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

[Tdragone]

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

I think this might be split into a thread of it's own.
The 100-400 is great in full sunlight.
If by wildlife you mean in a forest or other area with less than full daylight.. you might be better off with the 70-200.

As for sharpness; the 70-200 wins wide open. Stopped down a little both are great lenses.

If you start a different thread with more specifics on what you want to shoot; more people might assist.

Good luck.

[rdcamero]

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

I am going through the same thing.I have the 70-200F4 Is but I find myself looking at the 100-400f4-5.6L more and more every day.

[photobitz]

I've been using my 100-400 for about a year after moving over from a Sigma 100-300 f/4 (also a great lens). I find it surprisingly versatile and the f/5.6 max aperture isn't too restrictive combined with IS. It is good for any daytime photography (airshows, motorsport, wildlife etc.) but night time sport is way beyond it's abilities.

Also, if you own a 1 series body you can still get reliable AF with a 1.4x TC attached.

[jacobsen1]

I was using a 300 f4 as my surf/airshow lens and had a 70-200 f4. I realized I used the 300 with a TC more than w/o so I sold it for a 100-400 with no intentions of ditching the 70-200, but once the 100-400 arrived it impressed me enough in the 100-200 range the second zoom became redundant. It does help I have a 5Dii so I can compensate for speed with ISOs, but I've yet to shoot this damn thing over 100 ISO, so yeah, I'm not sure how much it might effect you. Also, I call BS on anyone saying it's not sharp wide open, that's how I shoot it and it's VERY sharp IMHO (so maybe it's my copy??).

I'm pretty sure ALL of these are wide open (EXIFs are intact):
put the 5Dii and 100-400 through their paces at an airshow (in my backyard) this weekend...

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/ri-airshow-2009/img_8326.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/ri-airshow-2009/img_8388.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/ri-airshow-2009/img_8435.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/ri-airshow-2009/img_8443.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/ri-airshow-2009/img_8550.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/ri-airshow-2009/img_8575.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/ri-airshow-2009/img_8582.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/ri-airshow-2009/img_8601.jpg

[jacobsen1]

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/ri-airshow-2009/img_7535.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/ri-airshow-2009/img_7332.jpg

[rdcamero]

I was using a 300 f4 as my surf/airshow lens and had a 70-200 f4. I realized I used the 300 with a TC more than w/o so I sold it for a 100-400 with no intentions of ditching the 70-200, but once the 100-400 arrived it impressed me enough in the 100-200 range the second zoom became redundant. It does help I have a 5Dii so I can compensate for speed with ISOs, but I've yet to shoot this damn thing over 100 ISO, so yeah, I'm not sure how much it might effect you. Also, I call BS on anyone saying it's not sharp wide open, that's how I shoot it and it's VERY sharp IMHO (so maybe it's my copy??).

I'm pretty sure ALL of these are wide open (EXIFs are intact):
put the 5Dii and 100-400 through their paces at an airshow (in my backyard) this weekend...



http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/ri-airshow-2009/img_8326.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/ri-airshow-2009/img_8388.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/ri-airshow-2009/img_8435.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/ri-airshow-2009/img_8443.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/ri-airshow-2009/img_8550.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/ri-airshow-2009/img_8575.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/ri-airshow-2009/img_8582.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/ri-airshow-2009/img_8601.jpg
Nice photos.I think I am going to get the 100-400 and use it for a while then decide if I want to keep the 70-200.I have a feeling the 70-200 will be up for sale though after seeing all of the great photos in this thread.

[pixelbasher]

I wouldn't have a 100-400 as well as a 70-200 F4, but I would definately like to add a 70-200 F2.8 along side my 100-400 one day.

[Burnaby]

My pet peeve: I wish respondents would stop quoting long series of pics, followed by a brief comment...

I see this a lot on POTN

[Mtn Breeze]

Hi everyone,

My 1-4 is back at Canon N.Z. for the second time trying to get inconsistent front/back focusing issues sorted........argghhh, I miss my baby !!!


Anyway, since I can't take pics with it at the moment I thought I might as well post a few for you all to have a squizz at......

A N.Z. native South Island Robin. Sorry...cut the toe if this shot....

http://nznatureupclose.smugmug.com/photos/537389269_zhFFG-L.jpg


And here's a crop of the above shot. Check out my reflection in his eye !!!


http://nznatureupclose.smugmug.com/photos/537388770_9WXVE-L.jpg



N.Z. Kingfisher

http://nznatureupclose.smugmug.com/photos/557861078_yTS2g-L.jpg



N.Z. Tomtit

http://nznatureupclose.smugmug.com/photos/550699714_9aMfc-L.jpg




Wild goats - Marlborough high country

http://nznatureupclose.smugmug.com/photos/557851821_ZdDqE-L.jpg




Native N.Z. bush falcon

http://nznatureupclose.smugmug.com/photos/557855713_6pwLB-L.jpg




Thistle seed

http://nznatureupclose.smugmug.com/photos/531833149_B7hby-L.jpg




And finally.......my Springer Spaniel, Meg.

http://nznatureupclose.smugmug.com/photos/531216966_zPsem-L.jpg



A great and very versatile lens. I'm sure you all agree !!!


Cheers,

Matt.

[pixelbasher]

mtn breeze, really nice set! How did you know it had a focussing issue?

BTW, I noticed your setup in your sig. Have you tried the extension tubes on this lens? I am looking at adding set soon and it would be nice to use it on all my lenses if it is possible, and works.


Burnab:, yeah it does get a bit of a drag I must say, esp when multiples of people quote the same post in some cases.

[Mtn Breeze]

mtn breeze, really nice set! How did you know it had a focussing issue?

BTW, I noticed your setup in your sig. Have you tried the extension tubes on this lens? I am looking at adding set soon and it would be nice to use it on all my lenses if it is possible, and works.



Hi ya 'pb',

Thanks for your comment.

The sharpness was really inconsistent in my pics. To the point where (for example) a 4-5 shot burst of the same stationary bird would result in 2 or 3 of that burst being not sharp. Other times I would get sharper images from hand holding than on a tripod. Just completely random. Anyway, I did dozens of different 'controlled' tests and just couldn't get consistency. I then tried my lens on a friends 1D mkIII, his 100-400 on my 50D etc and all the combinations. End result confirmed it was definitely my lens not the 50D. ( His 100-400 on my 50D was spot on. But my lens on his 1D was all over the show).

