file)

Think this is a bit further than I would have taken personally ... I liked the original, just thought it needed brightening up a touch - its all "in the eyes of the beholder" though eh? ;)
From what I remember when I had a look I was between +0.4 or +0.6 on the exposure, maybe a click or three on black, slight brightness increase, drop off some contrast to bring back some subtlety, but then tweak the colours with a bit of vibrance ... dash of salt and pepper, and serve with a subtle vignette soup to help further emphasise the lovely shot Neil took in the first place :D

Thanks for being a good sport Neil allowing us to mess with your shot ... it is a rather nice one.

[eric.brown]

Just for kicks, here's 100% for anyone interested. Quite sharp, :D

http://i41.tinypic.com/vzkkrc.jpg


WOW. Very nice!

[KenjiS]

Holy nice copy you got man!

and i love it, howd you use the flash? Better Beamer?

[Andy Favors]

Thanks :) I'm pleased with it. Actually no better beamer, just a bare 430EX pointed directly at the titmouse. I used -1 Flash exposure compensation. I do have a better beamer on it's way though, should be here today or tomorrow. I can't wait to use it. Any tips from anyone?

[KenjiS]

Thanks :) I'm pleased with it. Actually no better beamer, just a bare 430EX pointed directly at the titmouse. I used -1 Flash exposure compensation. I do have a better beamer on it's way though, should be here today or tomorrow. I can't wait to use it. Any tips from anyone?

Let me know how it works out! i've been seriously considering a 580EX II + Better Beamer so i can drop my ISO down to something more reasonable like 200-400.....Versus the 800-1600 im always shooting at

[Andy Favors]

Alright, will do. I just got it in the mail, haven't opened it yet. I won't be able to use it a lot til thursday probably. But I'll post back if it's sooner.

[Andy Favors]

Here is a quick shot after about 20 mins of play. It's going to take some getting used to. This is way obvious that a flash is used isn't it? Or maybe I'm just being harsh (pun intended). As for build quality on the better beamer, I wish that it would aim itself better, just a slight bump knocks it out of alignment. I'll play with it more throughout the week.

http://i39.tinypic.com/ir8etd.jpg

[Andy Favors]

Went out for about 30 minutes today. Here's what I got. Extremely overcast day. If I didn't use the flash with the better beamer, I don't believe these would have come out near this good. At F7.1 it was wanting to meter at 1/100s. I found the best setup was going with -3 flash exposure compensation, and between -1 and -2 camera exposure compensation. Do these look natural to ya'll, or obvious flashed?

Indigo Bunting

http://i39.tinypic.com/156za80.jpg

Someone needs to wash his face

http://i41.tinypic.com/15hl5rb.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/2i771n8.jpg

And a flower just for the heck of it. Aren't these called Indian Blankets?

http://i40.tinypic.com/35brr7k.jpg

[Burnaby]

Looks a bit like Echinacea Purpurea but with slender petals. But it's not... I think it's just a pink daisy.

The Indian Blanket flower is a pinwheel daisy type whose petal form a red center, rimmed by bright yellow tips.

For the Indian Blanket, Google Gaillardia Pulchella...

[Andy Favors]

Ahh ok, I remember them now. You may be right on the Echinacea Purpurea. They are everywhere. Looks almost identical to the ones on google.

[KenjiS]

The red looks totally blown to me...lost detail and such...but overall..they're honestly not bad!

But i know i cant speak, when i had a flash on my Nikon i never really got it to work right...

I was thinking of using it as a fill flash actually, Filling in the bird so the sky retains detail....Because a lot of my bird subjects get a lot of sky behind them it seems..

or for when they're in a tree...

[keith breazeal]

Here's a large file size of a pan shot @ 1/100th. The focal length was 320mm @ f13. This is such a great lens.

click on the photo for max size
http://www.asb.tv/files/photo/gallery/photos/orig_579_368b3.JPG

[Andy Favors]

Took this one a few minutes ago. I couldn't believe the amount of blue on this Indigo Bunting. Darkest shade I've yet seen.

http://i44.tinypic.com/33oli7t.jpg

[tdodd]

I'm quite pleased with this - Hand held at 400mm, 1/1600, f/7.1, 400 ISO, no edits except a small crop....

