Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Wednesday 23rd August 2017, 18:24   #1
Steve Arlow
Registered User
 
Steve Arlow's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Southend
Posts: 1,381
Vignetting on 100-400mm Mk2

Has anyone else experienced really poor vignetting on the Canon 100-400mm at 400mm. Just got this lens and used on both 1DX and older 1DmkIII and there's just an awful amount of vignetting.

I tried it out before I bought one and now given it a go properly finding I really don't like it; poor amount of Vignetting, not impressed with IQ, lack of light so having to ramp up the ISO to levels I don't want to go to (whilst also having to drop to F4.5/5.6 to get even slowest of shutter speeds in low light etc.
__________________
Website www.birdersplayground.co.uk
Steve Arlow is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 23rd August 2017, 18:38   #2
Vespobuteo
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Utopia
Posts: 1,670
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Arlow View Post
Has anyone else experienced really poor vignetting on the Canon 100-400mm at 400mm. Just got this lens and used on both 1DX and older 1DmkIII and there's just an awful amount of vignetting.

I tried it out before I bought one and now given it a go properly finding I really don't like it; poor amount of Vignetting, not impressed with IQ, lack of light so having to ramp up the ISO to levels I don't want to go to (whilst also having to drop to F4.5/5.6 to get even slowest of shutter speeds in low light etc.
Seems to be about 1 stop, quite normal for a tele zoom like that I think, don't you use auto lens correction at some point in the process?

http://photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/896...556is2?start=1
Vespobuteo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 23rd August 2017, 19:01   #3
Steve Arlow
Registered User
 
Steve Arlow's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Southend
Posts: 1,381
I should add the images reviewed are on back of camera not dealt with in post. The amount of vignetting only goes away when extreme Fstop changes, its almost like a halo effect surrounding the centre of the photo.

I've read loads of reviews saying virtually no vignetting but what I can see in the back of camera images they would all be deleted before being downloaded as just not good enough.
__________________
Website www.birdersplayground.co.uk
Steve Arlow is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 23rd August 2017, 20:48   #4
johnf3f
johnf3f

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South Wales UK
Posts: 999
I also use this lens on a 1DX, I haven't found vignetting to be an issue. Yes there is a little vignetting but what telephoto/SuperTele doesn't have some?

I think most users use this lens with crop sensor cameras - so they probably do not see this effect?
johnf3f is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 24th August 2017, 08:40   #5
Steve Arlow
Registered User
 
Steve Arlow's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Southend
Posts: 1,381
Was expecting a little big netting in the corners but this is like the middle of the image is framed by a tyre; really bad. Can't understand so many glowing reviews, this one will be going back and I'll stick to fixed focal length lenses. I allowed myself to be swayed by popular opinion.
__________________
Website www.birdersplayground.co.uk
Steve Arlow is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 24th August 2017, 09:58   #6
Dave Williams
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North Wales
Posts: 2,470
My 100-400 is excellent in combination with a 1DX Steve. Amazingly sharp, fast to focus even with a 1.4TC ( on a 1D with a big battery particularly), no vignetting that I am aware of. Brilliant value for money lens. I acquired mine in exchange for a 300mm f2.8 and have no regrets as it makes for a very portable lightweight combination and I do wonder why I have still kept my 70-200 f2.8 most of the time. It convinced me that I didn't need a 200-400 at around 6x the price either.
The only thing I don't particularly like is the lens barrel extending from within when you zoom in and at f5.6 the bokeh isn't always the best.If you are used to using a longer lens then yes you might find that you are cropping the image more to put the subject full in the frame and so IQ will not be as good, and yes, in poor light you are better off with an f4 lens. It took me a while to grow to like the lens just because of it's feel, I was more used to using solid prime lenses but the images it produces speak for themselves.
You seem to be the exception to the rule when it comes to opinions Steve, must be something not right somewhere. Don't just give up on it though, it must be an issue you can resolve one way or another.
Dave Williams is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 24th August 2017, 10:59   #7
Steve Arlow
Registered User
 
Steve Arlow's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Southend
Posts: 1,381
Hi Dave. I have tried this lens in typical UK light, overcast and low, and the result at 400mm/F5.6 where just terrible, even back down towards the 300mm extension. I'm sure the lens will perform well in great light, but then all lenses will perform much better in optimum conditions.

I have had to stop at least 3 or more to make the vignetting less obvious for birds in flight but then central image is then far to washed out. I got the same when shooting a static subject against a pale wall and the vignetting was rediculous. I don't want to spend ages on Photoshop removing the darker image edges.

I've never been a fan of zooms but I need a walk around lens as carrying the Canon 500mm around all day locally when I go birding, and given where I live it rarely gets used, so after the reviews etc stumped up for this.