As far as the tubes on the 100-400...na, havn't actually tried them on that lens. Done a wee bit with them on the 17-85 and came away with some ok bug shots. I'd be interested myself to see some results/opinions with the 1-4.

Cheers,

Matt.

[jacobsen1]

tubes will work, but yeah, I haven't tried mine either (they usually go on the 24-105, but at 105...).

[photobitz]

Tubes will work but I'm not sure why you'd want to put them on a 100-400?? I mean it's not the sort of lens you want to use for macro since it is fairly heavy. Also the long focal length will kind of counter the usefulness of the tubes anyway. Remember, the magnification effect of an extension tube is a function of the tube length vs focal length of the lens.

BTW, excellent shots Ben and Matt. I think you've proved in those few frames how super this lens can be :)

[pixelbasher]

Yeah, I'll admit I don't really totally understand the whole tubes thing, but I was more interested in using them to bring the focus distance closer for static shots. I have nothing that compares in quality of lens so figured I could use them on the lens to do some 100mm close up stuff with.

Here's another one of a landing pelican I took a week or so ago. Same day as the other ones I posted a few pages back.

[jdlloyd67]

Here's another one of a landing pelican I took a week or so ago. Same day as the other ones I posted a few pages back.
Great Pelican shot!!!

[tdodd]

Here is how 68mm of tubes alter the power of the 100-400, all handheld....

@ 400mm, no tubes, MFD (I think I cocked up the focus slightly but you should get the idea of magnification)....
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_4_R8TkwT74w/SkjINghId-I/AAAAAAABG2c/styZ4_flspw/s800/20090629_143815_8904_LR.jpg

@400mm, 68mm of tubes, MFD....
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_4_R8TkwT74w/SkjIQCK6qFI/AAAAAAABG2k/diyKjXsVVOo/s800/20090629_144009_8906_LR.jpg

@100mm, 68mm of tubes, MFD....
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_4_R8TkwT74w/SkjIRAAi5mI/AAAAAAABG2s/m6UMIawDLNg/s800/20090629_144125_8909_LR.jpg

[Hogster86]

Went to the Biggin Hill International Air Fair on Saturday and have finally gone through all the images and edited my favourites! ....

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/114388540/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/114388834/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/114388824/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/114388674/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/114388503/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/image/114388522/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/image/114404500/original.jpg

The rest are here:

http://www.pbase.com/hogster/bigginhill27609

Cheers!


David

PS. Nice watch shots Tim!!

[pixelbasher]

Hogster, awesome set! The spitfire is the one for me, top shot! (um, it is a spitfire isn't it?.......)

Ttod Now that's what I'm talking about! Thanks for posting those tube shots! I assume they are all 100% crops? How much closer did you get to the subject? At 100 (or prob 400 too I think?) the min focus is 1.5? meters if I'm not mistaken?

jdlloyd67: Cheers for the rap. Best time of day just before the sun goes down I reckon. I kept the channel markers in the crop for a bit of a navigation theme, I think it works?

Someone mentioned the softness wide open before, and whilst I find that it's still pretty good wide open, I have come to the conclusion that in my experience it does get a good bit sharper around F7 and F8, and that is where I normally try to shoot, unless it's not bright enough of course or really need the shutter speed. I haven't really experimented much smaller than F8 so can't really comment on that.

[rdcamero]

I wouldn't have a 100-400 as well as a 70-200 F4, but I would definately like to add a 70-200 F2.8 along side my 100-400 one day.

I think I may end up selling the 70-200 F4.Get the 100-400 and then add a 70-200 F2.8 somewhere down the road.

[tdodd]

Now that's what I'm talking about! Thanks for posting those tdod! I assume they are all 100% shots? How much closer could you get to the subject? At 100 (or prob 400 too I think?) the min focus is 1.5? meters if I'm not mistaken?
They are the full frame images from my 50D, simply resized.

The minimum focus distance without tubes is 1.8m. With 68mm of tubes and with a focal length of 100mm I had to remove the hood in order to take the shot, so MFD was probably something like 10cm, maybe less.

[rdcamero]

Great air show photos.There has only been one airshow close to where I live and that has been 20 years or so ago.I guess I will have to go on a road trip to take in a good one.

[pixelbasher]

Cool, thanks again ttod. Well to me it appears tubes on a 100-400 works just fine

[cscheat]

guys, finally i got my "pump" last weekend ! (got it 800 bulks, 5 months old 95% new) really amazed by the zoom range & IQ ! i owned the 70-200 F2.8 IS too...

really happy with this new Baby

[rdcamero]

I wish I could find a deal like that.How does the weight compare with the 70-200 F2.8.

[Burnaby]

That Vulcan must be the one and only XH558...

[jacobsen1]

I wish I could find a deal like that.How does the weight compare with the 70-200 F2.8.

it's almost identical in size and weight to the 2.8 IS. :confused:
but optically, it's worth it. :D

[DragonSpeed]

Love this lens - from a recent safari:
1/250" ISO 160, F/5.6, 330mm
http://www.fotothing.com/photos/fc2/fc25bdff25f97d81cb0caeacc0537e1a_140.jpg

[timbo76]

Great shot DragonSpeed.

[Madweasel]

Funny there should be discussion about the use of extension tubes on the 100-400L, as I used them today myself on some timid damselflies. It works great, working like a long-range macro lens for ultimate working distance. Here's one (an azure damselfly, Coenagrion puella) taken from about 4 feet, using 43mm of tubes:

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i192/garlicpickle/Canon/lr1-8099.jpg

[rdcamero]

Love the lion shot.I don't think I will ever get to go on a real safari.We do have a small safari park close by though.

[Mtn Breeze]

BTW, excellent shots Ben and Matt. I think you've proved in those few frames how super this lens can be :)


Thanks for your comment there Dan !!

Matt.

