# 100-400 V1



## mnclayshooter (Nov 13, 2014)

I searched around a bit but didn't really find what I was looking for... apologies in advance if there is already a thread for this and I missed it, or if this should have been posted in a different forum. Please guide me to it if so. 

I have the 100-400 V1 lens and have used it happily for the last year or so. I've read several snippets and forum posts about having a "sharp copy" etc. Compared to my older film days lenses, this lens seems as sharp or sharper than any long zoom I've owned in the past. 

My question is this: how do you "know" if your lens is sharp? I feel like mine is... are there any good example photos that show that you might not have a sharp copy out there? What does a sharp copy's photo look like vs a not sharp copy?


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 13, 2014)

mnclayshooter said:


> I have the 100-400 V1 lens and have used it happily for the last year or so. ...
> 
> My question is this: how do you "know" if your lens is sharp? I feel like mine is...



Well you can spend a lot of time taking pictures of test targets, but why? If you like the photographs you are able to take with your present lens, and if you feel the lens is sharp, then I would opine that your lens is sharp enough for your individual type of photography. 

If you start worrying if your specific copy of a lens is the "bestest copy", you will spend the rest of your photographic life worrying and seldom being satisified.


----------



## lintoni (Nov 13, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> mnclayshooter said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 100-400 V1 lens and have used it happily for the last year or so. ...
> ...


+1


----------



## JonAustin (Nov 13, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Well you can spend a lot of time taking pictures of test targets, but why? If you like the photographs you are able to take with your present lens, and if you feel the lens is sharp, then I would opine that your lens is sharp enough for your individual type of photography.
> 
> If you start worrying if your specific copy of a lens is the "bestest copy", you will spend the rest of your photographic life worrying and seldom being satisified.



+100

If you spend enough time, effort and money testing your lens (or any piece of gear you own, photographic or otherwise), you will eventually uncover its imperfections and limitations. If you're satisfied with your 100-400 I's performance, why spoil that?


----------



## monkey44 (Nov 13, 2014)

We hear often about a camera "not perfect' not creating "sharp images" and I can't quite fathom why. If it's a malfunctioning camera or lens, there is time to return it. 

Some of the critiques on here make no sense to me -- it examines the electronic component of an image, finds a micron measurement that differs, and then scream "foul' and "not as good", and "this one is better' at "Some" part of the technology.

Maybe it's me, but I have yet to buy a camera or a lens that fails to suit the images I produce. Not every image is perfect, and that has more to do with the photographer or the scene than the equipment. I shoot lots of 'keepers' and lots of 'rejects' but I blame the rejects on myself, or the subject, not the equipment. 

And I'd imagine some malfunctioning equipment arrives at the retailers -- and a buyer gets one, returns it, and gets a replacement or repair that works fine. but, I'd bet the 'rejects' are few, and some even imaginary, in fact, maybe. 

When i buy a piece of equipment, I run it thru some tests, push it out hard to where I need it to perform, then get on with clicking the shutter -- if it malfunctions with a defect (I've only returned ONE camera in twenty-five years, and NO lens). So, either I suck at evaluating my photos, or I'm getting good images ... but once I initially check a piece of gear, the I use it until it fails ... Otherwise, I'd spend all my time testing and no time filling the wallet that got flat buying equipment.


----------



## wsheldon (Nov 13, 2014)

Good advice all around. I'm in the same boat, having purchased a 100-400 V1 over a year ago and being quite pleased with the IQ when I nail long-lens technique. I'm enticed by the better IS and MTF curves of the new model, but don't plan to switch unless something goes wrong with this one. If I did upgrade I'd be looking at a different focal length range, like the new 150-600's from Tamron and Sigma. It will be interesting to see how the new 100-400 plus 1.4 converter fares against those....


----------



## 2n10 (Nov 13, 2014)

monkey44 said:


> We hear often about a camera "not perfect' not creating "sharp images" and I can't quite fathom why. If it's a malfunctioning camera or lens, there is time to return it.
> 
> Some of the critiques on here make no sense to me -- it examines the electronic component of an image, finds a micron measurement that differs, and then scream "foul' and "not as good", and "this one is better' at "Some" part of the technology.
> 
> ...



I think you are spot on. I think the "soft lens" comes from it isn't taking the photo the way I see it or from user error. Complaints far out number complements and if someone sees a statement enough times it becomes validated by the sheer weight or repetition. I know that on this lens many of the "soft copies" came from using filters. I can tell you from experience that many long telephotos and screw on filters do not get along well no matter how high the quality of the filter. Also there may also be the issue of the lens and body needing MFA but the user not having a body that can do that.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 13, 2014)

One thing to consider is that different images may make a given lens look sharper or poor. Colors, details, lighting, etc all have a affect.

