Fun with Canon 100-400 lens

A little more info about Canon vs. Nikon here, emphasizing that both are excellent equipment: http://www.thisweekinphoto.com/2012/the-history-of-the-nikon-vs-canon-battle-infographic/

This discussion caused me to pull my virtually-unused Rebel XSi out of the closet to start playing around with again. It has two lenses, 18-35 mm and 55-250mm. Recharged the battery and downloaded the manual to my tablet. But, as some folks know, I don't really do manuals 

Tom said:

This discussion caused me to pull my virtually-unused Rebel XSi out of the closet to start playing around with again. It has two lenses, 18-35 mm and 55-250mm. Recharged the battery and downloaded the manual to my tablet. But, as some folks know, I don't really do manuals 

Click to expand...

The XSi is a great camera. Go take some shots and then post your best here.

The XSi is a great camera.

Click to expand...

Thanks, but it seems to be more complex than my SX20, or maybe sufficiently different to be unfamiliar.

Go take some shots and then post your best here.

Click to expand...

Since our weather is warming up, I might launch the bass boat in the next few days; I need a fishing fix, and there's a lot of wildlife of the feathered variety around our Delta waterways. We get a variety of birds right behind the house, but I'm either too slow or too close to get good shots; They're easily spooked.

... then post your best here.

Click to expand...

One issue for me is knowing which is "best", and virtually none of my wildlife shots are "good".

Tom said:

Thanks, but it seems to be more complex than my SX20, or maybe sufficiently different to be unfamiliar.

Click to expand...

And that is why I keep recommending bridge cameras to forum members who want to move up from a P&S.

Since our weather is warming up, I might launch the bass boat in the next few days; I need a fishing fix, and there's a lot of wildlife of the feathered variety around our Delta waterways. We get a variety of birds right behind the house, but I'm either too slow or too close to get good shots; They're easily spooked.

Click to expand...

That is the hardest part of bird photography. Birds don't want to be photographed. It is in their DNA to flee when ever anything that is alive comes close. This is one of the reasons I have a 200-500 as my prime birding lens. But it is expensive and not very easy to use.

Tom said:

One issue for me is knowing which is "best", and virtually none of my wildlife shots are "good".

Click to expand...

Then if you wish you can post some shots and we might be able to help you out if we see something specific that you are doing wrong. Or you can simply describe problems you are encountering. For example if you are having trouble getting your camera to focus on the birds it could be because you are not using center point focusing.

This is one of the reasons I have a 200-500 as my prime birding lens.

Click to expand...

And it's one reason I got excited by Marsha's post about her new lens.

Given your other posts about not requiring expensive lenses, do you have any suggestions for a lens that would work on my XSi, or am I stuck with Canon IS lenses?

TIA.

... we might be able to help you out if we see something specific that you are doing wrong. Or you can simply describe problems you are encountering.

Click to expand...

A big thanks Tom, either of those would be very helpful.

Tom said:

Given your other posts about not requiring expensive lenses, do you have any suggestions for a lens that would work on my XSi, or am I stuck with Canon IS lenses?

Click to expand...

No you are not stuck with Canon IS lenses. The 100-400 is a very good lens. However it does have a few drawbacks. It is very expensive at $1500 and there are four switches on the lens itself that can complicate using the lens. If you use it a lot on a daily basis you will eventually get to the point where you know how to set those switches, but for the casual user it can be very frustrating. For example the range limiter switch. One setting limits the lens to 20 feet to infinity and the other setting uses the entire range of the lens from 6 feet to infinity. This is suppose to reduce the amount of time the lens "hunts" to achieve focus. So if you have a subject over 20 feet away from you then the 20 feet setting will allow the lens to focus quicker.

Now the problem arises when you are walking along and suddenly there is a bird 10 feet away. You zoom in on him and the camera hunts and hunts but never achieves focus. Finally after the bird has flown away it dawns on you that you had the lens set to the wrong focus range. I ended up never using the 20 foot switch due to the frustration. The longer time to acquire focus worked better for me. This is not to say it is a bad lens, it is just not suited for the casual user.

The lens I would recommend if you want to get serious about shooting some birds or other critters is the same one I have, the Tamron 200-500. It is available for Sony, Canon and Nikon. It costs $950 new and $799 used. I bought mine used and it works perfectly. There is a drawback to this lens. It does not have image stabilization built in, like the Canon 100-400. However if you shoot outdoors in bright sunlight you won't need IS. If you do get the lens let me know and I will tell you exactly how to set the camera so you will never have a problem with camera shake.

One of the main reasons why I switched to Sony is because the IS is built into the body, not the lenses like Canon and Nikon. This means that every lens I put on my camera has IS. With Canikon you have to buy IS every time you buy a lens if you want IS.

