Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 10 Apr 2012 (Tuesday) 12:26
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Testing canon 100-400mm L

 
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,308 posts
Likes: 2338
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Apr 11, 2012 16:49 |  #16

sunking39 wrote in post #14249184 (external link)
My 100-400 has a BW uv filter for protection. I love the results I get.
And the lens hood is huge. you dont want to have those extra 4 inches everywhere you go, specially when you carry a smallish camera bag.

The hood reverses for transport.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Tyreman
Goldmember
1,061 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Cambridge,Ontario,Canada
     
Apr 11, 2012 20:55 |  #17

Here a several year old pic when I had 1Ds Mark II full frame taken with 100-400 hand held


PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i182.photobucke​t.com …man_2007/VQ0Q33​24jpg2.jpg (external link)

1D Mark III / 100-400 L Version II
430ex II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sunking39
Senior Member
403 posts
Joined Feb 2008
     
Apr 11, 2012 23:22 |  #18

gjl711 wrote in post #14249560 (external link)
The hood reverses for transport.

Yeah, but then 1.you have no protection when the camea is in the bag.

2. You'll have to pull a karatekid twist off twist on routine thru the day.

3. you look like a goofball (more of a) when you do attach it.

4. you reverse the hood on this one, and the diameter increase 50%. ughh.

I like protection, specially on big hard to handle lenses like this one.:neutral:

All i can say is Im happy with the protective filter I use on this lens (no flares or loss of quality, etc)
Its up to personal taste.

There are 2 types of people in this world, those who use protective filters and those who don't. If you are in the first group (the cool one :)) there's no reason to switch sides just for the 100 400L.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
arcgang
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
32 posts
Joined Apr 2012
     
Apr 11, 2012 23:40 as a reply to  @ sunking39's post |  #19

Hi,
So I received the lens and took it out after coming back from work. Today was a cloudy evening. Posting one the images I took. The on-camera flash was turned on. It was around 7p.m in Los angeles. This is the sharpest I could get. No post processing done on the Bird photo. Post processing performed on the Cat.

There were several humming birds as well, none of the shots had good IQ. Will give another look to find if anyone of them is a bit sharp.

Bird photo

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7230/6923682910_67f7b12c1d_b.jpg

Cat photo
IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7103/7069768441_9c906edb92_b.jpg

Your comments and views will be much appreciated. I know the light condition was not great but plz let me know points of improvement, tricks I should apply.

'Lenses fill my senses'
Gear list : Canon eos 60d, t2i, canon 50mm f1.8, canon 18-200mm, sigma 10-20mm f3.5, canon 100mm f2.8 L, canon 100-400mm L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
arcgang
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
32 posts
Joined Apr 2012
     
Apr 12, 2012 00:51 as a reply to  @ arcgang's post |  #20

One shot of humming bird at around 7pm. Cropped & post processed.

IMAGE: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5455/7069865491_31b92f469d_b.jpg

'Lenses fill my senses'
Gear list : Canon eos 60d, t2i, canon 50mm f1.8, canon 18-200mm, sigma 10-20mm f3.5, canon 100mm f2.8 L, canon 100-400mm L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Apr 12, 2012 06:29 |  #21

sunking39 wrote in post #14251455 (external link)
There are 2 types of people in this world, those who use protective filters and those who don't. If you are in the first group (the cool one :)) there's no reason to switch sides just for the 100 400L.

Unless you get results like these -

No Filter - Expensive Filter - Cheap Filter

IMAGE: http://www.frankhollis.com/temp/Filter%20Comparison%20100-400.jpg

Crap image quality, but who cares as long as you look cool :rolleyes:

Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
TeamSpeed
01010100 01010011
Avatar
37,006 posts
Gallery: 111 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5840
Joined May 2002
Location: Midwest
     
Apr 12, 2012 07:41 |  #22

When doing a filter test, I try to not use things like trees and leaves, etc. You have to eliminate any kind of subject movement when doing an IQ test such as that, IMO. However, yes I have directly seen the impacts of poor filters on lenses.

No filter on an L lens:

IMAGE: http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Electronics/Garage-Sale/IMG7757/778489771_p7Aft-M.jpg
Cheap filter on an L lens:
IMAGE: http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Electronics/Garage-Sale/IMG7759/778489775_FRU4D-M.jpg

Past Equipment | My Personal Gallery (external link) My Business Gallery (external link)
For Sale: 2x Teleconverter
For Sale: Sigma USB Dock

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sunking39
Senior Member
403 posts
Joined Feb 2008
     
Apr 12, 2012 09:57 |  #23

hollis f,
I was being sarcastic when I made that Being cool comment.
I stand by everyting else ive said.
But not trying to start a filter vs no filter debate here.
So ill say no more.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,165 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2495
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Apr 12, 2012 11:30 |  #24

arcgang wrote in post #14251521 (external link)
Your comments and views will be much appreciated. I know the light condition was not great but plz let me know points of improvement, tricks I should apply.

what's up with your white balance...the two color shots look pretty blue to me.....


