# Zebra Lines in highlights of brand new Canon 100-400mm Mk2 test images



## sherlock67 (May 3, 2015)

Hi there, I have been an avit follower of Canon Rumors for a while now but have only just joined the forums.

I have recently purchased the Canon 100-400mm Mk2, having seen the rave reviews here, but on my first trip out to take some quiclk test shots noticed something unusual in a few of the test images I took.

'Zebra Lines' in the highlights of both shots, which can be seen in other parts of the shots if you look closely enough as well. In the two shots provided, just to the left of the Seagul's head and the other shot across the top of the image in the water highlights above the rock.

I have never seen this effect in any of my images before, with all my other lenses, and was just wondering if I am doing something wrong.

I had the lens set on the No 1 setting for image stabilisation, AF on and attached to my trusty Canon 50D.

Anyone have any ideas?


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 3, 2015)

Do you carry a cell phone? RF and Electrical interference with a camera, particularly a older model can be a issue, and it looks like zebra lines.


----------



## sherlock67 (May 5, 2015)

Hi there, yep I do carry my cell phone, but not 'on' me, normally. 

It may be in my camera bag on on the mount in the car, when I do. With these shots my cell phone would have probably (although I can't remember) on the mount on the car dashboard at the time. 

I was shooting from within the car, with the window down, so maybe the RF signals were being channelled through the open window 'past' the lens. Thanks for you input. Will bear that in mind in the future. 

Cheers


----------



## 9VIII (May 5, 2015)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Do you carry a cell phone? RF and Electrical interference with a camera, particularly a older model can be a issue, and it looks like zebra lines.



Sweet!

Now I need to try taking pictures with the camera on top of the microwave (or inside? *evil grin*).


----------



## sherlock67 (May 24, 2015)

I have had chance to have another play with my lens in the back garden and another shot has appeared with the zebra lines, but no cell phone anywhere near this time. 

Does anyone have any others ideas or experience? This shot was taken with Stabiliser Mode 2, 400mm at f5.6.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2015)

It looks like a less severe form of the 'nervous bokeh' for which the original 100-400 was known. 

Doesn't look like you were panning, why Mode 2 IS?


----------



## sherlock67 (May 24, 2015)

Ah...OK maybe user error then. 

For some reason I read somewhere that Mode 2 was the everyday use mode? But I have just re-googled and Mode 1 seems to be the everyday standard mode.

I will re-try again the same shot in various modes to try to re-create and see what the outcome is...but yes I was not panning at the time.

Not used to so many options, I am more of a set and forget type person, guess I may have to start thinking a little more...

Cheers


----------



## sherlock67 (May 25, 2015)

So an update to the above comment, I have now re-shot the same picture (background without the bird of course) in all the three stabiliser modes and at different apertures, but all at 400mm, shame results - zebra lines. 

It only starts to fade a little at 300mm and then more circles/swirls at 200mm rather than lines.

Any more clues before I contact Canon and see what they have to suggest?

Cheers


----------



## KateH (May 25, 2015)

That sure looks like a bokeh thing to me.

Foliage or similar organic busy backgrounds (such as the waves in the first shot you posted) are by far the most challenging out-of-focus backgrounds for lenses to render smoothly.

This is definitely not related to RF interference, and as the image looks sharp in the in-focus areas, it's almost certainly not an IS issue. 

It looks like, in those few images where the stripes appeared, you just got unlucky with the combination of background, focus distance and aperture and got strange looking spots in out-of-focus areas. This sort of thing is not at all unusual in my experience, and is why lenses like the Canon 300 f/4 (and to a lesser extent, the 70-200 f/2.8) are prized for having smooth, smooth bokeh that lets backgrounds just melt away.


----------



## sherlock67 (May 25, 2015)

Thanks for the input, just realised have not tried the lens without IS on yet, so will try that again soon. I have never experienced this until now and personally I would expect more from a $3,000 lens.

I do have the 70-200mm non IS so can't really compare the IS performance, nor the 300mm f4, I just thought it should be the same bokeh quality throughout the range from 100mm to 400mm, aperture dependant of course.

I don't have FF camera either, yet, so do not know if it is sensor size and or age (technology) related as my 50D is coming up to 7 years old now.

I must review some of the surfing shots I took with the lens, at 400mm, to see if any of those are suffering the same issues. From memory when I took them nothing stood out as being an issue.


