Art & Photography

Personal Pages

I have been a 5D shooter since almost the day it came out. I simply love the full frame, and never looked back at the 20D, XT and 300D I had before that.

I always preferred Nikon bodies though, and was hoping someone would release a D200 body with a 5D sensor in it.

Well, that didn’t quite happen, but the new D3 had me intrigued since the day it was announced.

Last week I saw an ad on a public forum where an established member was selling an essentially brand new D3 for a very good price, so I jumped on it. I figured the way it’s backordered everywhere, if I don’t like it I won’t have any problems reselling it for the same or even a higher price.

So the D3 arrived, and the first thing I did was to put it up against my 5D to see what the hoopla is all about. I only have a 50mm 1.8 and 35mm 2.0 Nikkors, so I compared those with 50mm 1.4 and 35mm 2.0 Canons.

1. Handling and build quality

Well, there’s no contest here. While 5D is nice, it feels like a snail and 2 generations behind the D3. One thing though, although I much prefer the resolut and snappy shutter action on the D3 than the kla-chunk of the one on 5D, the D3 shutter is a lot louder.

2. Autofocus in good light.

Again, no contest. D3 will just snap in place. With a 50mm 1.8, 19 out of 20 shots will be spot-on, with 1 maybe slightly off. With the 5D and a 50mm 1.4 at f/1.8, around 10 out of 20 will be spot-on, with another 5-6 slightly off and 3-4 quite a bit OOF.

And this is all with the screw driven 50mm 1.8. Can’t wait to try some of the AF-S models.

3. Autofocus in low light.

The 5D is actually slightly better here. The center point will lock on things in low light that the D3 has a problem with, and will hunt quite a bit. 40D smokes them both in this regard.

4. AA filter

5D has a much weaker AA filter. The RAW files straight out of the camera are noticeably crisper from 5D. I used the 50mm lenses, f/10, tripod mounted, mirror lock-up, remote release. 5D shots were slightly sharper at all ISO’s, from 200 to 6400. D3 files DO sharpen better though, you can apply stronger sharpening without introducing artifacts or noise.

5. Shadow noise at low ISO

D3 is a lot better here. One thing that was a bit annoying from the start with the 5D was that even at low ISO’s, if you push the shadows too much, you’ll get noise. So for a very contrasty scene with deep shadows, if you try to bring the shadow detail out you’ll get noise in shadows even at ISO 100. Not so with the D3, you can push the shadows and sharpen and they’ll stay smooth.

6. High ISO noise

Well, this is what the big hoopla was about since D3 was announced. To be honest, I was a bit underwhelmed at first. I tested the 5D and D3 side-by-side in low incandescent light, and in low natural light. Used ACR to process both. D3 looked better, but not by much. Half a stop maybe. It had a lot less chroma noise, but I didn’t pay much attention to that, since chroma is not that hard to remove. Luma noise was around half a stop better on D3. Not bad by any means, but not spectacular either. And, as I mentioned before, the 5D files are a bit sharper at all ISO’s. But then the next day I took some real-life shots with the D3 and changed my mind:

7. Usability of high ISO shots

With the 5D, my rule of thumb was that up to ISO 800 I always used the same workflow regardless of the ISO. ACR for RAW conversion, working mostly in Lab, local contrast, CMYK shadows/highlights, selective sharpening on Luma channel in Lab, e.t.c. At ISO 1600 I had to be more careful and tone down the sharpening not to increase noise, and at ISO3200 I had to be a lot more careful. If I was very, VERY careful, with selective noise reduction and very careful selective sharpening, for some good light (but still low light) shots, I was able to get excellent ISO 6400 (ISO 1600 pushed 2 stops) with the 5D.

