A couple of shots with a rental Canon 100-400 lens

I am considering buying a Canon 100-400 lens, so I rented one to give it a test drive. Here's three shots. Tell me what you think. Thanks, -rick

1 - My neice Fayth at her hs soccer game.

Based upon the reviews of this lens, your images appear a bit soft.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

chauncey wrote in post #15527620
Based upon the reviews of this lens, your images appear a bit soft.

I agree, the 100-400L should be producing significantly sharper results than that. However, the lens has a bit of a learning curve and is also known to be intolerant of filters, unless the best quality are used.

Did you have a filter on it? What shutter speeds were you using? A long lens needs significantly faster shutter speeds than a shorter one. Good bracing and triggering techniques are essential with a long lens too, also it is possible for the zoom to slide slightly if you have the tension ring slackened off and aren't thinking about holding it in place. A slight movement of the hand under the barrel could induce slight "zoom blur".

This is a great lens, but needs a little care to avoid soft images, as well as the right shutter speed. Many users find that it is disappointing the first time they use it, but quickly grow accustomed to using it and the results improve significantly.

Other than the softness, I like the first two shots but find the third a bit uninteresting. The idea is good, but let down by the gap showing through the pilings on the right hand side, which is distracting, and the great lead in created by the "tunnel" leads the eye to ..... nothing. I would like to see a point of interest (a boat perhaps) at the far end.

It looks like you missed the focus on the first two, and the focus seems to be at the end of the pillars on the third shot.

First, if you aren't going to keep the EXIF info in the images, it would be helpful if you posted it with your question. So what was the aperture & shutter speed?
Did you use AI Servo?
Did you use a focus point to get the focus on/near her eyes?

I know you said test shots but they look kinda flat. Perhaps a mediocre copy?

The pictures looks soft. When I rented the 100-400 it did come with a filter attached which a quickly removed and put in my bag until I returned the lens.

Those look like what I got out of my 100-400L when I first bought it. I was ready to take it back. After posting a few shots on POTN, I got feedback to remove the filter and raise the ISO high enough to keep the shutter speed at least at 1/400 when at 400mm. After taking off the filter, and getting a bit of practice with the lens, it performs like a champ. Mine excellent-sharp at 400mm and f/5.6, when I do my part. At 400mm, I prefer 1/500 or faster. If I am shooting moving objects, I go for 1/800 (not always possible) and turn OFF the IS. The lens performs much better in AI-Servo with the IS shut off. Take off any filters, crank up the shutter speed, and practice. The 100-400 is a really good lens. Oh, I like the trombone zoom, too.

That is at the top of my list too - although the Canon 400/5.6 looks like a better deal for me.

The first thing I thought when opening this thread was you missed focus. I've generally seen much sharper images with that lens and sharpness was not what moved me to the 400/5.6.

After the 70-200/2.8 IS I'm not sure I could get used to that zoom on the 100-400. I haven't rented one yet but that's a good idea.

I agree, with what all of you said. I have read multiple posts and threads saying that the 100-400 is intolerant of filters. The lens rental place I got the lens from had a filter with a seal on it, so I couldn't take it off with out them knowing, so I left the filter on. The close up shots were pretty far away, maybe 60 yards, but my idea was to see what the lens would let me do. I was having a hard time adjusting to the push pull, and had to loosen the tension ring to make it easier to zoom. Lots of excuses but long story short I liked the lens and would have to use it for awhile to get used to it, and no doubt if I did my job it would give great results. Thanks for your comments! -rick

Titus213 wrote in post #15529567
That is at the top of my list too - although the Canon 400/5.6 looks like a better deal for me.

The first thing I thought when opening this thread was you missed focus. I've generally seen much sharper images with that lens and sharpness was not what moved me to the 400/5.6.

After the 70-200/2.8 IS I'm not sure I could get used to that zoom on the 100-400. I haven't rented one yet but that's a good idea.

I tried to upload these to Flikr, last night, but it wasn't working, so I used Photobucket instead. I am not sure why Photobucket stripped the Exif data from the images. -rick

1st shot f/8, ss 1/160, ISO 800, exposure bias +0.3 @ 380mm, AV mode
2nd shot f/8, ss 1/200, ISO 800, exposure bias +0.3 @ 400mm, AV mode
3rd shot (pier) f/4.5, ss 1/500, ISO 640, esposure bias @ + 0.3, 120mm, AV mode

I don't know how steady you are, but I could never get decent shots with that lens, at or near 400mm using shutter speeds like 1/200 or slower. My hit rate starts falling dramatically at slower than 1/500, even with the IS on. The 100-400L does not sharpen up much by closing down to f/8, either. I would have used that stop for shutter speed.

^ ^ 1/160 for a running person seems too slow to me, too.

Maybe you have something un/checked in the Prefs. I've never had that problem with PB.

The lens is definitely capable of much better results than you got there; and the filter is almost certainly part of the issue there. This lens seems to hate filters more than any other...mine goes all sorts of squirrely if I try to put a filter on it.

The other thing is that, if your body supports it, micro-adjusting focus can REALLY improve the results you get from it too.

I have a 40D which doesnt do micro adjust. My photo results didn't put me off buying the 100-400. I just know now it will take a little practice to get my shots with it. I picked up the lens at 1:00 went to the beach to shoot the pier shot at 1:45, soccer game @ 3:00, so no chance to practice with it and reveiw the results on my computer like I usually like to do. Thanks for all the comments. -rick

Snydremark wrote in post #15530808
The lens is definitely capable of much better results than you got there; and the filter is almost certainly part of the issue there. This lens seems to hate filters more than any other...mine goes all sorts of squirrely if I try to put a filter on it.

The other thing is that, if your body supports it, micro-adjusting focus can REALLY improve the results you get from it too.