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_4_R8TkwT74w/SjP2Dy5IQ2I/AAAAAAABGWU/R89OTqgUvGo/s800/20090613_173829_8196_LR.jpg

to 100%. Here's the original frame from my 50D....

http://lh3.ggpht.com/_4_R8TkwT74w/SjP2CgfVroI/AAAAAAABGWQ/nH7bGj4DoQc/s800/20090613_173829_8196_LR-2.jpg

[cfibanez]

Went out for about 30 minutes today. Here's what I got. Extremely overcast day. If I didn't use the flash with the better beamer, I don't believe these would have come out near this good. At F7.1 it was wanting to meter at 1/100s. I found the best setup was going with -3 flash exposure compensation, and between -1 and -2 camera exposure compensation. Do these look natural to ya'll, or obvious flashed?

They look great. Congrats!

[Andy Favors]

Thanks, :)

Just took this one, biggest "dandelion?" I've ever seen, lol

http://i43.tinypic.com/ofzxvc.jpg

[FlyingPhotog]

^^^ :lol: ^^^

Looks like someone just took a big ol' bite out of it...

Cute pic!

[Andy Favors]

Thanks. You should have seen his, and my other son's face when they seen these. It was priceless. Too bad I didn't get that shot, lol

[Sydor25]

http://sydor25.com/Pictures/Kauai_5.09.09-0898.jpg

[Headshotzx]

Shot at the zoo:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3630/3619576136_8dc1b60332_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3387/3618761125_10503b82da_b.jpg(Heavy crop for the above at 400mm, animals were very far in)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3401/3618766839_1976361be7_b.jpg

[rowdy_kk]

The Zoo

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss156/KDs-Photos/Perth%20Zoo/IMG_2826.jpg

http://i571.photobucket.com/albums/ss156/KDs-Photos/Perth%20Zoo/IMG_2849.jpg

[Candor]

A few from last weekend.

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee117/mdavies_01/IMG_4036.jpg


http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee117/mdavies_01/IMG_3923.jpg


http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee117/mdavies_01/IMG_4887.jpg


http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee117/mdavies_01/IMG_4884.jpg


http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee117/mdavies_01/IMG_4238.jpg


http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee117/mdavies_01/IMG_4468.jpg

[ErnieT]

Awesome shots!

[timbo76]

Candor, Those are awesome shots. Especially the heron with the fish in his mouth. I am having problems with a bird like this eating all of my fish in my pond. I hope to have this lens in my possession very soon.

[Andy Favors]

Very nice. I tried all weekend for GBH pics, and didn't get anything worth a poot. I did get a few good dragonfly shots though, this one being the best..........

http://i40.tinypic.com/zxjy9w.jpg


100% crop can be seen here......

http://i43.tinypic.com/303g0aw.jpg

[Candor]

Thanks very much guys!

Love that Dragonfly shot Andy.

[bakedcookies]

Taken with 100-400mm.

[KenjiS]

Nice shots! Apparently that Heron got into someones fish pond XD

Heres my contributions...Not so great to be honest...but i havnt contributed in a while....comments always welcome

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0167-Edit-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0180-Edit-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0211-Edit-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0266-Edit-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0279-Edit-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0281-Edit-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0296-Edit-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0301-Edit-1.jpg

[tdodd]

Kenji, I hope you don't mind me mentioning this but I really think your blue skies could benefit from some noise reduction. I don't know what the birds are but that buzzard? shot in particular looks very blotchy. I passed a couple of your images through Neat Image and the difference is noticeable. At the moment I find the noise in the skies to be very distracting. I think you might have got away with 400 ISO and 1/2000 rather than 800 ISO and 1/4000. Maybe you could even have shot at 200 ISO and 1/1000. Just a thought :)

p.s. since I'm posting, here's a contribution from me....

http://lh6.ggpht.com/_4_R8TkwT74w/SjgU0NLx3FI/AAAAAAABGYY/XZF-LDUb9Fs/s800/20090608_143125_LR-2.jpg

[KenjiS]

Kenji, I hope you don't mind me mentioning this but I really think your blue skies could benefit from some noise reduction. I don't know what the birds are but that buzzard? shot in particular looks very blotchy. I passed a couple of your images through Neat Image and the difference is noticeable. At the moment I find the noise in the skies to be very distracting. I think you might have got away with 400 ISO and 1/2000 rather than 800 ISO and 1/4000. Maybe you could even have shot at 200 ISO and 1/1000. Just a thought :)

tis a hawk and i know, but at the same time i was also shooting some other things in darker conditions and i NEEDED the ISO at about 800...I didnt have time to mess with the ISO and take my eye off the viewfinder so i just shot :( also its cropped a lot :( That damn Hawk is really giving me troubles trying to nail it...