With the D3 the situation is better, by a stop or more. I feel like I can take an ISO3200 shot and apply my regular workflow and it still comes out looking great (no noise reduction at all). I took some ISO 6400 self-portraits and with no noise reduction and a toned-down workflow (sort of what I was doing before with ISO 1600 shots with 5D) they came out looking great. Only at ISO12800 I have to do the very careful post processing to get a good looking image. ISO12800 (ISO1600 pushed 3 stops) is pretty much useless on the 5D. The main difference is the color accuracy and color noise, high ISO shots with D3 still look great, with accurate colors and no annoying blotchy color noise. Now I can say that I am VERY impressed.

8. LCD monitor

I don’t know what the big hoopla is here. Yes, D3 LCD is nice and big and bright and it has lots of pixels. But I’ve worked with the 1D Mark III and the 40D and honestly I can’t tell the difference between the LCD’s of those three. They are all great.

9. Viewfinder

Reading the reviews and all the gushing on the Nikon forums, I was expecting something spectacular. In all honesty, the viewfinder on the D3 is maybe slightly better than the 5D, which is nothing special by FF standards. 1D Mark II looks quite a bit better to my eyes than both.

10. Live view

Well, obviously the 5D doesn’t even have this, but like I said I had a chance to play with the 1DIII and I have a 40D, so I can at least compare the execution from Nikon and Canon. I have to say that I prefer the Canon implementation. The live-view image on the D3 gets choppy when you move the camera. Non- AF-S lenses require you the move the switch on the camera to allow manual focusing, so that’s a bit clunky. But what baffles me is that once you do get the focus, when you take a shot the mirror flaps back down, then flaps back up and takes a shot. Just as loud as when you take a regular shot, and a lot more vibration from mirror slap than in the Canon implementation.

There you have it. First-had experience with both cameras. Take it for what it’s worth.

So will I make THE SWITCH? I don’t know yet. I really like the D3 but I also have an excellent collection of hand-picked outstanding quality Canon lenses (50L, 85L, 135L, 70-200IS, 16-35II, 24-105L, Tamron 28-70, Sigma 15mm FE) that will be hard to match on the Nikon side. But the outstanding optical quality of the $100 50mm 1.8 Nikkor gives me hope. I DID order the 14-24 2.8 Nikkor (it’s on the UPS truck on the way to my house as I write this, yay!), so the first thing I’ll do is compare that to the excellent 16-35 II I also have. If these new nano-coated Nikon zooms live up to the hype, I just might jump to the other Dark Side (they are both dark as far as I am concerned).

Selection Criteria

I got my Canon EOS 400D Combo (EFS 10-22 USM & EFS 17-85 IS USM) some months ago and it worked fine for everyday snaps. However, I do find its limitation when it goes to serious work during a wedding event that requires more accurate auto focusing capability and flash exposures under some low light indoor environment. I decided an upgrade and enhanced my combo for some serious work while maintening portability. Canon EOS 40D, Canon EOS 5D and Nikon D300 are in my list.

While 5D produced the best image quality in my eyes, its AF is not functioning as effective as 40D, it requires an external flash unit in order to assist on low light AF and provide filled light. The Nikon D300 is a more comparable choice, but it does cost $600 more on the body and I also need a Nikkor zoom lens (in addition to my prime collections) to meet the requirements for the exercise. After further investigation, 40D is the best choice in this situation, it works very well with my existing lenses 10-22 USM & 17-85 IS USM.

Now here is my ratings (5 is the highest mark):

Image quality: 40D=4, 5D=4.5, D300=3.5
Features: 40D=4, 5D=3, D300=4.5
Portability: 40D=4, 5D=3, D300=4
Ease of use: 40D=4, 5D=3, D300=4
Construction: 40D=4, 5D=4, D300=4
Value for money: 40D=4, 5D=4, D300=4
Overall: 40D=24, 5D=21.5, D300=24

Please be reminded that, the ranking here is totally a subjective perception, make your own judge and take your own risk if you take this serious in decision making ….