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
arcgang
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
32 posts
Joined Apr 2012
     
Apr 12, 2012 11:47 |  #25

DreDaze wrote in post #14253761 (external link)
what's up with your white balance...the two color shots look pretty blue to me.....

Thanks for your comments. Yes I notice those are bluish. The humming bird shot was processed though. I think the white balance was set to day light. Should have set to cloudy ?


'Lenses fill my senses'
Gear list : Canon eos 60d, t2i, canon 50mm f1.8, canon 18-200mm, sigma 10-20mm f3.5, canon 100mm f2.8 L, canon 100-400mm L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,308 posts
Likes: 2338
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Apr 12, 2012 11:55 |  #26

arcgang wrote in post #14253864 (external link)
Thanks for your comments. Yes I notice those are bluish. The humming bird shot was processed though. I think the white balance was set to day light. Should have set to cloudy ?

Here is where raw really shines. White balance is easily adjusted while the image is in raw format. It's a simple slider.

In tough lighting like that image seems to have, if you want the camera to do the conversion, there is a procedure to go though to set the color balance appropriately but setting it to shade would have gotten you much closer.


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Apr 12, 2012 14:23 |  #27

arcgang wrote in post #14253864 (external link)
Thanks for your comments. Yes I notice those are bluish. The humming bird shot was processed though. I think the white balance was set to day light. Should have set to cloudy ?

I agree with the RAW suggestion, then it's very easy to adjust WB




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BioSci
Senior Member
Avatar
413 posts
Gallery: 25 photos
Likes: 75
Joined Nov 2010
Location: Boston MetroWest Burbs
     
Apr 12, 2012 15:06 as a reply to  @ watt100's post |  #28

I've had my 100-400L for about a year now. Here's a recent photo I took of a brown pelican in flight. IS and AI Servo helped a lot.

IMAGE: http://mat99.ath.cx/potn/Pelican-1S.jpg

EOS R | 7D | 24-70 f/2.8L II | 70-200 f/2.8L II | 100-400 f/4.5-5.6L | 17-55 f/2.8 | 11-16 f/2.8

Tyo Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
amfoto1
Cream of the Crop
10,251 posts
Likes: 84
Joined Aug 2007
Location: San Jose, California
     
Apr 12, 2012 16:13 |  #29

arcgang wrote in post #14251693 (external link)
One shot of humming bird at around 7pm. Cropped & post processed.

QUOTED IMAGE

Holy cow!

I hope you don't mind... Here's what it looks like just doing a simple Auto Color in Photoshop, plus a warming filter and slightly increasing exposure in the middle.... Took all of about 30 seconds and would look a whole lot better with the original, full size JPEG or, better yet, working from a RAW file.

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7037/6925687658_2a2245ee48_o.jpg

I'd suggest just using Auto White Balance. And, if also shooting RAW, you always can change it later.

But more to the point of this discussion... about the 100-400.

Yeah, but then...

1.you have no protection when the camea is in the bag.

That's why lenses come with lens caps.

2. You'll have to pull a karatekid twist off twist on routine thru the day.

That's part of the deal... But I often have lenses set up with hoods in place, nose down in my camera bag, ready to swap out. So you don't really have to take the hood on and off all the time.

3. you look like a goofball (more of a) when you do attach it.

Then I'm a goofball. But I'm not all that self-conscious about it and could care less what other people think (unless they are writing me a paycheck).

To me, it looks goofier to shoot without a hood and especially ridiculous to see someone shooting with the hood still in the reversed/storage position!

I remember Art Wolfe being asked about not using a hood, in one of the episodes of Travels to the Edge. He acted downright embarassed to be seen without a hood on his lens, had forgotten to bring it with him on the shoot.

4. you reverse the hood on this one, and the diameter increase 50%. ughh.

Get a bigger camera bag to accomodate it, if necessary.

I like protection, specially on big hard to handle lenses like this one.:neutral:

All i can say is Im happy with the protective filter I use on this lens (no flares or loss of quality, etc)

Those are pretty counter-intuitive statements "I like protection" vs "I don't like using the lens hood." And, you'll never actually know if there was loss, flare, etc. in your images, unless you try side by side shots with and without the filter. It's interesting how many people stop using "protective" filters, once they take the time to do a test like that.

Do a search, too, there was a recent post about someone's 70-200/2.8 IS II actually being damaged when the broken filter took a gouge out of the coatings on the front of their lens. Would it have survived better without a filter on there? I think it would, but it's pretty hard to be certain and impossible to prove. Through the years, I have seen more than a few lenses that appeared to have been damaged by broken filters. But it's also impossible to prove that a filter actually ever "saved" a dropped/bumped lens (might have been fine, or better, without it... who knows).

Hey, I really don't mind at all when people use "protection" filters.... It doesn't effect me one way or another most of the time. My comment earlier about not using one on a 100-400 in particular was simply based upon seeing so many comments from users about this particular lens performing better without one, that it seems to be particularly sensitive to having a filter on there.

All I can do is offer what I've found myself shooting 30+ years. And actually I love it when I buy a used lens, to see a protection filter that's been on it "since new"... And the first thing I do is remove it. Usually the lens under it and the inside of the filter are in serious need of cleaning, I've noticed.