I have previously owned the older pump action 100-400mm, the 400mm F5.6 and the 400mm DO and have to say that whilst this new version is better than the old dust sucker I still had better results with the fixed 400mm F5.6. The 400mm DO was a complete dud and after several weeks got rid as 90% delete/10% keeper rate in great light was just not good enough. Wish I had never parted with 400mm F5.6 lens now as that still had a higher percentage keeper rate. The Sigma 300mm F2.8 that I had for a few years was all over the 100-400mm mk2. I may go back to that as it was a great lens, can't afford the Canon equivalent. Wish I hadn't parted with that as well.

The back of camera images on the 100-400mm mk2 are generally of closer subjects so not having to zoom in to much to see that the sharpness is just not there, even after ramping up the ISO on the 1DX to compensate for low light just doesn't seem to make a difference, still really slow shutter speeds and poor results.

I may be unlucky and have another dud lens on my hands which means my views differ to those that I read that swayed me to buy one but on actual use of the lens it is going back as not fit for my purposes. If the Vignetting was not this bad I would probably stick it out but this is at an unacceptable level. Disappointed as will have to look around for an alternative again.
__________________
Website www.birdersplayground.co.uk
Steve Arlow is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 24th August 2017, 13:19   #8
Dave Williams
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North Wales
Posts: 2,470
Steve, hopefully these shots, the original and a 100% crop demonstrate the vignetting and IQ are acceptable to me anyway.
The 100-400 doesn't tend to be my weapon of choice as I'm lucky enough to have bigger lenses for usual birding but for BIF at reasonable close range I think it's pretty brilliant.

f5.6, 1/1000sec ISO 160 using single fine point on the 1DX2

The full frame is out of the camera, the other has been altered with a bit of PP
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	100%.jpg
Views:	94
Size:	279.5 KB
ID:	637194  Click image for larger version

Name:	full.jpg
Views:	94
Size:	385.4 KB
ID:	637196  

Last edited by Dave Williams : Thursday 24th August 2017 at 13:26.
Dave Williams is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 24th August 2017, 16:25   #9
Dave Williams
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: North Wales
Posts: 2,470
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/...d_x_mark_ii.do

Another vote for the 100-400 by Danny Green on the latest Canon newsletter.
Dave Williams is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 24th August 2017, 22:52   #10
johnf3f
johnf3f

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South Wales UK
Posts: 999
Sounds like a faulty lens - where did you get it from? Send it back?
johnf3f is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 26th August 2017, 09:43   #11
Malcolm Stewart
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Milton Keynes
Posts: 601
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnf3f View Post
Sounds like a faulty lens - where did you get it from? Send it back?
How can a lens be faulty with respect to vignetting as in this thread? Vignetting is essentially a geometric effect caused by the mechanics and physics of the lens, and unless some internal shade or tube has come loose within the lens, I can't see how one lens can be different to others of the same model. (Different camera bodies, and post-processing, yes, but surely not the lens by itself.)

Could some camera preset be exaggerating the effect? I don't own a 1DX, so won't comment in detail. Could the vignetting have been caused by a Picture Style set to a high contrast setting? If I'm trying to optimise AF-MA in the field, I'll often raise the contrast, and sometimes I forget to return it to normal - and then wonder where the image quality went...
__________________
- - - - - - - - -
Malcolm Stewart
Milton Keynes, UK
Malcolm Stewart is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 26th August 2017, 22:23   #12
johnf3f
johnf3f

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South Wales UK
Posts: 999
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malcolm Stewart View Post
How can a lens be faulty with respect to vignetting as in this thread? Vignetting is essentially a geometric effect caused by the mechanics and physics of the lens, and unless some internal shade or tube has come loose within the lens, I can't see how one lens can be different to others of the same model. (Different camera bodies, and post-processing, yes, but surely not the lens by itself.)

Could some camera preset be exaggerating the effect? I don't own a 1DX, so won't comment in detail. Could the vignetting have been caused by a Picture Style set to a high contrast setting? If I'm trying to optimise AF-MA in the field, I'll often raise the contrast, and sometimes I forget to return it to normal - and then wonder where the image quality went...
Honestly I have absolutely no idea! Vignetting is simply not a criticism that I have ever heard of on this lens. I use mine with both crop and full frame bodies and it is simply a non issue - hence my thought that there may be a significant problem with the lens.
johnf3f is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Vignetting with Ext Tubes Musoman Photography using 'Astro' telescopes 5 Thursday 30th June 2016 22:46
Getting rid of vignetting? Baron Birder The Birdforum Digiscoping Forum 4 Saturday 29th March 2008 11:58
Fixing vignetting breffni The Birdforum Digiscoping Forum 13 Friday 4th January 2008 17:26
Vignetting Kevin Rees The Birdforum Digiscoping Forum 1 Friday 17th November 2006 16:27
How much vignetting ??? sasi_yaad VideoScoping 4 Wednesday 23rd November 2005 16:33

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.18029189 seconds with 24 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:07.