----------



## wyldeguy (May 25, 2015)

sherlock67 said:


> Thanks for the input, just realised have not tried the lens without IS on yet, so will try that again soon. I have never experienced this until now and personally I would expect more from a $3,000 lens.
> 
> I do have the 70-200mm non IS so can't really compare the IS performance, nor the 300mm f4, I just thought it should be the same bokeh quality throughout the range from 100mm to 400mm, aperture dependant of course.
> 
> ...


And you will probably find nothing wrong with them when you go to review them. Any highlights from the water won't be out of focus since you are intentionally focusing on an object that is close to the water. You might get some in the far background but depth of field won't be as shallow as it was with the seagull since the target is farther away. Honestly in all the pictures you posted its not easy to spot. I didn't really notice with the seagull until I read where you saw them.


----------



## sherlock67 (May 25, 2015)

wyldeguy said:


> sherlock67 said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the input, just realised have not tried the lens without IS on yet, so will try that again soon. I have never experienced this until now and personally I would expect more from a $3,000 lens.
> ...


You are probably correct with the surfing shots, whilst the seagul shots are not 'that' obvious the washing line bird, and numerous others I took the next day of the same scene, were very obvious throughout the 400mm range, fading slightly in the 300mm range and near nothing in the 200mm range. 

Maybe I just need to accept that this is how it is going to be with 'fussy' backgrounds but obviously I would rather it be a smooth background.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 25, 2015)

An example of the nervous bokeh with the original 100-400L with a close, complex background.


----------



## KateH (May 26, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> An example of the nervous bokeh with the original 100-400L with a close, complex background.



Neutoanatomist nailed it. I have seen that "look" in background twigs & branches many times before. My understanding is that it results from overcorrection of spherical aberration in lenses that are optimized for wide-open performance; lens tech has advanced such that fast and/or long _primes_ can be both devoid of veiling haze at large apertures while still having smooth out-of-focus areas (this was not always the case- see pre-1990's 50mm 1.4 lenses and telephotos), but designing an ultratele zoom with dozens of elements is immensely complicated, and I'm sure Canon would rather give up some bokeh quality in exchange for extra sharpness at full aperture.


----------



## sherlock67 (May 26, 2015)

As an update I have found these two articles which seem to mirror the issues I am having. 

It's not quite 'nervous bokeh' but it seems it may stem from the UV filter I am using (yet to test as I am at work at the moment) but this link seems to show the same effect I am experiencing in my test images.

http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Wa6d

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/10-pentax-slr-lens-discussion/295477-further-testing-uv-filter-diagonal-lines-bokeh.html

I have a Hoya UV Filter on the lens (can't remember the details) but is the same one I have on other lenses (which are not affected but also not a long as 100-400mm), so I can only conclude that it is only more obvious at the longer telephoto end(s).


----------



## sherlock67 (May 29, 2015)

So to update my own question about the 'zebra lines'...after carrying out various tests with, and without UV filters on my lens, I have narrowed it down to the Hoya HMC UV(c) filters I have on two of my lenses, being the issue.

Both filters produce lines across the images, whereas either removing them means the lines go away, or testing my other Hoya PRO1 Digital Protector filter (this one does not seem to cause an issue with the images) normal bokeh in the background with no zebra stripes  but more expensive .

So in conclusion it was not down the to the lens stabiliser mode, RF interference, but purely an inferior piece of glass in front of the expensive lens elements (which as I have discovered is another argument altogether).

Now I have to decide if I splash out on three new PRO1 filters (twice as much as the one I will be replacing) or manage with the one I have and swap it over as I use the lenses?? Or try and manage without and at all and be very careful while handling my lenses.

Thanks for your help and input guys.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2015)

Thanks for sorting it out and sharing the info! I've always used B+W MRC/Nano filters, only optical consequence is a bit more flare with the sun in the frame.


----------



## sherlock67 (May 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks for sorting it out and sharing the info! I've always used B+W MRC/Nano filters, only optical consequence is a bit more flare with the sun in the frame.


Yep I have been looking at the B&W filter price (online), may just do some more testing over the weekend to see if the 'at fault filters' can still be used on my shorter lenses (16-35 f4 and 24-105 f4) as I have not 'noticed' the same striping on images from these lenses before (but I may not have been looking).

It may just be a longer (300mm to 400mm) range where the striping becomes apparent which mean I may only need to invest in one replacement filter for the 100-400mm.


----------