That's why standardized test charts are more reliable than individual photos at comparing lenses.

In the final analysis, if you don't like the image from your lens, then its not the right one for you, but someone else may love it.

Here is one from my 100-400mmL that I liked. I took it out the window of my car of a bird in the grass field next to my driveway, I was about 15 - 20 ft away. I don't recall how much it was cropped, bit it was cropped.


----------



## Marsu42 (Nov 13, 2014)

mnclayshooter said:


> My question is this: how do you "know" if your lens is sharp? I feel like mine is... are there any good example photos that show that you might not have a sharp copy out there? What does a sharp copy's photo look like vs a not sharp copy?



What is easily recognizable and hurts is very wrong afma and decentering. "Sharp" esp. with a wildlife lens is relative, with most of the shots 90% of the picture is out of dof. How sharp do you want your bokeh?

For the small area that is supposed to be "sharp", it much more depends on the shutter speed and/or pure luck - what good is "sharp" motion blur? Last not least, a lot of "sharpness" can be recovered if there are defined lines like the border of an eye (see aa filter discussions).

With my 70-300L, I know from some test shots that the lens is "sharp", even wide open. The reason why I cannot see this all the time is that I use ~1/500s shutter instead of ~1/2000 and higher iso. Doesn't matter as I'm the only one looking at 100% crop, even my max. res. exports are downsized at least 50%.


----------



## Freddie (Nov 13, 2014)

*Sharpness*

I consider these images adequate in sharpness if not dazzlingly so.
One is unprocessed and the other sharpened and the noise reduced. Shot with Canon 5D Mark III, handheld, full-frame, Canon 100-400L IS V.1 + Canon 1.4X TC II. ISO 2500, 1/80 @ f/8 (wide open). This is my third copy of the lens. The first copy was purchased in 2002 and was never really what I would call sharp. The second copy was sent back for a 70-200L IS f/2.8. That 70-200 was sold to purchase this copy of the 100-400. I purchased this copy as a refurbished lens from Canon Direct.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 13, 2014)

Marsu42 said:


> mnclayshooter said:
> 
> 
> > My question is this: how do you "know" if your lens is sharp? I feel like mine is... are there any good example photos that show that you might not have a sharp copy out there? What does a sharp copy's photo look like vs a not sharp copy?
> ...


 
+1

If a 100-400L is delivering poor images, check it for the above issues first.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Nov 13, 2014)

2n10 said:


> Complaints far out number complements and if someone sees a statement enough times it becomes validated by the sheer weight or repetition.



I have heard, on the internet, this being called The Internet Effect. As you posted, more complaints are posted then complements. That's just human nature. As we have seen on this and other sites, when people do post compliments about a product, they are often attacked, their experiences denigrated, and their opinions dismissed in favour of the more numerous complaints. 

There is even a fancy schmancy term for it: argumentum ad populum


----------



## mnclayshooter (Nov 13, 2014)

AcutancePhotography said:


> mnclayshooter said:
> 
> 
> > I have the 100-400 V1 lens and have used it happily for the last year or so. ...
> ...



Thanks Acutance and others for the response... I haven't really be questioning the quality of my lens... and have in fact, just been out shooting with it. I think I used it on test charts the 2 or 3 times that I've done AFMA on it (testing different methods of AMFA). 

What I was hoping to find is what people who call their copy "soft" actually use as photographic proof to describe it's softness. 

I completely agree with just using the equipment you have to it's own (or more likely your own) potential.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Nov 13, 2014)

wsheldon said:


> Good advice all around. I'm in the same boat, having purchased a 100-400 V1 over a year ago and being quite pleased with the IQ when I nail long-lens technique. I'm enticed by the better IS and MTF curves of the new model, but don't plan to switch unless something goes wrong with this one. If I did upgrade I'd be looking at a different focal length range, like the new 150-600's from Tamron and Sigma. It will be interesting to see how the new 100-400 plus 1.4 converter fares against those....



Thank you! This is exactly the same boat I'm in.


----------



## mnclayshooter (Nov 13, 2014)

Last weekend I was out in MN just before winter officially arrived Sunday night and took these photos of a muskrat getting his/her den ready for the winter. I thought they were pretty sharp given my technique needing a little improvement etc... What do you think? Any comments are definitely welcome. 

Just to note... these are essentially center crops and they're also very lightly processed to improve shadows a little. I'm at work, so I don't have the originals... one other caveat... I just downloaded these back off of my facebook page, so I'm not 100% sure the represent the original. I'll replace them tonight if I get home and see that they're significantly different.


----------



## Bennymiata (Nov 13, 2014)

I love shooting with my V1.
I love the push-pull zoom too.

However, if the new version is noticeably better, I will get one after the price comes down a little.
I bet by June next year, you'll pick one up for under $2K.