[cyruz]

this is my 1st shot with this lens, no real PP just some WB and exposure settings. ill have to get a better shot to get a crop for you all, but what do you think? it was made in may of 09'. seems like a decent copy to me so far. i now have a new respect for you all. this lens feels lighter than my 70-200 2.8 IS, but is a hell of a lot harder to keep straight on smaller targets. birding is gonna take some practice.

http://jgemdoc.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p836652431-4.jpg

[DragonSpeed]

this is my 1st shot with this lens, no real PP just some WB and exposure settings. ill have to get a better shot to get a crop for you all, but what do you think? it was made in may of 09'. seems like a decent copy to me so far. i now have a new respect for you all. this lens feels lighter than my 70-200 2.8 IS, but is a hell of a lot harder to keep straight on smaller targets. birding is gonna take some practice.

Welcome to the family :)

[cscheat]

I wish I could find a deal like that.How does the weight compare with the 70-200 F2.8.

haha ! it is really a good deal ! the weight is lighter than the 70-200mm F2.8 !:)

[cyruz]

so here it is, crops of the new lens for me, do you all think it is up to par with the IQ from the others in the thread? i know i need to get the shutter speed up more for hand holding. im learning that at these speeds my keeper rate kinda blows, but these were some of them. the last 2 are 100% crops, with no sharpening.

http://jgemdoc.zenfolio.com/img/v3/p669641887-4.jpg
http://jgemdoc.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p825349868-4.jpg
http://jgemdoc.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p769094254-4.jpg
http://jgemdoc.zenfolio.com/img/v0/p1012297920-4.jpg
http://jgemdoc.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p913845294-4.jpg
http://jgemdoc.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p970449253-4.jpg

[cfibanez]

so here it is, crops of the new lens for me, do you all think it is up to par with the IQ from the others in the thread? i know i need to get the shutter speed up more for hand holding. im learning that at these speeds my keeper rate kinda blows, but these were some of them. the last 2 are 100% crops, with no sharpening.

A bit underexposed IMO, but nice shots nevertheless.

[cyruz]

yea kinda goes with the whole learning curve for the lens i guess. it was very overcast this morning and i didnt want some of the stuff to get blown out. had this for 3 days now and all 3 of them have sucked for shooting

[Andy Favors]

when I got mine it was the same way for over a week. Prepare to be awed when you finally see sunlight.

[peterbj7]

Another one for your consideration, this time on a 5D:-
At 400mm:-

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc230/peterbj7/IMG_1021.jpg

Or another, at 250mm. Anyone who knows will realise the parachutists were coming towards me very rapidly, so the autofocus (derided by some) is certainly good enough for this:-

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc230/peterbj7/IMG_1154sm.jpg

Or maybe this, at 105mm. This one was taken from a moving boat and was quite tricky:-

http://i219.photobucket.com/albums/cc230/peterbj7/IMG_0712cr.jpg

[rdcamero]

Great photos.I can't wait to get mine.

[jacobsen1]

BTW, excellent shots Ben and Matt. I think you've proved in those few frames how super this lens can be :)

thanks!

one more from this morning:
http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/hazard-road/img_8792.jpg

[funhouse69]

I'm always impressed with the results I get with this lens. Here's one from my mom's garden yesterday. Hope you like :-)

http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/578853679_6HNFp-XL.jpg

[Electrical]

on a 50D, @F7.1
http://seanprescott.smugmug.com/photos/567724004_s2p4Q-XL-3.jpg

on a 50D, @5.6
http://seanprescott.smugmug.com/photos/579294882_dkU4K-XL-1.jpg

[peterbj7]

I love the B&W spray/cloud formations, but what's the story with the woodland trail? All that purple?

[Burnaby]

on a 50D, @F7.1
http://seanprescott.smugmug.com/photos/567724004_s2p4Q-XL-3.jpg

Hawaii or Iceland?

[Electrical]

Hawaii or Iceland?

big island, lava tube to the ocean :)

[cscheat]

guys, some pigeon shots ! all handheld

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs127.snc1/5455_1195481365579_1184813666_30588194_1466723_n.j pg
http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs147.snc1/5455_1195481525583_1184813666_30588198_5772594_n.j pg
http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs147.snc1/5455_1195481285577_1184813666_30588192_7234002_n.j pg

[nate1280]

Clear sky last night, managed to snag this, hand held. Need to get a monopod one of these days.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2643/3690475150_a2552623e3_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nate1280/3690475150/)

Could probably crop a bit closer, but already at a 100% crop with this one.

[peterbj7]

I've asked this before and have never understood the explanation, but as you're using the expression I'll try again. What is 100% crop? The term doesn't mean anything - take away 100% and you have nothing left.....?

[Madweasel]

A 100% crop normally means you've cropped it down so that what's left is shown at one image pixel to one screen pixel.

[peterbj7]

Isn't that a function of display rather than crop?

So what exactly did the poster of the moon photo (lovely picture) mean by 100% crop?

[Madweasel]

I'm only telling you what it means. It permits the viewer to see all the detail that is in the image. It really means 100% zoom or display, but you need to crop the image so the viewer doesn't have to zoom in, hence "100% crop", logical or not.

[nate1280]

The original image was 3888 x 2592; it was cropped down to 1519x1013 (which on my screen i can see at 1:1 with no scrolling). So when I look at it on my screen its 1:1 without zooming. Altho, its resized from posting to flickr a bit (and forum posting rules). That was always my understanding for 100% crop.

http://www.pbase.com/wlhuber/100_crop_ dunno if that helps explain 100% crop any better...

[tonylong]

Isn't that a function of display rather than crop?

So what exactly did the poster of the moon photo (lovely picture) mean by 100% crop?

"100% Crop" is simply a coined phrase that is used because nobody has a better phrase to use. It only pertains to viewing something on a computer monitor, so yes, it relates to the display, simply meaning that a user crops an image so that the cropped portion maps 1:1 to the pixels displayed on the monitor, similarly to viewing an image at 100% resolution, but with only a portion of the image that will fit into a "normal" monitor's viewing area.

People display images like this typically to show sharpness or the lack of, or to show other image characteristics like noise. This is because it's the only accurate way of viewing such fine, discrete detail on the screen (at smaller resolutions the image is compressed, losing such detail in the process).