Taking a second thought, 5D is a nice camera delivers excellent details and DOF effect over a FF body, though 2-years behind in features, it probably the best camera at this resolution (well, but still a bit pricey) for landscape work and studio portrait on the right hands (I got a 5D too, see also Canon EOS 5D - Dark Angel in Digital Photography). Notice that 40D and D300 are in the same mark, but D300 is more expensive, Nikon managed to pack a set of rich features into D300, that would be very helpful and convenient, but not really critical to me (these built-in features may make the D300 looks more likely a point & shoot camera that may create lazy photographers, let the camera makes all the decisions?).

*** All I need is a balanced features camera to have my work done at the best pricing, that is Canon 40D in this case. ***

First Touch

40D has a bigger body, I find it fitting well in my hands, it still maintains portability, I don’t have problem to bring the new combos during travel and outdoor works. 40D works responsively, AF always provides instant focus lock and performs much better under low light over 400D. Flash exposures are in accurate result.

How did it work in the wedding event? It delivered very nice result with my 17-85 IS USM in terms of AF and sharpness, locked at f/8, iso400 (considered as a noise free sensitivity level) with filled flash. In fact, at f/8, 40D & 17-85 IS produces very sharp out of camera images, I would have to set it wide open at f/4 or f/5.6 to keep it a bit soft in order to prevent “defeats on face” from being noticeable ….. can it be better? yes, it saves me some processing work for white balance correction if custom white balance was used for indoor shots. And perhaps, I would have more consistent result if I could have the 24-105 to shoot fixed at f/4 during the indoor session, even better, if I could have a 50/1.4 prime shoot wide open at f/2 & f/2.8 for some close up portrait, guess that would make a real difference? I will tell you later ….

Inspiration

I would say 40D is the best choice for serious amateurs at this moment for its price level, overall capability, performance and image quality, particularly, I don’t have hesitation to shoot default at iso400, iso800 delivers very good result, iso1600 is also very usable. That is at least one-stop over the 400D in higher iso performance. I do test drive 40D at iso3200 and spent sometimes to play around the RAW (and you better shoot RAW!) conversion features provided by Canon DPP (Digital Photo Professional) program come with my 40D, it is a handy tools that provides some simple options, including exposure compensation & noise reduction. With proper exposure and handling in DPP, the image from Canon EOS 40D at iso3200 and iso6400 (check the samples pictures) can be also usable. In fact 40D is my first camera that produces images at this level I would keep for further processing work.

So higher iso performance is just a matter of marketing game? or something to do? The higher iso capability definitely gives an overall improvement on photography options. Firstly, at the same exposure amount, a smaller aperture can be used, this ensures subjects are in the DOF coverage for sharpness, it also means a higher shutter speed is possible to freeze actions. Most lenses go to their sweet aperture after stopped down 1-2 stops, the higher iso sensitivity also makes the optimal setup easier. On the other hand, you may use lower speed lens, and thus less investment (Canon, Nikon and all other lenses manufacturers would probably disagree on that …. :P).

Optimization

Am I lucky? Among more than 10 millions pixels, I find there is probably **1** dead pixel on my 40D, well, this spot is not visible in everyday work. I am not intended to call Canon for a new replacement, guess it would be very likely to have a copy with more dead pixels…. …. and here is the simple test: put len cap on, iso=100, M focus, 30 second exposure. Then change the level or change the color to gray in PS, view at 100%, then you can find how many dead pixel you have.

I am not intended to make any complaint on the 40D here, but would like to mention that its the 2nd unit I have, loaded with firmware version 1.05. The first unit has dead display in the view finder, it could not show shutter speed properly, I suppose that is manufacturing defeats, Canon has running into trouble with quality control?

Coming back to real life work, I decided to have 40D configuration set for best possible image quality at a trade off the continuous shooting performance (I don’t need 6fps at 95% of the time). I would also avoid shooting at iso3200 (huh?! surprised to learn that most pictures in this article were captured at iso3200?!). Now my 40D has the custom function setting “C.Fn II: Image” options all at the value “1″, that means, in-camera noise reduction (it does great job, and save time for post processing) is on for long and high ISO speed exposures. The highlight tone priority feature also helps to mainten hightlight details from being over-exposured. I also set my 40D to record RAW + JPEG in creative modes that I used over 95% of the time.