I really REALLY want a camera with cleaner performance at ISO800 [and hopefully a better 1600....] and a little extra resolution for cropping :( Sadly my poor old 30D just aint cutting it there anymore...Also the ISO displayed in the viewfinder would be nice..as would more focusing points

To be truthful, that day feels bad to me looking at the images, The lighting was crap until later in the day [when i got the birds there..except the hawk] :(

And its fine its fine ^^ I wasnt really happy with those they were just the first new things i've had to upload in a while...kinda been having some issues in reality lately

[tdodd]

Neat Image or Noise Ninja is probably a lot cheaper than a new camera :)

[KenjiS]

Neat Image or Noise Ninja is probably a lot cheaper than a new camera :)

True, But i also want a laundry list of other things those programs will not provide...

Like a bigger burst buffer, improved ergonomics, better viewfinder, more/better AF points, a bigger better screen i can actually see when im outside, the ISO in the viewfinder.....

Also with my tendency to crop a bit, a bit of extra resolution certainly cant hurt...And the extra dynamic range might be nice..just that -little- extra bit..

I guess you could say I've had my 30D for 3 years now, and i'm just hitting the limits of what the thing can provide

[Burnaby]

tis a hawk and i know, but at the same time i was also shooting some other things in darker conditions and i NEEDED the ISO at about 800...I didnt have time to mess with the ISO and take my eye off the viewfinder so i just shot :( also its cropped a lot :( That damn Hawk is really giving me troubles trying to nail it...
Hawks are bitch to capture. Looks like a red-tailed hawk (the red color on the tail can only be seen from above), a male cardinal and a purple finch.

[nate1280]

Had a pair of squirrels seeming to wreak havoc in my backyard earlier, and making a mess on the deck (digging up the tulip bulbs).

Managed to catch this guy before they moved off to another part of the backyard... Had I been a bit quicker, could have gotten 'em sitting on the deck railing nibbling away.

C&C welcome! Was shot through sliding glass doors, ~15ft away, so not the greatest shot. Also overcast so had to bump iso to 1600 to get decent shutter speed.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2430/3638277875_622a7ab826_o.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nate1280/3638277875/)

[Andy Favors]

That is an awesome photo. Good job.

[OSC]

Question for all you 100-400mm users......when using this lens, do you usually use a monopod/tripod or just use it the traditional way (hand held)? I have this lens and when shooting anything past 100mm, I almost always get "camera shake" so seeing how others use it. Thanks!!!

[Tareq]

Question for all you 100-400mm users......when using this lens, do you usually use a monopod/tripod or just use it the traditional way (hand held)? I have this lens and when shooting anything past 100mm, I almost always get "camera shake" so seeing how others use it. Thanks!!!

About 98% i use this lens hand held.

[Tdragone]

Question for all you 100-400mm users......when using this lens, do you usually use a monopod/tripod or just use it the traditional way (hand held)? I have this lens and when shooting anything past 100mm, I almost always get "camera shake" so seeing how others use it. Thanks!!!

Maybe this should be a seperate thread.. but here goes.

How about giving us the settings you're using or a sample picture so we can see the settings?

I shoot almost exclusively handheld with this lens because of what I typically use it for.. airshows and stuff like that.

Which Mode is the IS switch on?

[yellowroadster]

As long as it's daylight and not dusk or dawn (or night), it's almost always handheld.

[tdodd]

Question for all you 100-400mm users......when using this lens, do you usually use a monopod/tripod or just use it the traditional way (hand held)? I have this lens and when shooting anything past 100mm, I almost always get "camera shake" so seeing how others use it. Thanks!!!
Mostly handheld unless using a teleconverter. With or without IS I do endeavour to pick a shutter speed that suits the focal length in use and also any movement by the subject. e.g. for running dogs and BIF I want shutter speeds of 1/800 and faster. For static subjects, where I have time to compose the scene and get a control of my own stance and breathing I will happily shoot at lower speeds.

I have no idea why I even took these shots, much less kept them, but the first was shot handheld at 330mm and 1/13 (shot raw, no edits other than Lightroom standard defaults). Yes, it's soft, but what do you expect? :). The second was at 400mm and 1/13, also handheld and no edits. I could sharpen them but really I would be better off deleting them :)

[Goincarcrazy]

What a little fatty that squirrel is! jeez.