Moon shots like the above many times are cropped closely simply because it takes quite a long lens to get the moon to fill much of the image and so with "shorter" lenses details that we might want to reveal are lost in the small size and viewing compression here on the web. So, you crop the moon to display at a reasonable size, and assuming your shot is reasonably sharp a 100% crop will show all of that detail.

[Andy Favors]

Good explanation Tony

[peterbj7]

I think I follow, but I need to ponder it some more. Who came up with such a crazy and non-intuitive name? It has absolutely nothing to do with cropping as such, except incidentally.

Since we're talking about mapping the original image onto the display screen, why not something like "precise map"?

Now, is a "100% crop" seen the same way by all viewers? Can a "crop" (I prefer the term "view") be 100% for one person but not for another person with a differently-sized monitor?

[Madweasel]

As you say, it may come out a different size on a different monitor, but the point of it is that it shows the full detail of that part of the image. I do agree the name is not intuitive.

[keith breazeal]

Back in the '60s, I cropped with the enlarger and an adjustable mask over the paper. When I crop a photo, I'm looking for the finished size and placement of the subject. Whether I crop for an 8x10, 5x7, or rotate the image, I think of that as cropping. Old school stuff...

http://desktoppub.about.com/library/glossary/bldef-crop.htm

Definition: To cut out or trim unneeded portions of an image or a page is to crop. Cutting lines, known as crop marks, may be indicated on a print-out of the image or page to show where to crop.

[Here and There]

This Brown Pelican is from the first time I went shooting with the lens. Not the sharpest, but still good.

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e95/blah106/IMG_8151.jpg

Black Phoebe
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e95/blah106/IMG_8659.jpg

House Sparrow
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e95/blah106/IMG_8465.jpg

[damnit]

I think I follow, but I need to ponder it some more. Who came up with such a crazy and non-intuitive name? It has absolutely nothing to do with cropping as such, except incidentally.

Since we're talking about mapping the original image onto the display screen, why not something like "precise map"?

Now, is a "100% crop" seen the same way by all viewers? Can a "crop" (I prefer the term "view") be 100% for one person but not for another person with a differently-sized monitor?

Life's too short bud ... just accept the flaws in our beloved language and move on, as I fear this one is way too far down the line to change it now :D

Maybe to help you get over your hurdle with this, think of it as "a crop at 100%" (zoom), not 100% of it being cropped ... ie. a 1:1 pixel ratio from image size to crop size, as I believe this is what it refers to so is in fact quite logical. :lol:

[geogecko]

I was wondering what this 100% crop thing meant too.

I think I'm beginning to understand.

From what it sounds like to me, you just want to cut out parts of the picture so that when it is viewed on [most] people's computer screens, that it is not resized. But, this final image size is not limited to any certain dimensions, so it could be 640x480, 800x600, 1200x800, whatever, just as long as it's in that range, because some of us don't have those expensive HD monitors.

It's important to note, that this is not RESIZING, but CROPPING. A 100% crop shows the original detail of the image (just not the entire image).

Hopefully, I am understanding this correctly now. I think you guys did a pretty good job of explaining it. Glad someone piped up and asked the question.

[tonylong]

I was wondering what this 100% crop thing meant too.

I think I'm beginning to understand.

From what it sounds like to me, you just want to cut out parts of the picture so that when it is viewed on [most] people's computer screens, that it is not resized. But, this final image size is not limited to any certain dimensions, so it could be 640x480, 800x600, 1200x800, whatever, just as long as it's in that range, because some of us don't have those expensive HD monitors.

It's important to note, that this is not RESIZING, but CROPPING. A 100% crop shows the original detail of the image (just not the entire image).

Hopefully, I am understanding this correctly now. I think you guys did a pretty good job of explaining it. Glad someone piped up and asked the question.

Yes, you have the idea -- you crop so that you can view the image at a 100% mapping of image resolution to screen resolution without overflowing the bounds of a "normal" screen resolution, so typically you have an image of around 800x600 to 1024x768 or thereabouts (depending on the image aspect ratio. There is no "size in inches" factor, since each monitor has its own native resolution -- on the Web and in image viewers the image displays according to that monitor resolution unless the software compresses it, which you don't want, hence the crop.

And now, on with the show!

Yesterday I was at a minor league baseball game and for the first time did some baseball photography, with the typical hit-or-miss results of a first time shooter of a sport. I was a ways up in the stands and so I resorted to the 100-400 (rather than the 70-200 I'd usually prefer for this type of thing) and the height led to a not-so-desireable angle, but I think next time I'll be able to shoot from down to the fence along the home-first base line and I should be set.

No pics yet -- I haven't weeded through all 200-250 shots, but I'll post some results maybe this evening, but don't expect too much for a first-timer:)!

[photobitz]

on a 50D, @5.6
http://seanprescott.smugmug.com/photos/579294882_dkU4K-XL-1.jpg

Interesting shot. Were you feeding your camera mushrooms? :lol:
Wow... it's seriously making my eyes water just looking at it now :shock:

[peterbj7]

Canonacid

[bob_r]

A shot taken at the Memphis zoo with a 30D.
1/125s f/5.6 400mm ISO125
http://www.pbase.com/bob_r/image/114697738.jpg

[snowrdr]

I am very pleased with the results from my new 100-400mm shooting my family jet skiing last week, probably around 98% keeper rate... :D

http://www.pbase.com/snowrdr/image/114735881/original.jpg

[peterbj7]

It's when I see pictures like that that I wonder why I bought a FF camera!

[cscheat]

It's when I see pictures like that that I wonder why I bought a FF camera!
using this pump in a FF isn't enough zoom range..

guys, i want to ask how to use this lens in MACRO !? i heard got people saying that adding tubes + macro lens 77mm will turn this lens into a giant macro lens !

and advice?

[pixelbasher]

Yes, I asked the same question a few pages back and someone posted some great shots using tubes. It's on my "to buy" list.


Here's a shot I got a week ago out at RAAF Williamtown.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3509/3704680288_79df1296af_o.jpg

[cainey]

using this pump in a FF isn't enough zoom range..

guys, i want to ask how to use this lens in MACRO !? i heard got people saying that adding tubes + macro lens 77mm will turn this lens into a giant macro lens !

and advice?