Should you switch too? Don’t get me wrong, 400D has its own position, it costs in half price for beginner and good for those want maximum portability for everyday snaps. In fact, I would have my 400D as backup body and keep the 17-85 attached for quick snaps. And the 40D would serve as my main camera with the 10-22 for wide shot (check the sample pictures) that I do about 70% of the time, I am going to share some more work captured from this new 40D wide-combo during a trip soon, come and visit this page a month later you would find more samples.

What Next

40D really opens a new path that Canon is going to win me more on lens investment. I would probably acquire some EF L lens, such as Canon EF 24-105/4L IS USM as default lens on my 40D and Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens for lower available light environment.

Why EF L lenses? Though I am not intended to have a Canon FF body in the short future, I expected EF lenses are working better on cropped body like 40D over FF body like 5D concerning vignetting, I also want a high quality lens for serious work on my 40D. In fact, with a EF lens on my 40D, it is running with the best portion of the glass for greater edges and cornors image quality, the problem is more costly.

Why EF 24-105/4L IS USM? This is an interesting lens, though not wide enough on the 40D, I find it a great lens for portrait and outdoor works, in particular, it is sharp wide open at f/4 which I find the best aperture for portrait. It also becomes a nice complementary lens with my 10-22. Some people would prefer the 24-70/2.8, a faster lens in similar range. For my style, I find the extended focal length and IS feature from 24-105 gives more advantages over the 1-stop faster 24-70 at most of the time.

If I have to go into shooting moving subjects or actions, I would always prefer one stop higher usable ISO level (thus double the shutter speed) instead of one stop faster lens, not only because the faster lens is more expensive and bulky, but also a bigger aperture means shallow DOF coverage and subjects are more likely at risk being out of sharpness. Lenses at f/2.8 and faster are good to work with sensors (some work at f/5.6 and some need f/2.8 or faster) for tracking subjects during continuous shooting. Some people would also love to produce special blur background effect given by a very shallow DOF.

And I would have the EF 50mm f/1.4 USM run on my 40D for low light, portrait work or when I need a shallow DOF effect, it will perform nicely at f/2 and f/2.8.

A Long Story

It has been a long wish since my first professional body Nikon D1x to have it shoot in low light (the acceptable sensitivity level is iso400), and it ended up running with wide open aperture, the result is not really up to my expectation.

I have been seeking my next advanced camera for ever best image quality, in particular, in terms of pulling out excellent details and delivering great image quality under lower light environment, it will also serve me mainly for landscape and portrait work.

I have been waiting for a while with hope that there will be one out soon that meets all my expectations (no surprise, it always fails, and I skipped the Nikon D2 series). But with the recent higher-pixel, higher-iso and FF (Full Frame refers to the use of the full film gate at maximum width and height for 35 mm film cameras) revolution in digital cameras, I finally have my shortlist - Canon 1Ds Mark III, Canon 5D and Nikon D3.

After some months of investigation, it comes up into a score chart (5 is the highest mark). Please be reminded that, the ranking here is totally a subjective perception, make your own judge and take your own risk if you take this serious in decision making.

Image quality: 5D=4.5, IDsM3=4, D3=4
Features: 5D=3, IDsM3=4, D3=5
Portability: 5D=4, IDsM3=3.5, D3=3.5
Ease of use: 5D=3.5, IDsM3=4, D3=4
Construction: 5D=4, IDsM3=4.5, D3=4.5
Value for money: 5D=4, IDsM3=3, D3=4
Overall: 5D=23, IDsM3=23, D3=25

Falling in Love

And now you know what, I picked the Canon 5D, is that strange? How come it was not the latest camera at the status-of-the-art technologies like Nikon D3 (for its amazing performance capturing light in darkness and shooting like machine gun to freeze actions?) and why not the 21MP ever high pixel FF digital camera Canon 1Ds Mark III? Yes, I like all of them, I would want all cameras with me, but it turns out that I only fall in love with the Canon 5D.

