Canon EF 100-400mm IS - Quality

[Steve25]

I am in the process of choosing a new zoom lens and have more or less decided to buy the the EF 100-400 IS.
Reading various user opinions on the web I have noted a few comments stating that there is marked difference in the image quality of different lenses.
Some users changed two lenses before they got one they were happy with.
I have looked through threads on BF and can't see this mentioned.
Anyone have any knowledge of this problem? Any comments appreciated.

[John Gibson2]

I am very happy with mine - although I'm no expert. Maybe I was lucky.

John Gibson

[compa]

I am in the process of choosing a new zoom lens and have more or less decided to buy the the EF 100-400 IS.
Reading various user opinions on the web I have noted a few comments stating that there is marked difference in the image quality of different lenses.
Some users changed two lenses before they got one they were happy with.
I have looked through threads on BF and can't see this mentioned.
Anyone have any knowledge of this problem? Any comments appreciated.

I have the 100-400mm and think it is a fine lens. Yes, as with any product, there are occasional copies made that actually have a defect. With Canon, these are certainly the exceptions rather than the rules.

With a product as complex as a Canon "L" series lens, there are differences between every single copy. Therefore some are marginally better than others - but even those on the downside of this Bell curve are better than most lenses! These minor differences in performance are never evident to the casual observer.

[nigelblake]

I use one on my 1Ds Mkll, the image quality is well up to the capability of the 16.7 mp sensor.

I think that with IS many people expect to much of its capability and try to take hand held images at way below sensible shutter speeds, then when they are not sharp they blame the lens.....

[James Eaton]

Hi Steve,

It is true that various people have mentioned the differences in image quality between the the individual lenses, I know people who have gone through 2-3 100-400mm lenses until they are satisfied with theirs.

Fortunately the lens on mine appears fine, only had the lens repaired the once!

[Tannin]

If you observe what goes on at places like the DPR forums, you will soon notice that the people who post about getting a bad lens and wanting it replaced and all the rest of it have a magic talent: they can do it with nearly every lens they buy! How can person A (and persons B, C, and quite a few others) buy six different lenses and get perfectly good ones, while persons X and Y get lots of bad copies? Simple: X and Y are complete w*****s, and either incompetents or complete fanatics who are such hard core gear freaks that they have a psychological need somehow to "get a better lens" than everyone else by pretending that their 3rd or 5th copy of a number of pretty-much identical lenses is "a good copy".

Doubtless there are sub-standard lenses sold sometimes: but very, very few of them. Buy your 100-400 with confidence and ignore the nonsense shouted by the gearhead wanlkers.

[psilo]

I have seen many fine photos taken with this lens and if this is the one you have set your heart on then go for it. I think the problem is too many people do not spend enough time truley learning the full potential of what these lenses can do. I have always maintained that its not the quality of the lens that is so vitally important but how you learn to use it ;)
For every lens there will always be conflicting reviews but the general concensus on this one is that it very good indeed. Best wishes Steve with whatever choice you make.

[christineredgate]

I have taken some superb shots with this lens,with just a point and shoot method ,as it were.I have used the lens for 2 yrs and sadly is now having it,s compression ring repaired.But cannot fault the lens.

[Steve25]

Many thanks for your responses, its taken away any small doubt I had about buying the lens.

[salty]

this is going to be my next lens too, just need to master my 350D alittle better first!

[mjmw]

this is going to be my next lens too, just need to master my 350D alittle better first!

I noticed you sold your 170-500, what are you using till you get the 100-400?

[salty]

I noticed you sold your 170-500, what are you using till you get the 100-400?

nothing.

just taking nice (non-wildlife) pics with the 18-55 that came with it.

the reason i sold it, was to give me time to get used to the camera more, before getting a good lens.

i simply couldnt get the full potential out of the sigma, even though it was more than capable of stunning results - just that i wasnt!

[Keith Reeder]

Salty,

read what Nigel has written, then have another look at Psilo's gallery.

IS lenses don't replace good technique.

Sorry to bang on mate, but you're setting yourself up for another big disappointment if you think the Canon lens will make all the "problems" you had with the Sigma disappear - Psilo's pictures are ample proof that the Sigma is a fine, fine lens when used properly.

But you'll need to use the Canon properly too, and you just didn't give the sigma long enough.

Everyone else: get your bids in early for Salty's sale of the Canon!

;) ;) ;)

[IanF]

I have the 100-400 IS as well. I have to say though that the IS has been a boon for me. That extra couple of f-stops IS gives is more a cushion than anything. On a bright day you may have 1/400 at f8 but IS gives latitude for a not so perfect technique.

Maybe Salty should have started with an IS lens and then progressed to the 170-500mm - which I'm considering myself.

There's no doubt about the 170-500mm being capable of producing excellent results but maybe needs very good holding technique from an experienced photographer.

[Keith Reeder]

I'd have thought that if you start with an IS lens, you're going to develop a technique that only works for IS - the lens will be doing at least some of the job for you.

Then, going to non-IS, you'd still have to learn the basics of keeping a lens steady "under your own steam".

Either way though, there's still a need to put the hours in to get to grips with the required techniques and to understand the interaction between the camera, the lens and the scene you're shooting.

I agree with you about the benefits of IS/OS though - I can't imagine giving it up now...

[IanF]

IS isn't a mircale worker it just gives a bit more latitude. All you gain is at most two f-stops so it still needs the exact same technique as for a non-IS lens!

It's just as easy to take fuzzy photos with an IS lens as it is without. With a non-IS lens there is no margin for even the tiniest error.

[Keith Reeder]

All you gain is at most two f-stops so it still needs the exact same technique as for a non-IS lens!
In which case there'd be no point in Salty starting with an IS lens then, eh?