Looking back through this thread I found this

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?p=3420088&highlight=macro#post3420088

[cscheat]

pixelbasher, caney... thanks for some info !

[lancebroad]

Canon 30D + 100-400 @ f/8

[cscheat]

Canon 30D + 100-400 @ f/8
lancebroad ! that's a stunning shot ! i saw that you are using f8 for this pump... i am wondering what is the best aperture in sharpness for 400mm ?

[Burnaby]

f/8 is the sweet spot for this lens...

[photobitz]

i am wondering what is the best aperture in sharpness for 400mm ?

I'ts all good. I find f/5.6 pretty darn sharp on mine so I don't generally stop down to get a sharper pic.

[lancebroad]

I reckon f/8 is probably most lenses sweet spots. I dont think 5.6 is that sharp or as sharp as f/8, thats for sure.

If I shoot 400mm its f/8.

[pixelbasher]

I find it is more than sharp enough wide open, but I do notice I get "crisper" shots at around F 7-8. I find the edges seem finer on the ones I have shot stepped down, but it's really only an opinion based on what I find in my collection, and is pretty much the same as all lenses go really.

[cscheat]

I'ts all good. I find f/5.6 pretty darn sharp on mine so I don't generally stop down to get a sharper pic.
i will try some shots using f5.6 and f8 later... i hope the differences wont be huge !

[cyruz]

well i finally found a nice day to shoot with the new lens, get some decent shutter speeds and wasnt afraid to bump up the iso. no ducks, but how about a goose and some rabbits.

http://jgemdoc.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p998471140-4.jpg

http://jgemdoc.zenfolio.com/img/v5/p1037939963-4.jpg

http://jgemdoc.zenfolio.com/img/v2/p588596218-4.jpg

[cscheat]

cyruz ! those are stunning shots !!! i like it very much

[Neilyb]

A few from my UK trip at Bempton Cliffs in Yorkshire. 50D and 1-4.

http://neilburton.smugmug.com/photos/586245313_474qT-O.jpg

http://neilburton.smugmug.com/photos/586245325_HXyNT-O.jpg

http://neilburton.smugmug.com/photos/587026633_yQDZ7-O.jpg

[Madweasel]

I love that shot of the gannet landing - superb.

[peterbj7]

The concentration on his face! Has anyone here read "Jonathan Livingstone Seagull"? Makes me think of that book.

[cscheat]

im wondering if i can shoot something like that using my REBEL ?

[Eagle]

im wondering if i can shoot something like that using my REBEL ?Yes you can

[cscheat]

Yes you can
Yes i can !!! wakakakakak ! thanks for encouraging bro !!!

[pixelbasher]

Neilyb: magic shots!

BTW, I just looked around your site, beautiful photography!

[cscheat]

Neilyb: magic shots!

BTW, I just looked around your site, beautiful photography!
me too ! Neilybe is a pro wildlife photographer ! glad that we own the pump too ! i hope to get some great shots like him !!!

By the way Bro Neilybe, are you using the 2x extender in some of your shots?

[Neilyb]

me too ! Neilybe is a pro wildlife photographer ! glad that we own the pump too ! i hope to get some great shots like him !!!

By the way Bro Neilybe, are you using the 2x extender in some of your shots?

Thanks guys, guess I should give up the day job? :)

Never use the 2x TC, not much of a manual focus guy. 1.4 TC comes in handy though, better than cropping the shot.

[Neilyb]

im wondering if i can shoot something like that using my REBEL ?

Yup. Might not be as fast as a 50D but the IQ is good enough if you are ;)

[cscheat]

glad to hear that Neilyb ! by the way, you are cool enough to quit your day job !

[Madweasel]

...the IQ is good enough if you are ;)
This is the key point. To get really great shots with this lens takes practice and a bit of dedication, especially bird shots like those. I'm not trying to put anyone off, but just to say, get out there and practice.

[photobitz]

This is the key point. To get really great shots with this lens takes practice and a bit of dedication, especially bird shots like those. I'm not trying to put anyone off, but just to say, get out there and practice.

Agreed and it's probably better to practice with the IS turned off so you don't get lazy.

BTW, I took this yesterday (at f/5.6 especially for this thread). You make up your own mind about how good it is wide open. Note that this was the first time I've used this lens in 4 months and these pics are resized for web.

379266

100% crop
379267

[snowrdr]

Here's another f/5.6 for 1/400sec at 400mm shot... :D

[FL PHOTO]

A few from my first outing with this lens.
Could be better, but I think I got a good sample...need to do some more shooting with it. These are all from a monopod.


http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/FLS2K/Ed%20Medard/_MG_7214.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/FLS2K/Ed%20Medard/_MG_7226.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/FLS2K/Ed%20Medard/_MG_7233.jpg

[cscheat]

This is the key point. To get really great shots with this lens takes practice and a bit of dedication, especially bird shots like those. I'm not trying to put anyone off, but just to say, get out there and practice.
yes, practice makes perfect ! Loving my Pump every day !

http://photos-d.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc1/hs127.snc1/5455_1198088550757_1184813666_30598451_4298117_n.j pg

[pixelbasher]

show off! :lol:

[m3pj]

I thought this moon image turned out nice, 100-400 + 1.4xII on a 40D (tripod, MLU, IS off, manually focused with live view)

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/581633987_29Xxd-XL-1.jpg

[pixelbasher]

Nice moon.
live view, manual focus at 10* and the 100-400, works well with the moon. It was one of the first things I shot I with this lens

[cyruz]

http://JGEMDOC.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p791919009-4.jpg

http://JGEMDOC.zenfolio.com/img/v4/p594842586-4.jpg

[cscheat]

nice moon m3pj !!! looks sharp !!!

last weekend i went to a shop to try out the Canon 2x II extender and try to make my pump a 200-800mm (1280mm equivalent) and found that the AUTO FOCUS not working !!! any advice !!! want to get sharper moon shot than m3pj !!! LOL !

[funhouse69]

From what I have heard / read you will loose auto focus with the 2X unless you have a 1D series body. I've been able to use my lenses with a Kenko 1.4 with Center Focus only.

