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 17 Dec 2014 (Wednesday) 10:12
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Review WOW!

 
alliben
Senior Member
Avatar
325 posts
Gallery: 41 photos
Likes: 282
Joined Apr 2011
     
Apr 08, 2015 07:43 |  #826

Edle wrote in post #17507039 (external link)
So does anyone have indoor auditorium type shots to share?

Because of permissions, I don't have any shots to show, but I just finished a weekend indoor conference in which I used this lens. Many of the photos were nice and sharp with pleasant backgrounds. However, the slow SS's showed me that I should rent a 70-200 for our conference this autumn.
j-p




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Edle
Member
Avatar
74 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 5
Joined Nov 2007
     
Apr 08, 2015 08:02 as a reply to  @ alliben's post |  #827

Thank you for the reply. I use my 70-200 2.8 on a 7D for all previous graduation shoots and have been very happy. I recently switched to the 5D MK3 which means I will lose some distance now so was considering the 100-400, but due to the 5.6 @ 400, not sure what kind of results to expect.


Body: 5D MKIII Gripped, 7D MKII
Lens: EF 85mm f1.2L II - EF 50mm f1.2L - EF 16-35mm f2.8L II - EF 17-40mm f4L - EF 24-70mm f2.8L - EF 24-105mm f4L- EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS - EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS II - EF 15mm f2.8 fisheye - EF 1.4x II
Flashes: 580EX II - 600EX RT Canon Battery Pack CP-E4
Tripod/Monopod/Heads : 190XPROB / 695 5-Section Magfiber / 3039 - 488RC2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,269 posts
Gallery: 83 photos
Likes: 364
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
Post edited over 5 years ago by Scott M.
     
Apr 08, 2015 09:47 |  #828

Edle wrote in post #17509064 (external link)
Thank you for the reply. I use my 70-200 2.8 on a 7D for all previous graduation shoots and have been very happy. I recently switched to the 5D MK3 which means I will lose some distance now so was considering the 100-400, but due to the 5.6 @ 400, not sure what kind of results to expect.

It will depend on how much light you have to work with at the venue. The 100-400L will be two stops slower than the 70-200 f/2.8. If you were pushing the ISO of your 7D to its limit with the 70-200, the 100-400L may not be fast enough -- even on a 5D3. If your ISO was 1600 or lower on the 7D, though, you should be fine with the 100-400L + 5D3. I get very good results at ISO 6400 on the 5D3 as long as the exposure is correct.

I would suggest checking the EXIF data from previous outings to see where you were at with the 70-200 f/2.8 + 7D. That should provide you with the answer you seek.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Edle
Member
Avatar
74 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 5
Joined Nov 2007
Post edited over 5 years ago by Edle.
     
Apr 08, 2015 12:44 |  #829

Scott M wrote in post #17509153 (external link)
It will depend on how much light you have to work with at the venue. The 100-400L will be two stops slower than the 70-200 f/2.8. If you were pushing the ISO of your 7D to its limit with the 70-200, the 100-400L may not be fast enough -- even on a 5D3. If your ISO was 1600 or lower on the 7D, though, you should be fine with the 100-400L + 5D3. I get very good results at ISO 6400 on the 5D3 as long as the exposure is correct.

I would suggest checking the EXIF data from previous outings to see where you were at with the 70-200 f/2.8 + 7D. That should provide you with the answer you seek.


Camera Canon EOS 7D
ISO 1000 (up to 3200 on high end)
Focal Length 200mm (320mm in 35mm)
Aperture f/2.8
Exposure Time 0.004s (1/250)

It's a fairly well lit place, Toyota Center in Houston, where the Rockets play.


Body: 5D MKIII Gripped, 7D MKII
Lens: EF 85mm f1.2L II - EF 50mm f1.2L - EF 16-35mm f2.8L II - EF 17-40mm f4L - EF 24-70mm f2.8L - EF 24-105mm f4L- EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS - EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS II - EF 15mm f2.8 fisheye - EF 1.4x II
Flashes: 580EX II - 600EX RT Canon Battery Pack CP-E4
Tripod/Monopod/Heads : 190XPROB / 695 5-Section Magfiber / 3039 - 488RC2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
3,735 posts
Likes: 738
Joined Jan 2010
Post edited over 5 years ago by John Sheehy.
     
Apr 08, 2015 14:10 |  #830

Scott M wrote in post #17509153 (external link)
It will depend on how much light you have to work with at the venue. The 100-400L will be two stops slower than the 70-200 f/2.8.