If I just followed the score chart, I would have had the Nikon D3, which in fact is a reasonable choice, since I already have a nice set of Nikkor prime lenses (10.5/2.8 fisheye, 18/2.8, 28/1.4, 45/2.8, 85/1.4, 200/4 & 300/4). The D3 should produce some very nice result with them in low light environment.

But that is not a simple case, I find the Canon 5D has an edge over all others in terms of “gentle & smooth”, it delivers an output most favorite to my eyes, in fact, it is a please to see the smoothness, not to mention with exceptional details delivered, the 5D is very good both in the landscape and portrait applications. Yes, a very subjective perception? And I am not sure if that could be quantified in a technical expression, but I am confident that I see something inside that makes the 5D unique. Perhaps that is the reason we are different and *STILL* in a world of wonder?!

5D is far from being my “perfect” camera, it has 2-years behind in features and in a relatively lower performance in operations. I have asked myself if I should keep waiting again for something new? …… not this time, though Canon may eventually release something like 5D Mark II, it will be in a completely new design with a new sensor, that is totally another story.

Being a rational man with a mind set seeking value and optimization, I always take a second thought, D3 is about double the cost of the 5D, the additional costs goes to a better built body packing with a rich set of features and exceptional high performance in terms of frame rates. Unfortunately, they are not critical to me, I rarely shoot sports and moving subjects. At this price level, I would prefer to have the 5D body and some more decent Canon EF L lenses. I also acquired the optional battery grip that makes 5D the only FF body available in a more portable advantage over 1Ds Mark III and D3.

On the other hand, I already have a 1.6x Canon 40D (see also Canon EOS 40D for Serious & Everyday Work) serving as a everyday work horse at better portability, the FF Canon 5D will set this into a very good combo, they can share the decent EF L lenses (and just discovered that the 5D is using same type of battery and charger for 40D), and I would enjoy the advantages from both worlds.

Engagement

Well, Canon 5D, I caught my dark angel! Is it up to my expectation? Yes and no.

I ended up to have my 5D kit (24-105/4 lens), 2nd battery, the battery grip and a 8GB flash memory. It is a nice touch recall my feel with pro body, nice handling (I find the 5D kit with the battery grip in very good balance) … but what a relatively much slower machine than my 40D in general operations, downloading my very first pictures to PC is longer than expected. Fortunately, the center AF point is working effectively up to my expectation with 24-105/4 in most case under low light, not that much behind 40D.

Immediately discovered the advantages and disadvantages of FF body, clarity image, but now I have to get used to bad corners. My sensor and viewfinder are absolutely clear, see if it would start to collect dusts in the very soon future (though I am a very careful person).

And I was wondering for a while on the hot pixels (2 big & 7 small identified), but they are not actually visible generally by iso800 at 1 second exposure. By iso3200 at 1/10s, it can hardly tell there is a hot one, this makes the iso3200 a true usable setup (well, I am not going to call for a replacement, guess this is about the 5D quality standard from Canon?).

If you have a child, there are many occasions when you
might need or want a child photographer. Child photography is often very
sought-after because everyone wants to capture the special moments of his or her
own child. The moments of childhood are so ephemeral and fleeting that everyone
wants film evidence of the beauty of youth. Although parents can easily take
photographs of their children themselves, and often do, sometimes professional
quality pictures are desired, and sometimes parents are too involved in the
activities of the day to be concerned with capturing the special candid moments.

Child Photographer: How to Choose

If you are looking for a child photographer just for
special occasions and arranged photographs, such as those taken in a studio, you
have many options. Many photographing studios have special child photographers
that are experienced and talented with handling children, getting them to relax
and smile, and capturing their unique spirit, energy, and beauty. When looking
for a child photographer, if you want to make sure that you are getting exactly
what you want, ask to see previous work by the photographer—pictures taken of
children. You can learn a great deal about a photographer by examining
photographs he or she has taken before and decide if his or her stylistic
inclinations are what you are imagining.