[Neilyb]

nice moon m3pj !!! looks sharp !!!

last weekend i went to a shop to try out the Canon 2x II extender and try to make my pump a 200-800mm (1280mm equivalent) and found that the AUTO FOCUS not working !!! any advice !!! want to get sharper moon shot than m3pj !!! LOL !

Buy a 1DIIn and tape the pins, this was the only body I have used that would AF with a 2x and a 5.6 lens - in good light. Otherwise use a 1.4TC, and a 1D this was a great combo. I tape the pins and used it often on the 5D!

[cscheat]

From what I have heard / read you will loose auto focus with the 2X unless you have a 1D series body. I've been able to use my lenses with a Kenko 1.4 with Center Focus only.

what about canon 1.4? my body is rebel... any sample shots?

Buy a 1DIIn and tape the pins, this was the only body I have used that would AF with a 2x and a 5.6 lens - in good light. Otherwise use a 1.4TC, and a 1D this was a great combo. I tape the pins and used it often on the 5D!

so do taping the pins for 2x extender works for my rebel xs?

[photobitz]

Taping the pins just tricks the camera into thinking that there is no TC there. Ordinarily the camera detects the TC there and knows it will have trouble AFing with such little light coming through the lens so AF is disabled. With the pins taped it will attempt to focus but no guarantees about how well it will perform.

On the Rebel and xxD series I think the limit was f/5.6 if I remember rightly. That means you could use an f/4 lens and a 1.4x TC (-1 stop) and it would still AF normally. The 1 series drops the limit to f/8... f/4 lens and 2x TC (-2 stops) or f/5.6 lens and 1.4x TC.

Note that some 3rd party TCs (eg. some Kenko versions) do not have the circuitry that reports it's presence to the camera so you don't need to tape pins.

[cscheat]

Taping the pins just tricks the camera into thinking that there is no TC there. Ordinarily the camera detects the TC there and knows it will have trouble AFing with such little light coming through the lens so AF is disabled. With the pins taped it will attempt to focus but no guarantees about how well it will perform.

On the Rebel and xxD series I think the limit was f/5.6 if I remember rightly. That means you could use an f/4 lens and a 1.4x TC (-1 stop) and it would still AF normally. The 1 series drops the limit to f/8... f/4 lens and 2x TC (-2 stops) or f/5.6 lens and 1.4x TC.

Note that some 3rd party TCs (eg. some Kenko versions) do not have the circuitry that reports it's presence to the camera so you don't need to tape pins.
so you mean 3rd party 2x extender are better than canon? kenko? what about the IQ

[photobitz]

so you mean 3rd party 2x extender are better than canon? kenko? what about the IQ

No they are not necessarily better but they do have some advantages. The Canon converters win in build quality hands down. In my experience some Kenko converters come very close in IQ to the Canon ones and at a fraction of the cost are a good substitute. The build isn't as solid so I am cautious using them with heavy lenses. I believe Kenko products are made by Hoya.

I have no personal experience with other brands however I have read a fair few negative comments about the Tamron ones and the Sigma converters seem to be highly variable with some people saying they are excellent and others saying they are terrible. I think it also depends a lot on the lens you are matching them with.

[tdodd]

The build isn't as solid so I am cautious using them with heavy lenses.
But with a big lens it's more a case of hanging the camera off the back of the lens, at least when using a tripod or monopod, so I'm not sure the weight of the lens makes much/any difference. Even handholding you'll surely be supporting both camera and lens at the same time, so again I don't really see a reason to be concerned. I don't have any really heavy lenses - 70-200/2.8 IS and 100-400 are my weightiest - but certainly they are no problem with my Kenko 1.4X.

[cscheat]

No they are not necessarily better but they do have some advantages. The Canon converters win in build quality hands down. In my experience some Kenko converters come very close in IQ to the Canon ones and at a fraction of the cost are a good substitute. The build isn't as solid so I am cautious using them with heavy lenses. I believe Kenko products are made by Hoya.

I have no personal experience with other brands however I have read a fair few negative comments about the Tamron ones and the Sigma converters seem to be highly variable with some people saying they are excellent and others saying they are terrible. I think it also depends a lot on the lens you are matching them with.
i guess i will keep looking on Canon Extender... their built is quite robust as L (and heavy too !)

[cscheat]

But with a big lens it's more a case of hanging the camera off the back of the lens, at least when using a tripod or monopod, so I'm not sure the weight of the lens makes much/any difference. Even handholding you'll surely be supporting both camera and lens at the same time, so again I don't really see a reason to be concerned. I don't have any really heavy lenses - 70-200/2.8 IS and 100-400 are my weightiest - but certainly they are no problem with my Kenko 1.4X.
tdodd... mind to share some pictures taken by your kenko 1.4x ? can the kenko 1.4x maintain the AF on my pump without taping the pins?

[tdodd]

tdodd... mind to share some pictures taken by your kenko 1.4x ? can the kenko 1.4x maintain the AF on my pump without taping the pins?
Dust pump + 1.4X of any brand gives you an f/8 lens. That's physics and nothing to do with one brand being better or worse than any other. If the camera sees you have f/8 max aperture then only a 1 series will AF (centre point only). For any other body to work you will need a pinless teleconverter or to tape the pins and thus make the teleconverter invisible to the camera so it thinks it has an f/5.6 lens fitted. Of course, telling lies to the camera doesn't make the AF magically work better, or at all. You will be lucky to get a 40D or 50D to AF with the centre point when using a dust pump + 1.4X teleconverter, even with taped pins. Outer points should work OK but I have never tried them for AI Servo performance. I have no idea how well a 1000D would work with the dust pump and a 1.4X of any brand, taped or not.

Here are a couple of examples with the my 100-400 plus Kenko 1.4X at 560mm, f/8 (wide open), 1/1000, 400 ISO. Both examples are cropped and resized. The first one is with my 50D and using a tripod. EXIF has been wiped by Neat Image. The second is handheld with my 1D3 and the EXIF is intact.

[photobitz]

But with a big lens it's more a case of hanging the camera off the back of the lens, at least when using a tripod or monopod, so I'm not sure the weight of the lens makes much/any difference. Even handholding you'll surely be supporting both camera and lens at the same time, so again I don't really see a reason to be concerned. I don't have any really heavy lenses - 70-200/2.8 IS and 100-400 are my weightiest - but certainly they are no problem with my Kenko 1.4X.