Yes and no. Yes, you need 4x the exposure time to get the same exposure of a blank wall as the 200/2.8 with the 400/5.6, but if you are shooting from the same spot, and have to crop the 200/2.8, you don't get any more subject light with the f/2.8. This is one of the greatest illusions that photographers face. When person A uses 200/2.8, and person B uses 400/5.6, and they are standing together and shooting the same thing at a distance, with the same shutter speed, the amount of light collected from each element in the scene is the same. f-#s only affect the light per unit of sensor area; they do not reflect the total light collected for any part of the scene. If A and B are using the same pixel density, the radius of the AA filter relative to the subject size is smaller, the coarseness of a Bayer CFA is less, and noise clumps and banding are finer with the longer focal length (bold italic text is an edit). What matters to the amount of light collected in such a scenario, with a given shutter speed is only one thing - aperture size (focal length divided by f-#). This is the same for 200/2.8 and 400/5.6, and 800/11. If you want less subject noise, get closer and/or get a larger aperture, and a longer focal length increases the detail, and makes the pixel/sensor artifacts smaller relative to the subject size.

Of course, a lower f-# can improve AF ability, and sometimes that is more important.

My model above breaks down when f-#s start to get too low. Because of the nature of the microlenses on sensors, for recent pixel sizes, an APS-C starts losing light when the f-# gets below 2.8, and a FF starts losing light below f/2 or so (the 5Ds will probably behave like the recent APS-Cs, unless Canon has come up with something new here with microlenses). So, 100mm f/1.4 would collect less subject light than 200mm f/2.8 with the same distance and shutter speed.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Savethemoment
Senior Member
Avatar
488 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 72
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Apr 08, 2015 15:54 |  #831

John Sheehy wrote in post #17509482 (external link)
Yes and no. Yes, you need 4x the exposure time to get the same exposure of a blank wall as the 200/2.8 with the 400/5.6, but if you are shooting from the same spot, and have to crop the 200/2.8, you don't get any more subject light with the f/2.8. This is one of the greatest illusions that photographers face. When person A uses 200/2.8, and person B uses 400/5.6, and they are standing together and shooting the same thing at a distance, with the same shutter speed, the amount of light collected from each element in the scene is the same. f-#s only affect the light per unit of sensor area; they do not reflect the total light collected for any part of the scene. If A and B are using the same pixel density, the radius of the AA filter relative to the subject size is smaller, the coarseness of a Bayer CFA is less, and noise clumps and banding are finer. What matters to the amount of light collected in such a scenario, with a given shutter speed is only one thing - aperture size (focal length divided by f-#). This is the same for 200/2.8 and 400/5.6, and 800/11. If you want less subject noise, get closer and/or get a larger aperture, and a longer focal length increases the detail, and makes the pixel/sensor artifacts smaller relative to the subject size.

Of course, a lower f-# can improve AF ability, and sometimes that is more important.

My model above breaks down when f-#s start to get too low. Because of the nature of the microlenses on sensors, for recent pixel sizes, an APS-C starts losing light when the f-# gets below 2.8, and a FF starts losing light below f/2 or so (the 5Ds will probably behave like the recent APS-Cs, unless Canon has come up with something new here with microlenses). So, 100mm f/1.4 would collect less subject light than 200mm f/2.8 with the same distance and shutter speed.

I had to read this a few times.. I think I understand. Thanks for explaining!


Always learning
Always looking for the good light

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
3,735 posts
Likes: 738
Joined Jan 2010
     
Apr 08, 2015 16:29 |  #832

Savethemoment wrote in post #17509631 (external link)
I had to read this a few times.. I think I understand. Thanks for explaining!

Maybe I should have read it one more time, too. I left out part of a sentence, but I fixed it in an edit. The added text is bold italic.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
THREAD ­ STARTER
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
51,903 posts
Gallery: 190 photos
Likes: 8780
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Apr 08, 2015 20:53 |  #833

Pondrader wrote in post #17508702 (external link)
Just to reinforce the Hand held IS in this lens , shot after dinner tonight

1/40, f4.5, iso1250, 400mm Hand held 7DII + 100-400markII...,...,... I am not missing the push pull at all..,..,..not even for a second


QUOTED IMAGE
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/s1Ca​F4  (external link) Barred Owl_7587 (external link) by Jeff Manser (external link), on Flickr

Lovely shot!