[tdodd]

One more, this time handheld at 180mm and 1/30 but given a quick makeover in Lightroom.

[KenjiS]

I shoot mine handheld all the time...

The IS works rather good on this lens, even if its only a 1st gen unit...

[FlyingPhotog]

1/125 @ f/5.6 ISO 400 .. 400mm Handheld in very low light
http://www.pbase.com/flyingphotog/image/113996044/original.jpg

[Pauly_G]

Lovely shot Jay. Do you have particularly steady hands or could anyone expect to handhold that short of shutter speed with the IS. This or the 300mm f4 is next on the wish list!

[egordon99]

I've gotten reasonably sharp photos at around 1/125s @ 400mm. And in some cases (shooting birds in our backyard at dusk), I had to crank it to ISO1600 to get 1/125...

Nice shot Jay!

[egordon99]

The IS isn't quite as "nice" as my 70-200/4 which allows me to get tack sharp shots at 1/30s (or perhaps slower), but you shouldn't have a problem with 1/125s with the 100-400. I find motion blur probably trips me up more than camera shake.

[FlyingPhotog]

Lovely shot Jay. Do you have particularly steady hands or could anyone expect to handhold that short of shutter speed with the IS. This or the 300mm f4 is next on the wish list!

Thanks very much...

I wouldn't call myself extraordinarilly steady. The IS in Mode 1 works pretty well really.

I do find that I'm steadier when the camera body has some mass to it. I'm much steadier with the MkIII or Gripped 40D than I am without a grip. I'm a believer that despite the extra weight, more mass balances better.

[Pauly_G]

Thanks very much...

I wouldn't call myself extraordinarilly steady. The IS in Mode 1 works pretty well really.

I do find that I'm steadier when the camera body has some mass to it. I'm much steadier with the MkIII or Gripped 40D than I am without a grip. I'm a believer that despite the extra weight, more mass balances better.

Thanks for the info.

[KenjiS]

heres one i got at 1/60 and 400mm..

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_9676.jpg

This was for the "Its wide and its long" thread on here...no sharpening or post processing at all applied mind you...

This one is 1/8 but only at 100mm...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_7656-Edit-2.jpg

As stated above, a gripped body really helps :)

[snowrdr]

I finally picked up my 100-400 today! Here are a few shots... :D

http://www.pbase.com/snowrdr/image/114012065/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/snowrdr/image/114012068.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/snowrdr/image/114016717/original.jpg

:mrgreen:

[mama]

Snowrdr, Thanks for sharing these pics. They are great. I am gonna love this lense. :)

[DragonSpeed]

From a recent trip:
http://www.fotothing.com/photos/422/422a0e7bf16df3e873a1fc7c01456a81_87b.jpg

It even does landscapes :)
http://www.fotothing.com/photos/a90/a90c65db2dca9da54357bfc8b0e8268e_e7c.jpg

[Andy Favors]

ohhhhh, i like the sunset.

[damnit]

Sunset it lush ... :bigthumbsup:

[Andy Favors]

http://i41.tinypic.com/121pv8i.jpg

[Candor]

Good light.
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee117/mdavies_01/IMG_4985.jpg


Not so good light.
http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee117/mdavies_01/IMG_5302.jpg

[KenjiS]

^- that not so good light shot is still really good...

[Candor]

Thanks Kenji. I was happy with how it turned out. The 100-400 has a reputation for needing light and while it does perform at its best with good light, as most lenses do,
I have gotten what I consider to be pretty good results with low to medium light.

[KenjiS]

Thanks Kenji. I was happy with how it turned out. The 100-400 has a reputation for needing light and while it does perform at its best with good light, as most lenses do,
I have gotten what I consider to be pretty good results with low to medium light.

What ISO was that?

And I agree with your observations...however my limiting factor has been my 30D's poor high ISO performance x.x

[Candor]

That was 800. I also shot some at 1600 as the light was quickly declining and they are pretty noisy.

[KenjiS]

That was 800. I also shot some at 1600 as the light was quickly declining and they are pretty noisy.

That at 800 is better than my 30D at 800, looks more like 400 on my 30D :P

[nate17]

I might get this lens, love wildlife photography!!!

