• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

My new macro lens .... the Canon 100-400 L IS! (1 Viewer)

Cactusdave

Well-known member
Counter-intuitive but the Canon 100-400 L IS is a useful close up lens, if rather heavy and cumbersome for that purpose. Used straight without extension tubes it is fine for larger dragon and damselflies. The first image is a broad-bodied chaser and the second a male banded demoiselle and the third a female of that species. Both images were taken hand held with available light at approximately the closest focus point of the lens at 400mm which is 1.8m. In the next posting I will look at the same lens with Canon auto extension tubes.
 

Attachments

  • broad-bodied-chaser3.jpg
    broad-bodied-chaser3.jpg
    181.5 KB · Views: 1,408
  • banded-demoiselle12.jpg
    banded-demoiselle12.jpg
    211.5 KB · Views: 1,165
  • banded-demoiselle-female4.jpg
    banded-demoiselle-female4.jpg
    144.2 KB · Views: 912
When the Canon EF 12 and 25mm extension tubes are added the 100-400mm L IS becomes a more capable close up lens. The benefits of L glass, autofocus and image stabilisation all remain. The lens seems to work best with the zoom set to around 150-175mm. Close focus is then around 0.5m. Because of the inherently high quality of the L glass, providing images are initially sharp, quite hard crops give very satisfactory results. The facets of the eyes of a large fly can be resolved. The image stabilisation is very useful. I was getting some sharp images yesterday in quite poor overcast light at shutter speeds as low as 1/160. The lens also remains sharp at or close to full aperture. Insects as small as 8-10mm can be photographed successfully. Hopefully the images will give an idea of the results possible under less than perfect light conditions.
 

Attachments

  • azure-damselfly.jpg
    azure-damselfly.jpg
    79.1 KB · Views: 846
  • fly.jpg
    fly.jpg
    91.9 KB · Views: 1,140
  • fly2.jpg
    fly2.jpg
    88.6 KB · Views: 840
  • greenbottle.jpg
    greenbottle.jpg
    144.8 KB · Views: 1,043
  • harlequin.jpg
    harlequin.jpg
    137.6 KB · Views: 1,028
A few more images using the combination of the EF 12 and 25mm extension tubes and the 100-400mm L IS. Playing with the zoom on the lens increases the close focus distance and increases the range over which focus can be obtained. Autofocus works well provided it is started close to the correct focus, otherwise it is inclined to hunt, a common problem with macro lenses.
 

Attachments

  • bug.jpg
    bug.jpg
    93.4 KB · Views: 614
  • long-legged-fly.jpg
    long-legged-fly.jpg
    88.2 KB · Views: 537
  • Spider.jpg
    Spider.jpg
    156.2 KB · Views: 831
Like you I'm finding the 100-400mm very useful for close-up work, saves buying another lens to carry around too, obviously it's not so good as a dedicated macro lens but good enough for me, especialy as I would only use it for a few months of the year.

I tend to use mine on a tripod with a 36mm ex.tube attached and use MF with IS off at f11 as I find the slightest movement loses focus with such shallow DOF.
Using 'one shot' mode and single point focus in MF gives a focus confirmation beep which I find useful, especially in windy conditions (which there's been a lot of lately).


The few shots below were taken at iso 800, f11 in available light.
 

Attachments

  • s-studded-blue-5168.jpg
    s-studded-blue-5168.jpg
    132.4 KB · Views: 889
  • common-blues-4963.jpg
    common-blues-4963.jpg
    125.6 KB · Views: 939
  • large-skipper-5130.jpg
    large-skipper-5130.jpg
    155.1 KB · Views: 794
  • small-pb-frit-5112.jpg
    small-pb-frit-5112.jpg
    137.1 KB · Views: 912
I have no macro lens but have tubes which I use on my 400mm L f5.6 for perches too close when I am birding. I have now started to use the tubes on my Canon 55-250mm IS with some success on dragon flies. As you say not true macro but close enough for me.
 
Some very fine shots indeed. :t:

I have used my Pentax DA*300mm for similar shots of dragonflies and butterflies. In fact, I find it the ideal tool for the job as the image quality is superb and the minimum focus distance, being about 1 Metre, allows fine detail without getting too close and spooking the subject. I have yet to try it with extension tubes but am considering doing so.

