Canon 100-400mm 5.6 IS Good?

Mark M wrote:
"G.T." wrote in message
...

Rob Davison wrote:


Sane wrote:

[...]


How's the hand holding ability with this lens at 400mm?


1/50th at 310mm: http://www.pbase.com/image/28674687/original
1/30th at 400mm: http://www.pbase.com/image/26947864/original

Both handheld. Crops from the full frame at ISO400 on a 10D.


I really don't know how you guys do that. Even with IS at 1/30 my shots
would be a horrible shaky mess. I guess I have to quit the coffee or
something.

Greg


I think they mean they hold hands while the camera's shutter pops on the
tripod.


The weight of the lens helps steady you. :-)

I don't get on well with tripods and shooting a small rapidly moving
insect eater in amongst trees wouldn't be much fun with one I'd have
thought. Almost every shot I've taken with that lens is handheld.

That 1/30th admittedly was the best of the bunch and it is a bit soft
(400 at 5.6 and shallow DOF might have been a contributing factor too).
Here is the same bird taken in good light a month or so later after the
leaves had fallen - though a badly placed dead leaf spoils the shot...

http://www.pbase.com/image/28976567

The thing that IS obviously doesn't help with is freezing moving
subjects in low light. Then I think there really is no substitute
for 'cubic inches' - a fast lens.


Rob.
--

Mark M wrote:
"G.T." wrote in message
...

Rob Davison wrote:


Sane wrote:

[...]


How's the hand holding ability with this lens at 400mm?


1/50th at 310mm: http://www.pbase.com/image/28674687/original
1/30th at 400mm: http://www.pbase.com/image/26947864/original

Both handheld. Crops from the full frame at ISO400 on a 10D.


I really don't know how you guys do that. Even with IS at 1/30 my shots
would be a horrible shaky mess. I guess I have to quit the coffee or
something.

Greg


I think they mean they hold hands while the camera's shutter pops on the
tripod.


The weight of the lens helps steady you. :-)

I don't get on well with tripods and shooting a small rapidly moving
insect eater in amongst trees wouldn't be much fun with one I'd have
thought. Almost every shot I've taken with that lens is handheld.

That 1/30th admittedly was the best of the bunch and it is a bit soft
(400 at 5.6 and shallow DOF might have been a contributing factor too).
Here is the same bird taken in good light a month or so later after the
leaves had fallen - though a badly placed dead leaf spoils the shot...

http://www.pbase.com/image/28976567

The thing that IS obviously doesn't help with is freezing moving
subjects in low light. Then I think there really is no substitute
for 'cubic inches' - a fast lens.


Rob.
--

Rob Davison wrote:
Mark M wrote:

How's the hand holding ability with this lens at 400mm?

I really don't know how you guys do that. Even with IS at 1/30 my shots
would be a horrible shaky mess. I guess I have to quit the coffee or
something.

Greg


The weight of the lens helps steady you. :-)

I don't get on well with tripods and shooting a small rapidly moving
insect eater in amongst trees wouldn't be much fun with one I'd have
thought. Almost every shot I've taken with that lens is handheld.

That 1/30th admittedly was the best of the bunch and it is a bit soft
(400 at 5.6 and shallow DOF might have been a contributing factor too).
Here is the same bird taken in good light a month or so later after the
leaves had fallen - though a badly placed dead leaf spoils the shot...

http://www.pbase.com/image/28976567

The thing that IS obviously doesn't help with is freezing moving
subjects in low light. Then I think there really is no substitute
for 'cubic inches' - a fast lens.

I used to think that I could do better following birds in flight
with something like a 300mm f/4 compared to a bigger lens on a tripod.
And I was correct when I used a pan or ball head. But once I got the
full size Wimberly head, I found that I can follow action and get
much steadier (read sharper) images with a 500 mm f/4 (and even with
a 1.4x TC so 700 mm f/5.6) than I can hand holding the 300mm f/4 L IS.
Even with the 300mm larger field of view, standing and trying to
track a bird in flight can be a challenge. The tripod helps
steady me, and the wimberly balances the system so well, it tips
the tracking in favor of the tripod over the hand held images,
at least for me.

Examples: these two egrets fighting in flight:

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...703.b-600.html
or this one landing:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...999.d-600.html

were easier to get than hand holding the 300 mm. I tried both lenses
during these sessions in rapid succession as I have two DSLRs, and none
of the hand held shots match the tripod ones
in sharpness. I used IS on ALL shots, hand held or tripod.
(yes, the 500mm on a tripod benefits from IS, and the IS is stable.)

Roger

Rob Davison wrote:
Mark M wrote:

How's the hand holding ability with this lens at 400mm?

I really don't know how you guys do that. Even with IS at 1/30 my shots
would be a horrible shaky mess. I guess I have to quit the coffee or
something.