Another type of child photographer you might be
interested in is an onsite photographer—one that takes photographs of your child
or family at special occasions, birthday parties, etc. Again, if you want to
ensure that the photographs will be quality prints, it is recommended that you
carefully choose a photographer. A good child photographer will obviously be
someone who loves children and interacting with them, someone who has an eye for
special shots, and someone who can blend into the background so that his or her
presence does not interrupt the natural flow of actions or emotions of the
child. Again, ask to see previous work and start with a less important occasion
so that you can make sure the photographer is the one you want.

You’ve finally got everybody together for a family photography session. The
kids have been wrestled into clean dress clothes, and your feuding in-laws have
called a truce for the afternoon. Everything is set. Deciding against using a
professional photographer, you came to the conclusion that you can do just as
well with your own camera. How hard could it be, right? Before you start
snapping those photos, you will want to take a look of some of our tips to make
sure your photographs turn out just as attractive and creative as those
expensive professional shots.

During this family photography gathering, you should not
only pay attention to the people being photographed, but the background as well.
A bad or boring background can ruin an otherwise perfect picture. It is a good
idea to not have things perfectly balanced. For example, it would be a bad idea
to have a tree in the left side of the picture with a similar one on the right.
When things are too equal, it makes for a dull picture. Likewise, if you
position a single object in the background, it should not be set dead center.
This little trick will keep your background from being lifeless and
uninteresting.

Positioning people follows a similar rule. When posing
your family for a group shot, everybody should not be in the same pose or on the
same level. Keep some standing, some sitting on a stool or other high surface,
and others kneeling. Not everyone must sit straight ahead, facing the camera.
Play around with the poses until you have everyone a little different, while
making sure everybody’s face is visible. This variation will keep your family
photograph from resembling static school photographs where everyone is made to
look the same. With these helpful hints, your family photographs are sure to
shine.

Does anyone really expect that a 21.1 megapixel camera would not handily outperform a 12.1 megapixel camera in terms of resolution? Field shooting today in multiple trials leaves no doubt, but there is considerably more to the story than just resolution. Stay tuned for a body-to-body comparison of the Nikon D3 with the Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III (the resolution aspect).

Some will cry “foul!” that comparing the two cameras is wrong because of the mismatched resolution, but it’s just as reasonable as comparing a DX sensor camera to a full-frame camera as I did in D2x vs EOS (still highly instructive even if those cameras aren’t on your shopping list). For anyone considering a full-frame digital camera, The D3 and 1DsM3 are the two contenders, and there are numerous aspects to “performance” beyond resolution. Anyway, one is free to not read anything that disrupts cherished cognitive commitments.

I’ve now made three different A/B field comparisons between the 12.1MP Nikon D3 and 21.1MP Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III. In all three cases, the results seen are highly consistent, with the 1DsM3 showing higher resolving power.

The Canon EOS 1Ds Mark III is the resolution champ. Does anyone really expect that a 21.1-megapixel camera would not handily outperform a 12.1-megapixel camera in terms of resolution? Field shooting today in multiple trials leaves no doubt, but there is considerably more to the story than just resolution.

The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
Lens has an excellent focal length range that includes the longest focal
length found in a Canon zoom lens. This long focal length and focal length range
combine with very good image and build quality to make the 100-400 one of the
most popular serious wildlife and sports lenses Canon sells.
 
To say that the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens is a member of the
Canon L Series quickly says a lot about this lens. Weighing 3 lb (1,380g) and
measuring 3.6" x 7.4" (92.0 x 189.0)(DxL retracted), the 100-400 is solidly
built and feels like it.
 