Now permit me to demonstrate exactly why I don't recommend expensive lenses. I have here a photo I took with my Sony a330, which is a 10 megapixel camera. I have cropped it pretty severely so it is really only about a 5 megapixel image. The image was taken hand held. It was taken at a slow shutter speed of 1/320th of a second. The rule for telephoto lenses is not to use a shutter speed slower than the focal length of the lens. In other words for a 500 mm lens you should not use anything less than 1/500th of a second. But the Sony IS gives me several more stops so I can go slower than 1/500th. I shot this at the extreme range of the lens, 500mm, which is always the "softest" focal length of the lens. This lens is sharpest at around 300 to 350 mm. I used an aperture of f/6.3, which is wide open and wide open is always the softest aperture of any lens. And it is using ISO 400 which is not nearly as sharp as ISO 100. So with everything going against it this should not be a sharp image at all.

I have gotten into the expensive lenses are better argument on photography forums many times and I always post this image and explain it just like I did in the above paragraph. Then I challenge any Sony, Canon or Nikon shooter to post an image that is sharper than this that was taken with any lens no matter what the cost. No one has ever challenged me. You simply cannot get a sharper image than this on a monitor. Download this photo and display it full screen on your largest monitor and check out the detail in the wings. You can't fake that kind of resolution.

picasaweb.google.com/SeilerBird/MyPortfolio#5617491603483530082

You folks have got me curious about how my old Canon EOS Elan body would fare with my newest lens I have: the 70-200 L without IS.

Guess I should try it and find out.  Better go see what kind of 35 mm film I can still buy in my area...and if they still develop it here!

Old cameras have been something I just can seem to part with so I have a bag filled with a couple of Pentax bodies and a Konika that I used early on, together with a variety of lenses, filters, etc.
My collection also includes an old Graphlex 3x4 with drop bed adjustable rail bed and tilt/shift lens.  It has a mechanical focal plane shutter, and takes an 11 sheet metal and leather sheetfilm holder. Above the ground glass which contains a grid, is a high tapered hood which you look down into to focus and compose.  The best example I can give of what it looked like is famous LIFE photographer, Margaret Bourke White who is seen using one in some pictures of her. I guess that would be in the twenties or thirties, perhaps even earlier.  That thing weighs 'a ton' compared to anything today. 

Gord

Gord Nelson said:

You folks have got me curious about how my old Canon EOS Elan body would fare with my newest lens I have: the 70-200 L without IS.

Click to expand...

It would do awesome. That is a great lens and it gives great results on any Canon camera. You would need some fast film like Fujifilm Super HQ 200:

http://www.amazon.com/Fujifilm-Super-HQ-200-Exposure/dp/B00004TWLY/ref=sr_1_3?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1360808181&sr=1-3&keywords=film

However getting it processed could be a problem. There is a lab in England that still processes Fuji Pro film but I don't know if they process consumer film.

http://www.fujifilmprocessinglaboratory.co.uk/

Update for Gord - I have discovered that Walgreens still develops 35mm film.

http://photo.walgreens.com/walgreens/pdpsdpitems/type=film_processing

Thanks Tom:

I think London Drugs does too.  We have them here, but do not have Walgreens.  I guess I could get my daughter to take the film to Bellingham, Wash.  for me.  It is only a few miles away from her. 

Well I've been doing more playing/learning/shooting with the 100-400 lens, as well as, tons of reading on the internet and figured out: 

• when to set the stabilizer mode to either Mode 1 or Mode 2.
• the difference between the two infinity settings i.e.  1.8 meters or 6.5 meters and when to use them
• that if you can't get an automatic focus with the lens set at 100mm, then switch to manual focus and it will work.

What I can't figure out is if I am only supposed to use the 4.5 and/or the 5.6 f stops with this lens.  So, my question is can I use smaller aperture setting like  f/8, f/11 or even f/22.  And, if I can, why are the f stops identified on the barrel of the lens.
I did notice that when I used the auto setting on the camera with the 100-400 lens, that it would only go to the f/8 setting.
So far I'm having fun with this, but it is heavy when we carry it on a hike.
Marsha~

Marsha/CA said:

when to set the stabilizer mode to either Mode 1 or Mode 2.

Click to expand...

Set it to Mode 1 and leave it there. Mode 1 can do anything Mode 2 can do and more. Mode 2 is really only for panning.

the difference between the two infinity settings i.e.  1.8 meters or 6.5 meters and when to use them

Click to expand...

That is the worst idea for any lens. If you have it set to 6.5 and suddenly a bird lands 15 feet away you won't be able to focus on it until you switch to the 1.8 meter setting. It results in a lot of lost shots because usually you don't realize that the lens is set incorrectly. All you notice is that you can't get it to focus. Put it on 1.8 and leave it there.

that if you can't get an automatic focus with the lens set at 100mm, then switch to manual focus and it will work.

Click to expand...

Absolutely, but if it won't focus on auto then it probably won't focus on manual. You probably have the range switch set wrong.

What I can't figure out is if I am only supposed to use the 4.5 and/or the 5.6 f stops with this lens.  So, my question is can I use smaller aperture setting like  f/8, f/11 or even f/22.  And, if I can, why are the f stops identified on the barrel of the lens.