Greg


The weight of the lens helps steady you. :-)

I don't get on well with tripods and shooting a small rapidly moving
insect eater in amongst trees wouldn't be much fun with one I'd have
thought. Almost every shot I've taken with that lens is handheld.

That 1/30th admittedly was the best of the bunch and it is a bit soft
(400 at 5.6 and shallow DOF might have been a contributing factor too).
Here is the same bird taken in good light a month or so later after the
leaves had fallen - though a badly placed dead leaf spoils the shot...

http://www.pbase.com/image/28976567

The thing that IS obviously doesn't help with is freezing moving
subjects in low light. Then I think there really is no substitute
for 'cubic inches' - a fast lens.

I used to think that I could do better following birds in flight
with something like a 300mm f/4 compared to a bigger lens on a tripod.
And I was correct when I used a pan or ball head. But once I got the
full size Wimberly head, I found that I can follow action and get
much steadier (read sharper) images with a 500 mm f/4 (and even with
a 1.4x TC so 700 mm f/5.6) than I can hand holding the 300mm f/4 L IS.
Even with the 300mm larger field of view, standing and trying to
track a bird in flight can be a challenge. The tripod helps
steady me, and the wimberly balances the system so well, it tips
the tracking in favor of the tripod over the hand held images,
at least for me.

Examples: these two egrets fighting in flight:

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...703.b-600.html
or this one landing:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...999.d-600.html

were easier to get than hand holding the 300 mm. I tried both lenses
during these sessions in rapid succession as I have two DSLRs, and none
of the hand held shots match the tripod ones
in sharpness. I used IS on ALL shots, hand held or tripod.
(yes, the 500mm on a tripod benefits from IS, and the IS is stable.)

Roger

Rob Davison wrote:

Mark M wrote:

"G.T." wrote in message
...

Rob Davison wrote:


Sane wrote:


[...]


How's the hand holding ability with this lens at 400mm?



1/50th at 310mm: http://www.pbase.com/image/28674687/original
1/30th at 400mm: http://www.pbase.com/image/26947864/original

Both handheld. Crops from the full frame at ISO400 on a 10D.


I really don't know how you guys do that. Even with IS at 1/30 my shots
would be a horrible shaky mess. I guess I have to quit the coffee or
something.

Greg



I think they mean they hold hands while the camera's shutter pops on the
tripod.



The weight of the lens helps steady you. :-)

I don't get on well with tripods and shooting a small rapidly moving
insect eater in amongst trees wouldn't be much fun with one I'd have
thought. Almost every shot I've taken with that lens is handheld.

That 1/30th admittedly was the best of the bunch and it is a bit soft
(400 at 5.6 and shallow DOF might have been a contributing factor too).
Here is the same bird taken in good light a month or so later after the
leaves had fallen - though a badly placed dead leaf spoils the shot...

http://www.pbase.com/image/28976567


Except for the fact that the bird's beak is pointed right at the leaf
the leaf is fine. It's blurred enough to look interesting.

Greg

--
Destroy your safe and happy lives
Before it is too late
The battles we fought were long and hard
Just not to be consumed by rock'n'roll

Rob Davison wrote:

Mark M wrote:

"G.T." wrote in message
...

Rob Davison wrote:


Sane wrote:


[...]


How's the hand holding ability with this lens at 400mm?



1/50th at 310mm: http://www.pbase.com/image/28674687/original
1/30th at 400mm: http://www.pbase.com/image/26947864/original

Both handheld. Crops from the full frame at ISO400 on a 10D.


I really don't know how you guys do that. Even with IS at 1/30 my shots
would be a horrible shaky mess. I guess I have to quit the coffee or
something.

Greg



I think they mean they hold hands while the camera's shutter pops on the
tripod.



The weight of the lens helps steady you. :-)

I don't get on well with tripods and shooting a small rapidly moving
insect eater in amongst trees wouldn't be much fun with one I'd have
thought. Almost every shot I've taken with that lens is handheld.

That 1/30th admittedly was the best of the bunch and it is a bit soft
(400 at 5.6 and shallow DOF might have been a contributing factor too).
Here is the same bird taken in good light a month or so later after the
leaves had fallen - though a badly placed dead leaf spoils the shot...

http://www.pbase.com/image/28976567


Except for the fact that the bird's beak is pointed right at the leaf
the leaf is fine. It's blurred enough to look interesting.

Greg

--
Destroy your safe and happy lives
Before it is too late
The battles we fought were long and hard
Just not to be consumed by rock'n'roll

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
Rob Davison wrote:

[...]

The weight of the lens helps steady you. :-)

I don't get on well with tripods and shooting a small rapidly moving
insect eater in amongst trees wouldn't be much fun with one I'd have
thought. Almost every shot I've taken with that lens is handheld.