The Sigma 105mm gets used mainly for the smaller insects and wildflowers as the distance is so much smaller.
 
Thanks for the comments. Yes my 'macro' standby is the good old Siggy 105mm. Just wish I could justify/afford the new Canon 100mm f2.8 L IS macro. The pictures I've seen that have been shot with it are amazing.
 
It's good to see your photos. I used to use a Sigma 70 - 300 for things that were too wary for my Tamron 900mm macro. But now I've upgraded my 'birding' lens to a Canon 100 -400, I suspect I'd be better off selling the Sigma and using the money to buy some extenders to use with Canon instead. If anyone has any thoughts of if this would be a wise move I'd be interested to know.
 
It's good to see your photos. I used to use a Sigma 70 - 300 for things that were too wary for my Tamron 900mm macro. But now I've upgraded my 'birding' lens to a Canon 100 -400, I suspect I'd be better off selling the Sigma and using the money to buy some extenders to use with Canon instead. If anyone has any thoughts of if this would be a wise move I'd be interested to know.

I should think it would be Steve, part of the reason I bought the 100-400 was to be able to do a bit of close-up work for the summer months and still have a chance at any birds that turned up without carrying a bag of lenses around.
You can't use 2 zooms at the same time and the 100-400 is the more versatile of the two
If you do buy a set of tubes I would go for the Kenko set, much cheaper and just as good as the Canon ones IMO.
 
I should think it would be Steve, part of the reason I bought the 100-400 was to be able to do a bit of close-up work for the summer months and still have a chance at any birds that turned up without carrying a bag of lenses around.
You can't use 2 zooms at the same time and the 100-400 is the more versatile of the two
If you do buy a set of tubes I would go for the Kenko set, much cheaper and just as good as the Canon ones IMO.

Thanks for the advice. I'm presently trying to get a good price for Kenko ones. It'd be a good thing to buy second hand.
 
If used with, say, the 25mm. How close and how far away can you focus?

Not an easy one to answer Steve as it depends on how much zoom you're using.
I'm using a 36mm tube and it gives a good workable range, at 100mm it focuses between 6" and 12", at 135mm 9" to 24" and so on, at 400mm it focuses from 3ft to 18ft (all from the end of the lens hood).

One of the advantages of this is you can vary the zoom to get a decent sized image of your subject from a range of distances unlike with a fixed lens (within limits of course depending on the size of your subject and how much you want to magnify it).
 
Thanks for the advice. I'm presently trying to get a good price for Kenko ones. It'd be a good thing to buy second hand.

Would be interested in what price you get.
This is a most interesting thread. Am relatively new to DSLR - having used film all my life. I use a 70-300 mm lens and was led to believe this was rubbish for butterflies etc.
But have been messing about with it and have some decent results. Extension tubes would seem to be the way forward for me though they do seem pricey tho' not as much as a macro lens.

Hugh
 
Would be interested in what price you get.
This is a most interesting thread. Am relatively new to DSLR - having used film all my life. I use a 70-300 mm lens and was led to believe this was rubbish for butterflies etc.
But have been messing about with it and have some decent results. Extension tubes would seem to be the way forward for me though they do seem pricey tho' not as much as a macro lens.

Hugh

It rather depends what 70 - 300mm you have. I'd describe my Sigma as a pretty good lens for butterflies, but it has a 'macro' setting. Not true macro but 1:2 is fine for butterflies. Having said that I would hope that a Canon L lens would be an improvement.

Kenko extension tubes can be bought for £119 from Amazon or £84 from eBay - delivered from Hong Kong. Both free delivery.
 
It rather depends what 70 - 300mm you have. I'd describe my Sigma as a pretty good lens for butterflies, but it has a 'macro' setting. Not true macro but 1:2 is fine for butterflies. Having said that I would hope that a Canon L lens would be an improvement.

Kenko extension tubes can be bought for £119 from Amazon or £84 from eBay - delivered from Hong Kong. Both free delivery.

Hi Steve - its the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
 
Hi Steve - its the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

Which gives a maximum magnification of 1:4 compared to 1:2 for the Sigma. Which is what I love about the Sigma, this range of zoom is ideal for insect photography but so few lenses focus close enough. But I'm probably going a bit off topic.

I think I'll probably get some extension tubes, although money is a bit tight at the moment so it may have to wait a bit, and then see if I can safely sell the Sigma.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 9 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top