• 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.

100-400mm truth or myth (1 Viewer)

Thanks to everyone for the replies and advice and i am even more convinced that this is the road for me, though to be certain i think i will go for new rather than 2nd hand, the next problem is where to buy hmmmmmmmm........
 
neil brown said:
Thanks to everyone for the replies and advice and i am even more convinced that this is the road for me, though to be certain i think i will go for new rather than 2nd hand, the next problem is where to buy hmmmmmmmm........
Click to expand...

check out Kerso amongst your other options.
 
I rarely use my 100-400 now, but thats only because i have a 600 F4 IS now, and the 100-400 is on long term loan to my brother. :)
Click to expand...

I bet you don't hand hold the 600 f/4 as often as you did your 100-400:-O I sold my 600 f/4 and bought the 800 f/5.6 which is LIGHTER.

The 100-400 is an enigma lens and I had two over the years and sold both and migrated to Primes.

It can be a very useful lens that requires excellent technique and discipline and much practice.

Can you rent one for a couple of weeks first? I suggest you do, then YOU make the decision.

Best of luck.
 
Judging by the comments on the other thread I guess I'll have to accept my quality standards are very low because my favourite image (excluding those of my son which are obviously my favourites even if they were taken with a mobile phone) was taken with the 100-400 :-C
 
Judging by the comments on the other thread I guess I'll have to accept my quality standards are very low because my favourite image (excluding those of my son which are obviously my favourites even if they were taken with a mobile phone) was taken with the 100-400
Click to expand...

Not at all Paul.

My reasons for ridding myself of the 100-400 is that it did not suit my needs for strictly BIFs, I also have superb images taken with that lens but it became surplus to requirements when I had acquired all the primes I needed.

On tripod I use a 300 f/2.8 IS L, 500 f/4 IS L, and a 800 f/5.6 IS L, Hand held I use the 70-200 f/4 IS L, 300 f/4 IS L and the 400 f/5.6 L all used at times with 1.4X TCs, all bases covered but a fortune spent on that L glass. and $2500 + $$$ on tripods and Wimberley heads to suit the heavy lenses.

I once had several photos used by the State of Montana on their yearly calendar that were all taken on a 4 MP Olympus C-770, they paid me several times the value of the Camera $900 in 2004 for the use of each image.

A good photographer can do wonders with any camera but good glass is essential.
 
For various reasons I just took the 100-400 to Spain over the 500f4 and at no point did I think the IQ was going to let me down.

I can post some exif on these if needs be, but really have to say that I love this zoom lens and would never think twice about using it.

Not really spent a lot of time processing these just resize, levels and sharpen.

All were handheld
 

Attachments

  • stone 800.jpg
    stone 800.jpg
    136.4 KB · Views: 233
  • cb 800.jpg
    cb 800.jpg
    144.8 KB · Views: 207
  • swall800.jpg
    swall800.jpg
    103.2 KB · Views: 195
  • rrs800.jpg
    rrs800.jpg
    150.4 KB · Views: 256
@Marcus :

Perhaps you could share your handheld technique in another thread ? -- as my reading of some of the EXIF seems to show these taken right at the long end with relatively long exposures (1/125 for the swallow?). Very impressive
 
pdh said:
@Marcus :

Perhaps you could share your handheld technique in another thread ? -- as my reading of some of the EXIF seems to show these taken right at the long end with relatively long exposures (1/125 for the swallow?). Very impressive
Click to expand...

No problem. The swallow is at 1/800th - not sure what exif viewer you are using?

Generally used a 'tucked up' technique. Kneeling down wedging my left arm on my knee, wedged/tucked under my side. I shoot in bursts of three for static subjects - binning the 1st and 3rd shot as that is where any movement on pressing and releasing the shutter affects sharpness. It's not unique and I know a lot of other Bfers and others use this technique to good effect. I also take a lot of shots lying down on my stomach. In the Uk I tend to use a monopod with this lens.

BIF is just panning and practice. Every chance I get even on pigeons etc I practice.

The Red Rumped was shot in Manual the others are in AV (if memory serves).

I have no issues shooting at 400mm, f5.6 with the lens though try and keep the ISO at 200 or 400 if I can, and obviously move up to f8sih if I can.
 