I also love it when I see a competitor using a protection filter... because I know there's at least some chance that my images might be better than theirs as a result. It's even better if the competitor can't be bothered with a hood or are too worried they'll look goofy so don't use one. Hey, I'll take any bit of an edge I can get, in a competitive situation.

A good quality, multi-coated filter won't do much visible harm to images most of the time... but any add'l layer of glass cannot help but reduce some of the light that's passing through it. Since it's so minimal, most of the time, use one if it makes you feel better. It's a bit ironic, though, that it's even more important to use a lens hood when using a filter... to protect that thin piece of glass against getting bumped and to keep oblique light off it as best possible.

I do feel some obligation to advise folks with both sides of the argument and, if it's something I'm aware of, pass along what other people have experienced in a particular case.


Alan Myers (external link) "Walk softly and carry a big lens."
5DII, 7DII(x2), 7D(x2) & other cameras. 10-22mm, Tokina 12-24/4, 20/2.8, TS 24/3.5L, 24-70/2.8L, 28/1.8, 28-135 IS (x2), TS 45/2.8, 50/1.4, Tamron 60/2.0, 70-200/4L IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 85/1.8, Tamron 90/2.5 Macro, 100/2.8 USM, 100-400L II, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L IS (x2), 300/2.8L IS, 500/4L IS, EF 1.4X II, EF 2X II. Flashes, studio strobes & various access. - FLICKR (external link) - ZENFOLIO (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sunking39
Senior Member
403 posts
Joined Feb 2008
     
Apr 12, 2012 18:00 |  #30

amfoto1 wrote in post #14255369 (external link)
Holy cow!

I hope you don't mind... Here's what it looks like just doing a simple Auto Color in Photoshop, plus a warming filter and slightly increasing exposure in the middle.... Took all of about 30 seconds and would look a whole lot better with the original, full size JPEG or, better yet, working from a RAW file.

QUOTED IMAGE

I'd suggest just using Auto White Balance. And, if also shooting RAW, you always can change it later.

But more to the point of this discussion... about the 100-400.


That's why lenses come with lens caps.


That's part of the deal... But I often have lenses set up with hoods in place, nose down in my camera bag, ready to swap out. So you don't really have to take the hood on and off all the time.


Then I'm a goofball. But I'm not all that self-conscious about it and could care less what other people think (unless they are writing me a paycheck).

To me, it looks goofier to shoot without a hood and especially ridiculous to see someone shooting with the hood still in the reversed/storage position!

I remember Art Wolfe being asked about not using a hood, in one of the episodes of Travels to the Edge. He acted downright embarassed to be seen without a hood on his lens, had forgotten to bring it with him on the shoot.


Get a bigger camera bag to accomodate it, if necessary.


Those are pretty counter-intuitive statements "I like protection" vs "I don't like using the lens hood." And, you'll never actually know if there was loss, flare, etc. in your images, unless you try side by side shots with and without the filter. It's interesting how many people stop using "protective" filters, once they take the time to do a test like that.

Do a search, too, there was a recent post about someone's 70-200/2.8 IS II actually being damaged when the broken filter took a gouge out of the coatings on the front of their lens. Would it have survived better without a filter on there? I think it would, but it's pretty hard to be certain and impossible to prove. Through the years, I have seen more than a few lenses that appeared to have been damaged by broken filters. But it's also impossible to prove that a filter actually ever "saved" a dropped/bumped lens (might have been fine, or better, without it... who knows).

Hey, I really don't mind at all when people use "protection" filters.... It doesn't effect me one way or another most of the time. My comment earlier about not using one on a 100-400 in particular was simply based upon seeing so many comments from users about this particular lens performing better without one, that it seems to be particularly sensitive to having a filter on there.

All I can do is offer what I've found myself shooting 30+ years. And actually I love it when I buy a used lens, to see a protection filter that's been on it "since new"... And the first thing I do is remove it. Usually the lens under it and the inside of the filter are in serious need of cleaning, I've noticed.

I also love it when I see a competitor using a protection filter... because I know there's at least some chance that my images might be better than theirs as a result. It's even better if the competitor can't be bothered with a hood or are too worried they'll look goofy so don't use one. Hey, I'll take any bit of an edge I can get, in a competitive situation.

A good quality, multi-coated filter won't do much visible harm to images most of the time... but any add'l layer of glass cannot help but reduce some of the light that's passing through it. Since it's so minimal, most of the time, use one if it makes you feel better. It's a bit ironic, though, that it's even more important to use a lens hood when using a filter... to protect that thin piece of glass against getting bumped and to keep oblique light off it as best possible.

I do feel some obligation to advise folks with both sides of the argument and, if it's something I'm aware of, pass along what other people have experienced in a particular case.

sunking39 wrote in post #14253331 (external link)
I was being sarcastic when I made that Being cool comment. (edit: and that goofball comment :) )
I stand by everyting else ive said.
But not trying to start a filter vs no filter debate here.
So ill say no more.

...




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

11,163 views & 0 likes for this thread
Testing canon 100-400mm L
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is ChazMaz
884 guests, 313 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.