True, but if you are using a 1dMk2 that's almost 2kg hanging off the back of the lens. If you used it like this a lot it could fatigue but granted for the most part it would not be an issue. Even less of an issue considering cscheat is using a rebel. ;)

I just wanted to state that the build is nowhere near as solid as the Canon ones as it is something to take into consideration. The only time I have heard of a Kenko breaking apart was when someone dropped their camera. It was the weakest part of the combination.

I've also heard some people mention that the release levers on Kenkos are easy to catch on clothes and can cause a lens to come undone unexpectedly. Never had that happen on my TC however it did happen once or twice with the Kenko extension tubes (not completely undone though).

[tdodd]

Here's one more at 540mm, 1/640, f/8, 400 ISO, handheld with my 50D. I've included a 100% crop. EXIF is included

[cscheat]

photobitz, really shocking to hear the breaking of the kenko extension incident !!! that really scares me !!! btw, i will still keep looking for 1.4 or 2.0 extender from canon !

dtodd, your pictures are tack sharp even after using the extender !!! i guess your 50D also helps too

[tdodd]

dtodd, your pictures are tack sharp even after using the extender !!! i guess your 50D also helps too
Good light helps, as does good technique and good post processing and even a little luck. I think that in these well lit, static subjects the camera plays the least significant part in sharpness or IQ as a whole, at least when viewing at these reproduction sizes. I certainly would not attribute any benefit to the 50D for these shots. A 40D or Rebel should be just as able to deliver equivalent results. Even a 5D2 or 1D3 should do OK.

[cscheat]

Good light helps, as does good technique and good post processing and even a little luck. I think that in these well lit, static subjects the camera plays the least significant part in sharpness or IQ as a whole, at least when viewing at these reproduction sizes. I certainly would not attribute any benefit to the 50D for these shots. A 40D or Rebel should be just as able to deliver equivalent results. Even a 5D2 or 1D3 should do OK.
thanks for all the advice tdodd ! that makes me felt better using my Rebel... :)

[tdodd]

thanks for all the advice tdodd ! that makes me felt better using my Rebel... :)
Good. That was my intention :)

I have had a bit of a wakeup call regarding my BIF photography recently and the bottom line is that the biggest improvements will come, not from an equipment upgrade, but from a better appreciation of lighting and the habits of my subjects. Unfortunately the best results also require dedication and patience, as well as good technique. The best gear in the world will not replace those things.

[photobitz]

Exactly what I have found Tim. Not to say good equipment isn't of benefit but if you aren't able to expose correctly you will just end up disappointed with the results.

[peterbj7]

Here's one more at 540mm, 1/640, f/8, 400 ISO, handheld with my 50D. I've included a 100% crop. EXIF is included

I can't view the exif.

[tdodd]

I can't view the exif.
If you're using Opanda IEXIF it seems to have problems with some files, including this one, but not limited to my files. These days I use Firefox as my browser (for its colour management) and, as well as IEXIF, I now have FxIF (http://ted.mielczarek.org/code/mozilla/fxif/)plugin installed, which does work OK. Here is what FxIF (http://ted.mielczarek.org/code/mozilla/fxif/)picks up....

Camera Make: Canon
Camera Model: Canon EOS 50D
Image Date: 2009:03:21 14:13:52
Flash Used: No
Focal Length: 540.0mm
CCD Width: NaNmm
Exposure Time: 0.0016 s (1/640)
Aperture: f/8.0
ISO equiv: 400
White Balance: Manual
Metering Mode: Spot
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual

Although IEXIF used to be a favourite of mine I've pretty much given up on it due to its frequent failure to reveal EXIF data that is present. I may just as well use FxIF and get the results first time, if the data is present. The other option is to save the image file and then check it out in your favourite image software, but I imagine few people have the need or inclination to do that.

[peterbj7]

Thanks! I'm new at this EXIF business and only installed IEXIF last week on somebody's recommendation. I'll now use FxIF as my default.

[beemilvader]

I was reading the chatter about using TC's with this lens and thought I would chime in. Mine was a serious impulse buy when I bought the cheap ($109) Tamron 1.4x TC to use with my DP. It is the black one...the white PRO one ($200) wouldn't AF. (requires F2.8 or larger) In the manual it states the TC is not meant for use with digital cameras. With my XTi, AF and IS work, and I can choose focus points. AF is noticeably slower and as people have mentioned pictures will seriously lack some sharpness. It rattles a bit when attached together, but nothing to make me think it will spontaneously fall apart. I have used it about two or three times and the images were OK, but nothing I felt were worth keeping. So now it sits. I thought about smashing the glass out and using it for an ext. tube, but that might be a little extreme. :)

[FL PHOTO]

These were taken today with a new DP.
@400mm w/ Canon 1.4x TC from about 10 ft or so
FF followed by a 100% crop...tripod...IS off...XTi...RAW...ISO 100..F 11

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/FLS2K/100-400%20test/FFTC40011.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/FLS2K/100-400%20test/CRTC40011.jpg

[beemilvader]

FL Photo, not a chance I could get that sharp with my Tamron TC...but now you have me wondering.

[RAW-Shooter]

Event though the TC discussion should not be here in this forum...I cannot resist.

I have the Kenko 1.5x (not the 1.4x) and the 2x. I am quite happy with the 1.5x, but the 2x is not all that great. I don't own a 100-400 (sigh), so I cannot test that combo.

Somebody mentioned that Kenko is made by Hoya. This is not quite correct. Hoya, Kenko and Slik belong to Tokina.

If you ever had a Tokina lens, you'll know that they are build like tanks and so are the Kenko TC's.

Just my 2 cents.

[beemilvader]

Event though the TC discussion should not be here in this forum...

Good point, so...

[Neilyb]

On the sublect of TCs. Posted this already I think but it is with taped 1.4 Kenko and 1-4. Af worked OK even in the dodgy light of an Indian jungle (just here to prove it can work) ;)

http://neilburton.smugmug.com/photos/413371092_aXigP-O.jpg

PS - kenko 2x does not compare to the Canon 2x, but the 1.4s are pretty much identical in IQ.