The push/pull zoom mechanism is possibly the most noticeable physical
feature of this lens. While it works smoothly, it took me some time to get used
to it. There is a ring on the back of the manual focus ring that adjusts the
tension on the zoom part of the lens. That is a nice feature, but I find myself
constantly adjusting the tension to get it just right for the moment. The ring
also gets in the way of the manual focus ring - when making a manual focus
adjustment, I often inadvertently change the zoom friction ring as well. Set the
zoom friction too light and the lens extends by itself when pointed downward -
fast and hard if set really loose. Set the friction too tight and zooming
becomes difficult. So, it works as it is supposed to. Some prefer the push/pull
design.
 
Some may consider the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens to be a slow
(aperture) lens. Starting at f/4.5, the 100-400 goes to f/5 around 130mm and
finally to f/5.6 at approximately 250mm. A 100mm f4.5 lens is slow, but a 400mm
f5.6 is not too bad (relatively speaking). Actually, to buy a faster 400mm lens
will cost you a significant additional amount of money.
 
One of my favorite lens features found on the 100-400 is image stabilization.
The image stabilizer helps significantly when handholding in low light -
that is as long as you have a still subject. Keep in mind that the version of IS
on this lens needs to be turned off when tripod-mounted. Not doing so may cause
the image stabilizer to act erratically. You can estimate IS on this lens to
help with 2 stops or so of shutter speed handholdability.
 
The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens is slightly soft in the center
wide open at the shorter focal lengths, but gets very sharp when stopped down
one f-stop. My 100-400 is sharp wide open when the wide open aperture becomes
f/5.6 (250mm or so) and is very sharp wide open at 400mm. Full frame corners are
sharp wide open at all focal lengths with 200mm being slightly soft. Corners
show slight improvement at a one f-stop narrower aperture. Considering the focal
length range of this lens, the sharpness delivered is simply excellent.

 
The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens' color and contrast are
excellent. An 8-blade aperture helps with bokeh (foreground/background blur
quality). Distortion ranges from mild barrel at 100mm to minor pincushion from
135-200mm to mild pincushion from 300-400mm. CA (Chromatic Aberration) is well
controlled. Exposures are in line with my expectations. Flare has not been an
issue for me with this lens.
 
The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens' biggest negative to me
personally is the strong vignetting noticeable toward the long end of the zoom
range on a full frame body. At 400mm f/5.6, slight vignetting is even noticeable
on a 1.6x FOVCF body. This exception aside, vignetting is very well controlled.

 
Equipped with Ring USM, the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens focuses
very fast, quietly - and possibly most importantly - accurately. FTM (Full Time
Manual) focus is enabled. The manual focus ring has a small amount of play in
it. The 100-400 obviously extends with focal length increase, but less obvious
from the picture below is that it is an internally focusing lens - it does not
change lengths or rotate an attached filter.

The above picture shows the Canon EF
70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM Lens (left) compared to the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6
L IS USM Lens extended and retracted along with their included-in-the-box lens
hoods. Both lenses have Wimberley P20 Lens Plates mounted on them.
 
The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens is shipped with an ET-83C Lens
Hood as mentioned above. A nice Canon LZ1324 padded case is also included.
Filter size is the common-to-Canon-L-zoom-lens 77mm. This lens is not
weather-sealed.
 
With a minimum focus distance of 5.9' (1.8m), the 100-400 turns in a mediocre
.2x maximum magnification. Adding extension tubes to a long focal length lens
does not make a great difference in maximum magnification. In this case, the
12mm and 25mm tubes respectively take maximum magnification to .19x (lower) and
.35x. No, 70mm is not a long focal length - but the maximum native magnification
is achieved at 400mm - which is a long focal length. Better close-up results are
had with a Canon 500D Close-up Lens.
 