[...]

I used to think that I could do better following birds in flight
with something like a 300mm f/4 compared to a bigger lens on a tripod.
And I was correct when I used a pan or ball head. But once I got the
full size Wimberly head, I found that I can follow action and get
much steadier (read sharper) images with a 500 mm f/4 (and even with
a 1.4x TC so 700 mm f/5.6) than I can hand holding the 300mm f/4 L IS.
Even with the 300mm larger field of view, standing and trying to
track a bird in flight can be a challenge. The tripod helps
steady me, and the wimberly balances the system so well, it tips
the tracking in favor of the tripod over the hand held images,
at least for me.

I can't really argue with you - your images speak for themselves. :-)

While they're not up to your standards I'm still reasonably happy with
some of the images of birds in flight that I have managed to capture
with the 100-400. Particularly as (pet black swans aside) most of mine
seem to be of smaller and faster flying birds.

Having the camera focus on a tree in the background rather than the
subject is still my main cause of total failure and most of the blur
in the better shots seems to me to be motion blur from the movement of
the animal rather than camera shake (because some regions are quite
sharp). If I could afford it and had the body of Jean Claude Van Damn
so as to carry it I'd try the 400 2.8 IS. :-)

I've not tried (or even seen beyond a review I've found on the web) a
Wimberly head but the main niggle I have with tripods is that when
following a bird I frequently have to change my vantage point to avoid
an in-the-way tree or shrub to get a good line of sight on a bird that
is doing something interesting and I think a tripod is an encumbrance
that would cost me shots.

You're probably right in suggesting that the shots I'd get would
be better if I used one but the tradeoff for convenience suits me.

(ATB for the rest of the Cassini mission. What you guys are doing
out there is truly awe-inspiring.)


Rob.
--

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:
Rob Davison wrote:

[...]

The weight of the lens helps steady you. :-)

I don't get on well with tripods and shooting a small rapidly moving
insect eater in amongst trees wouldn't be much fun with one I'd have
thought. Almost every shot I've taken with that lens is handheld.

[...]

I used to think that I could do better following birds in flight
with something like a 300mm f/4 compared to a bigger lens on a tripod.
And I was correct when I used a pan or ball head. But once I got the
full size Wimberly head, I found that I can follow action and get
much steadier (read sharper) images with a 500 mm f/4 (and even with
a 1.4x TC so 700 mm f/5.6) than I can hand holding the 300mm f/4 L IS.
Even with the 300mm larger field of view, standing and trying to
track a bird in flight can be a challenge. The tripod helps
steady me, and the wimberly balances the system so well, it tips
the tracking in favor of the tripod over the hand held images,
at least for me.

I can't really argue with you - your images speak for themselves. :-)

While they're not up to your standards I'm still reasonably happy with
some of the images of birds in flight that I have managed to capture
with the 100-400. Particularly as (pet black swans aside) most of mine
seem to be of smaller and faster flying birds.

Having the camera focus on a tree in the background rather than the
subject is still my main cause of total failure and most of the blur
in the better shots seems to me to be motion blur from the movement of
the animal rather than camera shake (because some regions are quite
sharp). If I could afford it and had the body of Jean Claude Van Damn
so as to carry it I'd try the 400 2.8 IS. :-)

I've not tried (or even seen beyond a review I've found on the web) a
Wimberly head but the main niggle I have with tripods is that when
following a bird I frequently have to change my vantage point to avoid
an in-the-way tree or shrub to get a good line of sight on a bird that
is doing something interesting and I think a tripod is an encumbrance
that would cost me shots.

You're probably right in suggesting that the shots I'd get would
be better if I used one but the tradeoff for convenience suits me.

(ATB for the rest of the Cassini mission. What you guys are doing
out there is truly awe-inspiring.)


Rob.
--

"Sane" wrote in message ...
I'm thinking of buying a DSLR and the Canon 100-400 5.6 IS lens
seems like a good choice for the type of shooting I do ( wildlife ).
All the information I've found so far seems to indicate it's a good
lens. Does anyone here have first hand experience with this lens,
or any other recommendations? Since we're talking about quite a bit
of money, doing my homework first seems like a good idea!

The 100-400 f/5.6 IS is way too slow for wildlife. Optical
stabilization doesn't stop or freeze action, only fast shutter speeds
do that. The only time optically stabilized lenses make sense is if
you hand-hold the lens while taking still lifes, which is generally
the opposite of taking wildlife.

You'd be much better off with the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 (constant). It
is much sharper than even the partly cardboard Canon 300mm L f/4
prime, and it lets in 8X as much light as the slow Canon f/5.6 IS
100-400 zoom, allowing 1/8th the shutter speed to stop action. The
Simga 100-300 is even sharper still, but only about 2X as fast as the
Canon, at f/4 (constant).