;)

You're actually making much the same point as me, Ian.

I've written all over BF that IS won't fix basic technique problems - I tried very hard to get that across (speaking from personal experience!) - and that you need to learn to shoot properly handheld.

But once you're there, and you've then dealt with the stabilisation learning curve, there are real advantages to IS if it suits your kind of photography.

[ukjesters]

My experiences:
bought a 300D in the summer and didn't realise that it didn't have digital zoom and that i could actually zoom in more with my old pocket digital camera than what i could with this dslr.I bought the camera basically without knowing what it was that i was buying!!! So as a result of this i bought a sigma 70-300 lens which i was pleased with the zoom element of the lens but a lot of the pictures came out blurred and not to my satisfaction, this in my opinion was partly down to my technique.
So i bought a canon 100-400 is lens and the amount of keepers that i now have has rocketed, but my technique has stayed the same.The quality and features of the lens is obviously superior to the sigma and it also has better reach but for me it has been the IS that has lead to the increase in the amount of pics that i now keep and as i am an amateur photographer i am more than happy with the quality of my pics to date.

Just my input
Regards
Rick

[salty]

good advice folks.........

i do need to improve my technique more, and i intend to do just that - but im still after the IS lens, even my super steady shots are just a little bit shaky when they are blown up etc, and i want a more user friendly lens - something that does all in one shots, like going right down to 100mm.

Rick has offered to meet up one day so i can have a go of the IS lens, so i will take him up on his kind offer and give it a test.

[Tyger]

I'm anothe 100-400mm L owner, just got it a few weeks ago and as mentioned abone i have alot more keepers than i did with my 70-200mm f4. The IS really is worth it especially on the long end and in low light situations. Sure Primes are sharper, but those are primes, for a zoom lense the quality doesn't get any better, besides the much talked about 70-200mm 2.8 L and non L.

If you are not printing bigger than 8x10 and even sometimes at 11x14 you wouldn't be able to tell the difference from a 100-400mm and say a 400mm f5.6 prime.

I have gotten great results and got prints at all sizes up to 11x14, unless you pixel peep and do 100% crops than you can see the supposed softness people complain about.

I'm happy with mine and as mentioned, buy with confidence!

[Jwenck]

Now I'm puzzled!

After doing tons of reading on DPR, it appears that the majority agree that the 400 f/5.6 is sharper between 300 and 400mm, AF is faster, and it takes a TC better than the 100-400IS. I've also read that the push pull zoom on the 100-400 has the tendency to pump dust onto the sensor.

I'm not trying to be a wet blanket, but I was ready to buy the 400 f/5.6 until reading all your glowing posts about the 100-400 IS.

[hollis_f]

I've also read that the push pull zoom on the 100-400 has the tendency to pump dust onto the sensor.

I still can't figure out why. Any zoom lens where the front element moves in and out (i.e., the vast majority of them) is going to have to have air moving in and out. So the 'dust-pumping' potential of the 100-400 shouldn't be any different from other zooms.

[stuartlawrie]

I still can't figure out why. Any zoom lens where the front element moves in and out (i.e., the vast majority of them) is going to have to have air moving in and out. So the 'dust-pumping' potential of the 100-400 shouldn't be any different from other zooms.
It is to do with the fact that the movement disturbs and build up of dust within the lens, also if you have Christines problem where the compression ring goes air sneaks in past this seal, users generally slide this type of lens quite aggresively which will cause the seal to wear far more quickly than the seal on a helix type zoom which cannot be loosened so much.
Yes I know helix type zooms have other problems, i.e: the locking switch on the Sigma for example, but this generally doesn't result in dust ingress.
I have to say having both the Sigma 50-500 (helix zoom) and Canon 100-400 IS (slide zoom) the Canon is more prone to dust problems, thankfully a friends at camera club is a camera technician and has twice cleaned the insides of my Canon for free in a year, whereas the Sigma which is 4 years old has had no dust problems that I can't clean - though did have the locking switch jam once whilst in Kenya which cost me £15 for parts to repair, but still a small price for an excellent lens which has taken far more batterings than the Canon, having been bounced around Kenya twice, left out on several freezing nights on an infrared trigger system.

[Tyger]

Primes are always sharper, but as i mentioned before, unless you blow up pics you realy won't notice the difference. The 400mm f5.6 is faster in AF but you don't have IS. Here's what I think....

If you don't mind carrying a tripod and using it, want to save a few hundred, want to use a 1.4 tc that still AF's and want faster AF go for the prime.

With the 100-400mm you get versatility, IS makes handholding a pleasure, when compacted it's small enough to carry in a lowpro camera bag. With 1.4 TC you may have to manual focus.

Either lens is great but there are some sacrifices to make by chosing one or the other. To be honest, handholding a lens at 400mm with no IS requires some discipline and good technique, to get the best results from the prime you would have to mount it on a tripod.

With the 100-400mm IMO my keepers have increased mainly because IS has enabled me to shoot shots at slower shutter speeds that I would normally have mediocre results.

So far i've had no problems with dust, but then again i don't shoot in areas high in dust.

[Tyger]

Jwenk, I think you will find this thread very helpful.

!00-400mm vs 400mm f5.6 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43436&highlight=100-400mm)

[salty]

Jwenk, I think you will find this thread very helpful.

!00-400mm vs 400mm f5.6 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43436&highlight=100-400mm)

thanks for the link, interesting review.

[Jwenck]

That review was very well done. I appreciate you posting the hyperlink to it.

[Tyger]

no problem guys, that thread really helped me decide between the two lenses. I'm happy with my 100-400mm :)