Compatibility with the Canon Extender EF 1.4x II and Canon Extender EF 2x IIadds
to the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens' already-high versatility.
Canon's DSLR bodies retain autofocus with lenses as narrow as f/5.6 (1-Series
bodies will AF with f/8 lenses with the center focus point-only). With the 1.4x
attached, the 100-400 exceeds this aperture opening AF requirement - only
1-series bodies retain autofocus. Some use pin-taping tricks to make the camera
AF (it is very slow - even on a 1-Series body), but I'll the implications of
this method up to you to determine. Added barrel distortion, CA and a dark
viewfinder are additional 1.4x downsides. With the 2x extender attached, the
viewfinder is very dark and autofocus is not supported by any Canon bodies. The
resulting focal length range of 200-800mm is definitely eye-catching, but … I
seldom use extenders with my 100-400 L …
 
… But I use my Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens a lot. The range of
uses for this lens are huge …
 
The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens may be the perfect Canon Zoo
Lens. The 100-400 is also popular at air shows.
 
There is a large number of in-the-field wildlife being captured with the
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens. 400mm is long enough to reach some
of the smaller and more distant critters (including birds) - especially on a
high FOVCF camera.
 
The Canon 100-400 L is often the lens I grab when a beautiful sunset is
occurring. There is not much time to capture the spectacle of a setting sun -
the 100-400mm focal length range can grab a wide variety of framed shots in a
short amount of time.
 
The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens' wide focal length range makes it
an excellent landscape lens. Landscape photography generally doesn't
require a fast lens. The wide zoom range on the 100-400 allows widely varied
captures of a single scene.
 
The Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens' focal length range would make it
the perfect sports lens if it were not for the relatively-slow-for-sports
f/4.5-f/5.6 aperture. As it is, the 100-400 works great for sports photography
in decent light. You can work a wide range of distances with a single lens. This
is a popular watersports lens - IS helps settle a bumpy boat ride.
 
There are many portraits lenses - and the 100-400 works well for this as
well. The longer focal lengths provided by this lens make it good for
medium-to-very-tight portraits. With this lens, it is easy to capture candid
shots of people from longer distances.
 
The wide focal length range and long max focal length make the Canon EF
100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens a highly versatile and a very
popular lens. This is one of the lenses I most-frequently recommend.

The Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Lens
is a mid-grade long telephoto zoom lens.
 
Introduced in 1990, the Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Lens is built
reasonably well. The finish does not appear modern, but the build quality is
decent. A metal lens mount shows that the 100-300 is not a bottom-of-the-line
lens.
 
AF is very fast and quiet. The Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Lens utilizes
Ring USM (Ultrasonic Motor) focusing, and FTM (Full Time Manual) focusing is an
included feature. The MF (Manual Focus) ring is very small and wobbly - It is
not as easy to use as it could be.
 
The zoom ring, on the other hand, is too easy to use. The Canon EF 100-300mm
f/4.5-5.6 USM Lens will extend all by itself when hanging downward.
 
At 1.2 lbs, the Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Lens is a mid-weight lens. It
feels substantial in your hand.
 

 
From left to right in the picture above are the Canon EF 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II
Lens, Canon EF 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6 II USM Lens, Canon EF 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 USM
Lens, Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Lens and Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM
Lens. The same lenses are pictured below extended to their maximum length.
 

 
Featuring an 8-blade aperture (very good), the Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
Lens is not a fast lens. Starting at f/4.5, quickly moving to f/5.0 around 115mm
and on to f/5.6 near 180mm. Handholding this lens at 300mm is going to require
lots of light or high ISO settings to get shutter speeds high/short enough to
prevent camera motion blur.
 
Combining a long minimum focusing distance (4.9') with a high focal length, the
Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Lens turns in a mediocre .2x magnification
ability.
 
I found 100-300's sharpness to be decent (not excellent) when stopped down at
least one stop from maximum at most focal lengths.
 
Vignetting is well controlled with 300mm f/5.6 showing the worst performance in
this regard. CA (Chromatic Aberration) is also well controlled but apparent at
the long end. Slight pincushion distortion is visible at most focal lengths even
on a 1.3x FOVCF body.
 
The Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM Lens provides reasonable optical quality in
a wide focal length range with fast Ring USM autofocus for a reasonable price.