Click to expand...

You can use any f stop you wish. It is best to use the camera on an automatic setting like P and let the camera decide the f stop. Many times wild animal and bird photography happen way too fast to be fooling around setting the f stop. The problem is a long telephoto really reduces the incoming light, so rarely will you be in a bright enough situation to stop down below the widest opening.

I did notice that when I used the auto setting on the camera with the 100-400 lens, that it would only go to the f/8 setting.

Click to expand...

The camera should be using all the f stops in auto mode. Do you have the ISO set to automatic?

Do you have the focus set at AI Servo? Do you have only the center focus point selected? Do you have the metering mode set to center weighted? If not then you should use these settings for shooting critters.

So far I'm having fun with this, but it is heavy when we carry it on a hike.

Click to expand...

I wish you had posted a question about this lens before you bought it. It is not really the best lens for you. Too many switches, too many options and way too heavy. The Tamron 200-500 would have cost you half as much, it has 100mm more reach and it is easier to use.

Tom thanks for your thoughts.  I wanted this lens after using it in Alaska on the auto mode after a friend loaned it to me and am very happy with, it's good for me.  I'm not as much as an amatuer as you think.

I know I can use it on auto, I don't want to.  I want to use it using the settings and figure them out, to see exactly what this lens can do.  That's the fun for me.  I'm not just into BIF; I'm into lots of other shots.

Absolutely, but if it won't focus on auto then it probably won't focus on manual. You probably have the range switch set wrong.

Click to expand...

 
I did focus it on manual and it did very well and I know to reduce the range setting.

Do you have the focus set at AI Servo? Do you have only the center focus point selected? Do you have the metering mode set to center weighted? If not then you should use these settings for shooting critters.

Click to expand...

Yes, yes and yes.

I still need to know why manufacturers put the f/stops settings on the lens.  Apparently there is a reason.

Marsha~

See Bills answer.

Just took out whole response after finding the f stop question.  The 100 400 has a 4.5 at 100mm and a min f-stop of 5.6 at 400mm.  Nothing you do will make it be a 4.5 at 400.  Limitation of the lens.  There are constant f-stop lens, they cost about 4 times what the 100-400 did.

Marsha/CA said:

What I can't figure out is if I am only supposed to use the 4.5 and/or the 5.6 f stops with this lens.  So, my question is can I use smaller aperture setting like  f/8, f/11 or even f/22.  And, if I can, why are the f stops identified on the barrel of the lens.
I did notice that when I used the auto setting on the camera with the 100-400 lens, that it would only go to the f/8 setting.

Click to expand...

Have arrived a bit late here, Marsha. Nice to read you have the 100-400mm. I also have one and enjoy it very much. And I enjoyed the photos you posted. You're off to a good start.

Not sure I understand the f-stop question as to why the stops are not posted on the lens. And also, why would you only supposed to be using the fastest ends of the lens? All of the avalable f-stops will be posted in your viewfinder, or in my case, also on the LCD displays on my 50D body. I would never look on the lens itself for an f-stop. Or am I reading that wrong?

As to auto mode shooting - I hardly ever do that, with any lens. If doing BIF, I know TomS does that and gets great results. However, BIF is a small part of what I do - which is mostly people if at all possible. Otherwise, if I have the time, I will either go shutter or aperture priority. The f-stops posted on the lens barrel are just indicating how fast the lens in through it's zoom.

Yes, you can shoot all of the f-stops available on the 100-400mm. If I have the necessary light I will set the aperture at 9.0 or 11.0 as I have found that to be the sharp sweet spot for that lens. However, I "could" set the f-stop to 32.0 at 100mm and 40.0 at 400mm (if enought light on or off a tripod). Of course, that's if I want the maximum DOF plus the sharpest available. Why would I do a scenery shot with less of an f-stop as decided by an Auto setting?

The QZ after buying my 100-400mm I set up a target and did the micro-adjusting thing plus checked out where the sweet spot was on my 100-400mm when mounted on my Canon 50D - plus did the same with all my lenses. The question becomes is the AF placing the sharp point ahead or behind what we see in the viewfinder? BTW, another reason I would never want other that an OVF.

As to IS in the camera vs the lens - that is not a problem with me, though it might be for some with tons of lenses brought forward from film days. I only have three lenses. One is a 50mm that doesn't need IS. I would like to have a nice wide angle lens - and would most of time have it on a tripod anyway. I would also say that most other than the real pros, also don't have that many lenses that need IS in the first place. And from what I read, the downside of in camera IS is on the long end of lenses - which is where I need it most.

I've made my views on Tamron, Sigma vs. Canon L lenses in another topic - so won't go into that again on your thread (dealing w/buying the best glass one can afford). TomS and I agree on most stuff - and the items we disagree on we enjoy discussing. And a Tamron 200-500mm (or any Tamron/Sigma) vs. your lens would for sure be one of them.