[Mnbruce]

I love this lens!

http://imagesbybruce.smugmug.com/photos/374266749_7T8ih-L.jpg

http://imagesbybruce.smugmug.com/photos/263889710_7VT2y-L-1.jpg

http://imagesbybruce.smugmug.com/photos/176883482_MPR4B-L.jpg

[Goincarcrazy]

Holy crap that Eagle shot is gorgeous! What camera were you using?

[neil_r]

From Mallory Park today

http://www.ambrosiabbs.com/gallery/photo/medium/New_Era_Championship_Mallory_June_2009_NHR0403.jpg

http://www.ambrosiabbs.com/gallery/photo/medium/New_Era_Championship_Mallory_June_2009_NHR6980.jpg

http://www.ambrosiabbs.com/gallery/photo/medium/New_Era_Championship_Mallory_June_2009_NHR0567.jpg

[Mnbruce]

Holy crap that Eagle shot is gorgeous! What camera were you using?


Thanks Goingcarcrazy! The camera was a 30D.

Little story behind that shot. Last Sept. we went on a Alaskan cruise and I was hoping to get some good eagle images. The weather was lousy during the trip and the only eagles I saw were a long distance away, I was really disappointed. The last morning was in Ketchikan and I left the ship to stroll around while my wife was getting ready. I was sitting on a dock watching a spectacular Salmon run when this beautiful eagle lands on a post about 15 feet from me. I was so excited but I did not want to spook it so I just took a couple of shots. It only stayed for about 2 minutes then took off over my head and I failed to nail a shot in flight.

[Goincarcrazy]

I would LOVE to head back to Alaska with the 100-400. I was up there in 2002 and 2004 but I didn't have a DSLR until last June, so I'd love to have a go. Such beautiful country up there. I'd love to live in Skagway! One of my favorite captures was from up there (since it wasn't taken with a 100-400, see it here (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3155/2766512020_6bd62790bd_b.jpg))

[Mnbruce]

I would LOVE to head back to Alaska with the 100-400. I was up there in 2002 and 2004 but I didn't have a DSLR until last June, so I'd love to have a go. Such beautiful country up there. I'd love to live in Skagway! One of my favorite captures was from up there (since it wasn't taken with a 100-400, see it here (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3155/2766512020_6bd62790bd_b.jpg))



That's a beautful image!

The 100-400 stayed on the body more than I had anticipated,it was quite versatile.

http://imagesbybruce.smugmug.com/photos/374267393_KmKKC-L.jpg

http://imagesbybruce.smugmug.com/photos/537476978_QyrCU-L.jpg

[snowrdr]

From Mallory Park today

Nice work Neil!

I was at the local club races today and here are a few shots with the 100-400mm

http://www.pbase.com/snowrdr/image/114116361/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/snowrdr/image/114116363/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/snowrdr/image/114116365/original.jpg

[Goincarcrazy]

I really wish we had a track in town. There's simply no race events around to shoot short of going down to Daytona International Speedway.

Great shots!

[jacobsen1]

I'm starting to finally use this lens more (weather is finally co-operating) and I'm LOVING it:
http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/eaj-67-week-update/img_6731.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/eaj-67-week-update/img_6788.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/eaj-67-week-update/img_6797.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/eaj-67-week-update/img_6799.jpg

a buddy of mine was with us there yesterday and had his 70-200 2.8. Granted he shoots weddings and I don't, but it was laughable how short it's FL is outside like that... Definitely glad I made the switch.

[Jacobredphoto]

Prairie Dog from when I had the lens as a rental. I miss this lens SO SO much. I'm back using the 18-55mm kit lens, it's a good lens but you can imagine, haha.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3356/3651295468_b042aac7cc.jpg

EDIT: Don't know if the picture was showing up for any of you. It isn't for me, so I uploaded to Flickr :).

[-g-]

I'm starting to finally use this lens more (weather is finally co-operating) and I'm LOVING it:

Excellent shots!

[DSLR George]

Great photos everybody!

[Pauly_G]

Love the 505 shot Ben!

[KenjiS]

Heres some from me...first of quite a few actually lol

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0593-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0590-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0563-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0543-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0536-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0499-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0476-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0459-Edit.jpg

[KenjiS]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0446-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0441-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0426-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0397-Edit.jpg

I think my technique with this lens is improving :3

[FlyingPhotog]

A Nifty Swift:
http://www.pbase.com/flyingphotog/image/114161206/original.jpg

Lady In Red
http://www.pbase.com/flyingphotog/image/114161204/original.jpg

[pixelbasher]

Flying photog: That really is a nifty thing! What a cool old plane.