Thanks for that; I shan't hijack Neil's thread further, save to say:
Marcus said:
not sure what exif viewer you are using?
Click to expand...
I just right-clicked on the expanded thumbnail in my browser (Opera); I had a feeling it might be misleading.
 
If it helps at all, LCE Guildford had a new 100-400 when I was there the other day at £1229.00 with a free UV filter worth £49.

That's about £40 cheaper that WHE have it advertised.

HTH
Dave.
 
Totally agree with Marcus. Whenever I need to travel light my 500f4 stays at home and the 100-400L comes with me.
I think the "soft" issues were due to people shooting at f5.6 with it. The sweetspot with the 100-400 is around f7.1-f8.0
It always amazes me at its sharpness for the cost.

Its a great lens.
 
I went through a period of stopping down to f7 or f8 to increase sharpness but stopped doing it as I couldn't see it made any noticeable difference. And sometimes there was a high price to pay in terms of shutter speed. Nowadays I stop down when I want to to increase the depth of field but am otherwise happy to leave the lens wide open. Not sure if this means I have a good example or a bad one. :)
 
Hi Graham, that's just my particular copy. I don't know how typical it is.

I do use it at F5.6 sometimes of course but only when the light is poor. Sometimes it's a dilemma, F5.6 at ISO 400 or F8 at ISO 800?
 
HokkaidoStu said:
Hi Graham, that's just my particular copy. I don't know how typical it is.

I do use it at F5.6 sometimes of course but only when the light is poor. Sometimes it's a dilemma, F5.6 at ISO 400 or F8 at ISO 800?
Click to expand...

Well I have to say that the kind of results you get make me want to do some more tests at any rate.
 
I have try 2 copy of the lens in the past, I was findingt he IQ very close to the 400mm f5.6 fixed lens. for sure the border are more uneven than the center and you have some vignette, but image quality are very good. I get good image handheld at around 1/100-1/120s not bad for a 500mm equivalent with the 1D2n. AF are very slow to start but fast to track when subject are on. For convenience and lighter wildlife alternative to the 300mm f2.8, I trade my 70-200 f4 IS lens for the the 100-400 recently. From my test, at 300mm (or around) f5.6 (200mm+TC 1.4=280mm) on both lens, it show that the 100-400 was sharper (not marginaly). The 70-200f4 IS being one of the sharpest zoom today, it's not nothing, that test convince me to trade my beloved f4 IS. I think it's reel that you have less good one, may be not "less good" but not compatible or in tune with your particuliar camera AF tolerance. Having more than one body, I see that not all my lens perform the same way. My 24-105 are wow on certain body but also only OK on other.
 
Last edited:
zoom vs prime

Hi

This is one of the same old debates, and its down to matter of opinion and what you want the lens for.

I have a 100-400mm and also used the 400mm. My opinion is that My own 100-400 was never that sharp against a fixed 400mm 5.6L ( as i have said in the past when these posts crop up ) But saying that the 100-400 even slight soft on focus a quick touch in adobe and its back.

The 100-400 is a all rounder lens, slap it on the camera and will cover most range any photographer would require. This lens is good for flight shots when the subject is moving towards or away from you a push or pull will keep it in the frame. Also the IS would give you about 1 stop extra for hand holding which will help with shake.

The 400mm is a super lens providing good quality images ( i feel a bit sharper than the 100-400 IS ) Also would work better with a 1.4 converter if you need it. The only issues i would say this lens against the 100-400 is that its fixed and that if the subject moves toward you then you need to be moving back which can be impossible at times and lacks IS if thats an issue.

I have not used one of the newer 100-400 lenses so i would rely on the other peoples posts regards the sharpness etc on a newer lens than mine, as this is what my post is based on.

Think about what you will be using the lens for then make your mind up
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 14 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.

Similar threads

M
Budget camera to pair with Olympus 100-400mm Lens
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
njlarsen
njlarsen
Henry_Flower
Camera for EF 100-400, up to ~ £1000
Replies
8
Views
1K
Prestdj
Prestdj
binomania
What should I do with my 300 video reviews? Request for advice
Replies
7
Views
747
tenex
tenex
P
Which App to Control and Work With iPhone 13 Pro Max Camera?
Replies
2
Views
2K
paperweight
P
J
My First Experience Purchasing Birding Binoculars. Part 2 first anniversary
Replies
2
Views
634
Scott98
S

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top