... but I would not miss the push pull for perching birds either. Or even panning shots of Birds in flight,. it's the other times I miss it.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Savethemoment
Senior Member
Avatar
488 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 72
Joined Jun 2012
Location: Sydney, Australia
Post edited over 5 years ago by Savethemoment.
     
Apr 08, 2015 21:00 |  #834

John Sheehy wrote in post #17509680 (external link)
Maybe I should have read it one more time, too. I left out part of a sentence, but I fixed it in an edit. The added text is bold italic.

I wasn't meaning to be critical of your writing, not at all. Only to say that the importance of actual aperture size, rather than just f stop, wasn't something I had understood with respect to the amount of light recorded for a particular object or person (shot from the same distance, with the same shutter speed) within the frame. Thanks again :-)


Always learning
Always looking for the good light

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wallstreetoneil
Goldmember
Avatar
2,086 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 1215
Joined Nov 2014
Location: Toronto Canada
Post edited over 5 years ago by wallstreetoneil. (2 edits in all)
     
Apr 08, 2015 21:44 |  #835

John Sheehy wrote in post #17509482 (external link)
Yes and no. Yes, you need 4x the exposure time to get the same exposure of a blank wall as the 200/2.8 with the 400/5.6, but if you are shooting from the same spot, and have to crop the 200/2.8, you don't get any more subject light with the f/2.8. This is one of the greatest illusions that photographers face. When person A uses 200/2.8, and person B uses 400/5.6, and they are standing together and shooting the same thing at a distance, with the same shutter speed, the amount of light collected from each element in the scene is the same. f-#s only affect the light per unit of sensor area; they do not reflect the total light collected for any part of the scene.


So, 100mm f/1.4 would collect less subject light than 200mm f/2.8 with the same distance and shutter speed.


It is very clear that you know what you are talking about but just so there is no confusion, it is important if anyone is now a tiny bit confused after reading this that a 400/5.6 is projecting an image that is 4 times greater than a 200/2.8 and thus while the same about of light is entering the entrance aperture it is being used to light an image 4x as large and therefore in unit terms is only being lit 1/4 as much as a 200/2.8 - it was however pointed out 100% correctly that if you are blowing up / cropping your 200/2.8 to get the same size image as a 400/5.6 then yes your are not getting any more light with the 200/2.8 than the 400/5.6 - and as was also pointed out, and as any sports or wildlife shooter knows, you can't always use a shutter speed that is 4x as long to get the shot.

I'm not sure I agree with your last statement (it is late however) - are they not the same after scaling per unit?

Great information by the way.


Hockey and wedding photographer. Favourite camera / lens combos: a 1DX II with a Tamron 45 1.8 VC, an A7Rii with a Canon 24-70F2.8L II, and a 5DSR with a Tamron 85 1.8 VC. Every lens I own I strongly recommend [Canon (35Lii, 100L Macro, 24-70F2.8ii, 70-200F2.8ii, 100-400Lii), Tamron (45 1.8, 85 1.8), Sigma 24-105]. If there are better lenses out there let me know because I haven't found them.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
itw
Goldmember
Avatar
1,224 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1727
Joined Nov 2013
     
Apr 09, 2015 08:19 |  #836

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #17510059 (external link)
It is very clear that you know what you are talking about but just so there is no confusion, it is important if anyone is now a tiny bit confused after reading this that a 400/5.6 is projecting an image that is 4 times greater than a 200/2.8 and thus while the same about of light is entering the entrance aperture it is being used to light and image 4x as large and therefore in unit terms is only being lit 1/4 as much as a 200/2.8 - it was however pointed out 100% correctly that if you are blowing up / cropping your 200/2.8 to get the same size as and image as a 400/5.6 then yes your are not getting any more light with the 200/2.8 than the 400/5.6 - and as was also pointed out, and as any sports or wildlife shooter knows, you can't always use a shutter speed that is 4x as long to get the shot.

I'm not sure I agree with your last statement (it is late however) - are they not the same after scaling per unit?

Great information by the way.

Thanks for rounding that out in other terms. I appreciate everyone's input, slant and willingness to help here.