Here's a couple I got today.

Weather FINALLY came good.

[Gibbo]

Great shots again Pixelbasher. I posted a comment in your thread of those photos :)

I noticed you cropped the second, i noticed there was a lot of space underneath the bird in the thread. It does look a lot better cropped. Nice work again :)

[pixelbasher]

Thanks Gibbo! That thread didn't work out too well....

Yes, the lady who mentioned about the crop made good sense. That's why I asked for the C&C on my original crop, I knew it could be made better, just wasn't sure how to. The head is a little soft in the second one but it was walking and bobbing it's head back and forward. Must go faster shutter next time! The small boat wake adds nicely to the background I think.

Just a Q for the 100-400 owners: what do I use to "lube" the lens hood. I know that sounds stupid, but mine is very dry and tight, and if I don't do something about it soon, it's going to chew up the lens fitting. It has already got what looks like small burn marks from it rubbing so tight. I'm guessing a smidge of some sort of dry lube?

Here are a couple more.
I always want to do the micro adjustment thing on the lens to see if I can screw some more out of it, but I'm more than happy enough with the clarity when I use it correctly.

[Tareq]

Thanks Gibbo! That thread didn't work out too well....

Yes, the lady who mentioned about the crop made good sense. That's why I asked for the C&C on my original crop, I knew it could be made better, just wasn't sure how to. The head is a little soft in the second one but it was walking and bobbing it's head back and forward. Must go faster shutter next time! The small boat wake adds nicely to the background I think.

Just a Q for the 100-400 owners: what do I use to "lube" the lens hood. I know that sounds stupid, but mine is very dry and tight, and if I don't do something about it soon, it's going to chew up the lens fitting. It has already got what looks like small burn marks from it rubbing so tight. I'm guessing a smidge of some sort of dry lube?

Here are a couple more.
I always want to do the micro adjustment thing on the lens to see if I can screw some more out of it, but I'm more than happy enough with the clarity when I use it correctly.

Take the hood off the lens
Wipe it with some special clothes
use a special liquid that is used for lens cleaning
so you need to clean or wipe both the lens side where you place the hood o and also the hood, because with dirt and time the hood will stuck on the lens, that happened to few of my lenses, another way is you keep rotating the hood time to time, but i hope others will recommend you better way to do it.

[jacobsen1]

I'm excited to see how this lens does on the 5Dii this weekend at the airshow... It's one of the 3 "sports" I shoot... I also hope the weather holds out. But yeah, last time I shot the show (last year and other years) it's been with either a 1D, 1Dii or 40D and a 70-200 with TCs.

I'm pumped? :lol:

[Gary W.]

Hey all,

Has anyone used this for sports, in particular, HS football? This is one of the lenses I am considering because of it's reach. I am debating between this and a 70-200 2.8. Thanks for any input.

Gary W.

[KenjiS]

Some more:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0741-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0662-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0859-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0902-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0876-Edit.jpg

And hows this for a "bird" in flight :)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_0884-Edit.jpg

[Tareq]

Hey all,

Has anyone used this for sports, in particular, HS football? This is one of the lenses I am considering because of it's reach. I am debating between this and a 70-200 2.8. Thanks for any input.

Gary W.

This lens is great for any sports of long distances [footballs, cars, motors, cricket,....] as long there are enough strong available light.

[Pete]

Kenji, you might want to post some of those shots into the relevant share sections. This thread is, after all, for samples...

[stonyzmom]

Hey all,

Has anyone used this for sports, in particular, HS football? This is one of the lenses I am considering because of it's reach. I am debating between this and a 70-200 2.8. Thanks for any input.

Gary W.

I used it extensively this year for college baseball. I rented the 70-200 2.8 to see how I would like it, but I felt it was too short. It's a bit heavier than the 100-400, too. I'm not sure about shooting HS football at night. The 100-400 might not be a good choice for that. In bright light I don't think it can be beat, though.

[KenjiS]

Kenji, you might want to post some of those shots into the relevant share sections. This thread is, after all, for samples...

But they're from my 100-400 and are samples :)

[Pete]

But they're from my 100-400 and are samples :)

Hehe... Well, it looks like you post more "samples" in this thread than many people have in their collections! :D

But seriously, you have some good shots and you should let the rest of the forum appreciate and comment on them instead of just the gear-heads in the sample threads...