----------



## meywd (Nov 13, 2014)

I have mine for 2 months now, i got a used one for a reasonable price, when i first got it i wanted to know if it was good or not, it didn't seem to suffer any physical damage, though the cap and hood are loose, done a few test shots, and all was good, but i wanted to make sure it doesn't suffer any problem in IQ department, so i checked photos on flickr, here, and other photo sites, and asked in the flickr group for the lens if my shots are good or suffer lack of sharpness, sometimes the photos are great, especially after some sharpening, and sometimes i think there is a problem, i think it is mostly user error plus low shutter speed, plus when i see the photos coming from the big whites like the 300mm f/2.8 or the 600mm f/4 i feel like its not that good at all, but then again it was not made to compete with those, Please check the below pics, the first two are without cropping or processing:

*Edit:* Added setting to the images, and to clear it, the first two have sharpening turned off in LR instead of the default "25"

400mm f/7.1 1/640 ISO200




400mm f/6.3 1/640 ISO100




same image processed




same image processed




400mm f/6.3 1/640 ISO125




400mm f/8 1/1000 ISO800


----------



## meywd (Nov 14, 2014)

GraFax said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > I have mine for 2 months now, i got a used one for a reasonable price, when i first got it i wanted to know if it was good or not, it didn't seem to suffer any physical damage, though the cap and hood are loose, done a few test shots, and all was good, but i wanted to make sure it doesn't suffer any problem in IQ department, so i checked photos on flickr, here, and other photo sites, and asked in the flickr group for the lens if my shots are good or suffer lack of sharpness, sometimes the photos are great, especially after some sharpening, and sometimes i think there is a problem, i think it is mostly user error plus low shutter speed, plus when i see the photos coming from the big whites like the 300mm f/2.8 or the 600mm f/4 i feel like its not that good at all, but then again it was not made to compete with those, Please check the below pics, the first two are without cropping or processing:
> ...



Yeah i guess i need to test it at that speed, well here is a comparison between f/8 and f6.3 with 1:1 crops, same as above no PP and sharpness is turned off.

400mm f/6.3 1/640 ISO160





400mm f/8.0 1/640 ISO160


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 14, 2014)

meywd said:


> Yeah i guess i need to test it at that speed, well here is a comparison between f/8 and f6.3 with 1:1 crops, same as above no PP and sharpness is turned off.
> 
> 400mm f/6.3 1/640 ISO160
> 
> ...


 
The lens is capable of much sharper photos. Early 100-400's seemed more prone to being soft. About 5 years ago, owners started reporting that they were improved.

I bought a used one once several years ago, it was ok but not great, so I resold it. After owners started reporting better results, I bought a new one, and it really was a lot better.

Use of a tripod, or 1/1000 second really helps. You can use IS with much slower shutter speeds and pretty good. The image of the killdeer above was handheld with IS turned on.

Your exposure is a little high as well, so feather detail is washed out in places.


----------



## meywd (Nov 14, 2014)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> meywd said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah i guess i need to test it at that speed, well here is a comparison between f/8 and f6.3 with 1:1 crops, same as above no PP and sharpness is turned off.
> ...



yeah that picture is a good one, i will further test the lens with tripod, mirror lock and 1/2000 @ f/8 and see if it gets better, but i might try to sell it along with my 70-200 f/4 to get a used 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, and get a 2x TC later.


----------



## dgatwood (Nov 14, 2014)

GraFax said:


> Feel your pain bud. I think anyone who owns that particular lens has had the "I wonder if this is one of the lousy ones" feeling at some point.



I remember when I went through that with my 70–300L. I was getting bizarre double images on every shot. Then I tried the same shots, but without pointing through the train windows, and I couldn't reproduce the problem. Apparently, double pane safety glass windows really wreak havoc on lenses at long focal lengths. *sigh*


----------



## meywd (Dec 8, 2014)

Well, now that i have had the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS II for a while, i can post a perfect shot, it has been cloudy lately and most shots were taken right after sunrise, so there was barely enough light, also since i am still learning to use the 5D Mark III, and after getting feedback from you guys, I was mostly shooting with 1/2000 and auto ISO which lead to many ISO 12800 shots, which lead to lots of noise and soft images, anyway now i have a good light shot from a close space to compare with the 100-400, i am using the 2xTC II, btw the following shot was taken with ML dual ISO, Converted to DNG using the dual ISO LR plugin then sharpening set to 0 and exported:

400mm f/5.6 1/1250 ISO320


----------



## Ryan85 (Dec 8, 2014)

I personally feel like the 2x teleconverters take away to much sharpness. I rather just use the 100-400 v1 apposed to the 70-200 with a 2x extender. In my experience I get sharper shots that way.


----------