You can call me Ned
Walk softly and carry a Big White lens

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Edle
Member
Avatar
74 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 5
Joined Nov 2007
     
Apr 09, 2015 08:46 as a reply to  @ itw's post |  #837

But I still want to see some indoor pictures with this thing!  :p


Body: 5D MKIII Gripped, 7D MKII
Lens: EF 85mm f1.2L II - EF 50mm f1.2L - EF 16-35mm f2.8L II - EF 17-40mm f4L - EF 24-70mm f2.8L - EF 24-105mm f4L- EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS - EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS II - EF 15mm f2.8 fisheye - EF 1.4x II
Flashes: 580EX II - 600EX RT Canon Battery Pack CP-E4
Tripod/Monopod/Heads : 190XPROB / 695 5-Section Magfiber / 3039 - 488RC2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
wallstreetoneil
Goldmember
Avatar
2,086 posts
Gallery: 14 photos
Likes: 1215
Joined Nov 2014
Location: Toronto Canada
     
Apr 09, 2015 09:15 |  #838

Edle wrote in post #17510529 (external link)
But I still want to see some indoor pictures with this thing!  :p

These are from the week I got the lens during the winter - horrible hockey lighting.

5D3 / 6400 / F5 / 1/1000 / 183mm

IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7685/17087851091_b0e92ce47d_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/s2ZG​Ng  (external link) 100_400_test_2 (external link) by wallstreetoneil (external link), on Flickr

5D / 6400 / F5 / 1/1000 / 135mm
IMAGE: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7718/16468398843_8ed659191d_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/r6fR​e6  (external link) 100_400_test_2-2 (external link) by wallstreetoneil (external link), on Flickr

5D / 6400 / F5 / 1/1000 / 176mm (focus point is goalie with puck frozen in air in front of him)
IMAGE: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8718/16466101184_b0cc76fd6a_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/r645​dh  (external link) 100_400_test_2-8 (external link) by wallstreetoneil (external link), on Flickr

Hockey and wedding photographer. Favourite camera / lens combos: a 1DX II with a Tamron 45 1.8 VC, an A7Rii with a Canon 24-70F2.8L II, and a 5DSR with a Tamron 85 1.8 VC. Every lens I own I strongly recommend [Canon (35Lii, 100L Macro, 24-70F2.8ii, 70-200F2.8ii, 100-400Lii), Tamron (45 1.8, 85 1.8), Sigma 24-105]. If there are better lenses out there let me know because I haven't found them.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Edle
Member
Avatar
74 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 5
Joined Nov 2007
     
Apr 09, 2015 09:23 |  #839

Thank you!!! At the risk of pushing my luck, any chance of indoor pics at 400mm?


Body: 5D MKIII Gripped, 7D MKII
Lens: EF 85mm f1.2L II - EF 50mm f1.2L - EF 16-35mm f2.8L II - EF 17-40mm f4L - EF 24-70mm f2.8L - EF 24-105mm f4L- EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS - EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS II - EF 15mm f2.8 fisheye - EF 1.4x II
Flashes: 580EX II - 600EX RT Canon Battery Pack CP-E4
Tripod/Monopod/Heads : 190XPROB / 695 5-Section Magfiber / 3039 - 488RC2

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
3,735 posts
Likes: 738
Joined Jan 2010
     
Apr 09, 2015 10:48 |  #840

wallstreetoneil wrote in post #17510059 (external link)
I'm not sure I agree with your last statement (it is late however) - are they not the same after scaling per unit?

They're not the same because current sensors (including the microlenses) lose quantum efficiency when the f-# drops below a certain point.

With the 7D, as an example, f/4 gives twice as much light as 5.6, and f/2.8 gives twice as much as f/4, but f/2 fails to give twice as much light as f/2.8, and if you had an f/0.95 lens, you'd lose over a stop of light to this phenomenon. Canon hides this fact from you by scaling the RAW data to make the RAW numbers look the same as if this loss of light had not occurred. The factors are calculated into every metering the camera does, so when you shoot with an f/1.4 lens, the camera knows that it is metering with a loss, and compensates for it when the f-# of the actual shot is higher than 1.4.

With an f/0.95 lens, the scaling of the RAW data causes a loss of more than 1 stop of dynamic range, which is a tragedy, really, as Canon could just as easily changed the whitepoint in the RAW metadata, and maintained the full DR.

So, equivalencies break down when the f-# gets too low with current cameras. This gives an even greater benefit to big-pixel cameras when you want to shoot your f/1.4 or "faster" lens wide-open, as bigger pixels experience less of this loss with current microlenses.




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

4,687,005 views & 39,500 likes for this thread
EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Review WOW!
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 suiyuan
643 guests, 201 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.