[Mintam]

Hi Pixelbasher, I cured my 100-400 lens hood sticking by very lightly wiping a silicon shoe shine pad once round the thread on the hood only. Worked fine for me.

Tony.

[KenjiS]

Hehe... Well, it looks like you post more "samples" in this thread than many people have in their collections! :D

But seriously, you have some good shots and you should let the rest of the forum appreciate and comment on them instead of just the gear-heads in the sample threads...

I feel its more "realistic" that way :) Show people that "Hey guess what, Not every shot with this lens is a gem" which i think helps some people when first getting this lens :)

And thanks, i should ^^

[Pete]

I think perhaps that showing mediocre shots isn't in keeping with the spirit of the lens archive. As i'm sure you're aware, anyone can take a bad shot with any lens....

[Eagle]

Just a Q for the 100-400 owners: what do I use to "lube" the lens hood. I know that sounds stupid, but mine is very dry and tight, and if I don't do something about it soon, it's going to chew up the lens fitting. It has already got what looks like small burn marks from it rubbing so tight. I'm guessing a smidge of some sort of dry lube?

A dab of dish soap on your finger, then wipe it around the inside edge of the hood, then wipe off any excess. Had to do it once last year and it's been fine since.

[Andy Favors]

Wow, the soap worked great. Mine has been doing the same thing. Smooth as buttah now.

[pixelbasher]

+1 for the soap trick, just tried it and it works a treat. Thanks Eagle!
I actually used a rub of "sunlight soap" as i had a block of it. Aussies will know it well. I think it is a neutral PH soap or something just to be sure.

I think my problems began when I didn't have it on perfectly square a few times before I turned it to lock it in, this caused the graunching which then made it more prone to locking up. For anyone who tends to be a bit rushed sometimes trying to get their hood on (I,E, me) then something like the soap should go on from new.

Has anyone used this for sports, in particular, HS football? This is one of the lenses I am considering because of it's reach. I am debating between this and a 70-200 2.8. Thanks for any input.


Hi Gary. Just the other day I was at my sons soccer and a guy had a 70-200 2.8 on a 1Dxx body, so we got talking. He had finished shooting his daughter so he actually let me shoot with the 2.8 (gotta love fellow photogs!) Anyway I also found it a tad short for the "other side of the field" shots, but I gotta admit it was very nice being able to shoot on the bright side of 4.5/5.6 for a change!
I found the quality comparing both lenses from the same day to be so close it was more user than lens that made the differences. Most times I had to look at the exif to see which lens I used. I loved the shorter DOF of the 2.8 which helped hide the background clutter a bit more. But overall for what I normally shoot, I am glad I bought the 100-400 over the 2.8. I was the same as you before I bought mine. It was a toss up between the two lenses. You need to fgure out your needs.

As tareq and others said, if the light is good and strong, the 100-400 is awesome. I have shot everything from kids soccer to birds, the moon, to top fuel drag cars, remote control jets, flowers, full size military jets and everything in between and find I live at 400 quite a lot.

If it gets a little dark I find the focus hunts a bit, I get more missed action shots, and find I have to ramp up my ISO to get a decent shutter speed back which gives me a noisier shot.
When I first bought mine, I thought that's all I was going to need, but having shot with the 2.8 I want it as well now! They both have their strengths. I would be in heaven with a canon 70-400 F2.8 with the later 4 stop IS, AND weighs the same as what I have now.......and costs less! :lol:

[Andy Favors]

I would be in heaven with a canon 70-400 F2.8 with the later 4 stop IS, AND weighs the same as what I have now.......and costs less! :lol:

wouldn't we all? :D

[cyruz]

cant wait to add to this thread. just ordered mine and will have it monday.

[Hogster86]

From Kemble Airshow last weekend:


http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/114307427/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/114307434/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/114307358/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/114307390/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/114307350/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/114307465/original.jpg


The rest are here:

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/kemble_20609


Cheers!


David :)

[Pauly_G]

Lovely shots David.

[Andy Favors]

http://i40.tinypic.com/ixtetj.jpg

[kekoa]

can any of you guys give me a direct comparison between this lens and the 70-200? i know one has more reach than the other, but strictly going by ease of use and pic quality/sharpness for wildlife type shots.

thanks

[Saphire]

wOW! some fantastic photos, my OH has the 100-400 on his 40D but doesn't take many photos:(, I have the equivalent Sigma 80-400 rather than have two of the same lens, fortunately I have a very good copy of the sigma and I still get amazed at what it can produce.