[jacobsen1]

3 from last week:
http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/eaj-70-week-update/img_9389.jpg

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/eaj-70-week-update/img_9394.jpg

and yes this one's VERY BLURRY, but it's pushing the limits as far as I could. They took off once I started setting up the tripod....

http://www.benjacobsen.com/wp-content/gallery/eaj-70-week-update/img_9407.jpg

[qwalls]

A few from my UK trip at Bempton Cliffs in Yorkshire. 50D and 1-4.

http://neilburton.smugmug.com/photos/586245313_474qT-O.jpg



Awesome shot!

[cscheat]

jacobsen1, your picture with a deer is very blur... is that on TC ?

[BrantG]

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3478/3713993893_34b2f6999e_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3475/3713995599_a4b17c9e50_b.jpg

[Madweasel]

Nice shots BrantG, but something not quite right to my eye - you've doctored those backgrounds, right?

[BrantG]

Nice shots BrantG, but something not quite right to my eye - you've doctored those backgrounds, right?

I decreased the exposure on the backgrounds by 1/2 stop. Thats all.

[foto_cbs]

Ringlet butterfly.
This time I used my trusty 1-4L + 25mm extension (for closer focusing).

[krb]

I'm finally getting around to processing the pics I took over the July 4th weekend.

400mm f/5.6 1/400 second, handheld:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3519/3725559734_ebd272e191_b.jpg
larger version (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kennethrberry/3725559734/sizes/o/)

190mm f/5.0 1/250 second, flash, tripod, extension tube (don't remember which size tube):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3471/3724747013_52978a0774_b.jpg
larger version (http://www.flickr.com/photos/kennethrberry/3724747013/sizes/o/)

[jacobsen1]

jacobsen1, your picture with a deer is very blur... is that on TC ?

check the exif, it's 6400, 400mm @ 1/10th of a second HAND HELD!!! Basically, I'd put all my shooting gear away to ride and he popped up. So I tried my best with crappy results. :lol: but it was legitimately DARK out, IE after sunset by 45 minutes?

[photobitz]

I decreased the exposure on the backgrounds by 1/2 stop. Thats all.

Did you have IS turned on? That can make the out-of-focus areas a little strange-looking sometimes.

I personally don't see anything wrong with your shots...

[Broomer]

Gee wiz.. there are some good shots here.. Just dropped by to post one of mine.

[BrantG]

Did you have IS turned on? That can make the out-of-focus areas a little strange-looking sometimes.

I personally don't see anything wrong with your shots...

I had the panning IS (mode 2) on. Though, I'm not sure how the shots would look any different with IS turned off. The background had a bunch of trees and I was panning. It maybe due to the fact that my shutter speed wasn't slow enough to blur the trees enough.

[tonylong]

I stopped by a local nature trail/park this week and spent a couple hours mostly photographing bees on flowers (with an occasional little bird popping up). I wasn't using a TC, just the 1D3 and the 100-400, so most of the stuff I got had to be very closely cropped -- I stayed stuck on 400mm but at the MFD a bee is still a speck in the field of view. And, all the shots were hand-held.

But I will say that even when I was shooting wide open, a good number of these close cropped still look pleasingly sharp.

Here are a few:

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/115011967/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/115011972/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/115017513/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/115018328/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/115018850/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/115019285/original.jpg

This last one I was able to get a bit closer and better frame (some cropping here, though:
http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/115020336/original.jpg

Here's a much closer crop (this was at f/8 -- exif is in the pics):
http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/115020335/original.jpg

[peterbj7]

A great sequence!

May I ask a question? The TC you have but didn't use - is that 1.4 or 2.0, and what brand is it. What camera/lens functionality is lost by using the TC?

And actually, with it one, how feasible are hand held shots like these?

[tonylong]

I have had a few TCs over time. The one I currently use with the 100-400 is the Kenko 1.5x (I believe it's 1.5).

The shorter TCs (I've used Canon and Kenko) definitely hold up better than the 2x TCs on any lens I've used. Part is because of the extra focal length being harder to keep steady and part is that there is some image degredation. I used to use the Canon 2x on my sharp 300 f/2.8 IS but still there was a good degree of frustration because a tripod was often not an option.

With the 100-400 I'd realistically stick with a 1.4/1.5, and whenever possible I use a monopod just to cut down on shake as much as is feasible. Given care, you can get good quality shots with it. Of note, it does force your aperture to f/8, meaning only a 1D body can AF (center point only) without "trickery".

I shot all these at f/11 and they are all virtually 100% crops:

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/112341126/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/112341190/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/112341362/original.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/tonylong/image/112341393/original.jpg

[cyruz]

http://jgemdoc.zenfolio.com/img/v1/p886802872-4.jpg

[funhouse69]

How this for something a little different

http://funhouse69.smugmug.com/photos/587765942_wgLUf-XL.jpg

[KenjiS]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_1316-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_1317-Edit.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/scifiguy1012/Photography/IMG_1263-Edit.jpg

I dont know why but I've been thinking im applying a bit too much USM...maybe im going overkill with it

[BrantG]

^^

Looks good on my screen.

[Goincarcrazy]

Not the best to showcase what this lens can do, but some recent ones none-the-less.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2526/3732683960_9af5737453_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2638/3732683302_7a5124bc79_b.jpg

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2508/3732684524_03aab0cf6c_b.jpg

[Hailwood]

I rented one of these for some weekend motorsports shooting and now I don't want to send it back!

Had some really good light yesterday, with some relatively thin, but even cloud cover:

All shot with 40D around 1/800~1000 f8 @ ISO 400

http://dangerwillrobbins.smugmug.com/photos/595366109_Ekyac-XL.jpg

http://dangerwillrobbins.smugmug.com/photos/595368788_ZQEjA-XL.jpg

http://dangerwillrobbins.smugmug.com/photos/595392313_ifYaP-XL.jpg

[Pete]

1D Mk II N

http://www.the-aperture.com/EE/photos/normal/20090718__PER9786.jpg

http://www.the-aperture.com/EE/photos/normal/20090718__PER9781.jpg

http://www.the-aperture.com/EE/photos/normal/20090718__PER9742.jpg

[tonylong]

Great stuff, Pete! You really caught the action with those!