Lenses

It’s almost certainly a fault. This is an L series lens too.
I’ve borrowed this exact lens and found it to be the best I’ve ever used. Almost immediate focus speed, steady as a rock whilst on IS. Sharp as a carpet tack where I needed it. Personally I don’t care about the outer edges as (a) there’s not usually much photo interest out there (b) I crop. However, I didn’t notice too many faults at the outer part of the photo – be it at the 100 or 400 end.

I don’t actually have the 100-400 but I have spent a fair bit of time shooting with it. If it’s suddenly started going crazy then it might well be a fault of some kind, but it can certainly jump around in what seem like odd ways at times even normally! Maybe try giving Canon a quick email and ask whether this is something that happens sometimes to the 100-400?

Trumper, when you say it’s started “jumping around” do you mean you can see visible movement in the viewfinder when you have IS on? If so this is perfectly normal for IS lenses. They all do it and you notice it more on telephoto lenses like the 100-400. 🙂

Hi 🙂 It never used to do it and this is quite violent,the whole image flicks around,almost unusable when it does do it.It doesn’t do it all the time,last time i used it it didn’t do it at all.I wonder whether it is a connection or battery problem. Just out of interest what is the description when yours does it?

My Canon Sureshot has a 10:1 lens and it give precisely the results I would expect, ie barrel distortion at the shorter end of the range and lot of pincushion distortion at the upper.

You do realise there’s a vast difference between the lens on a point and shoot camera and something like the Sigma 50-500? Comparing your Canon Sureshot to such a lens is like driving a London bus and expecting it to perform like a DB7. They’re just not the same thing and they’re absolutely not “much of a muchness”! Regardless of what AP says (which I also read) try a few SLR lenses before forming a judgement. It really isn’t fair to write off some of the most versatile lenses in the world based on the performance of a P&S.

Trumper, when you say it’s started “jumping around” do you mean you can see visible movement in the viewfinder when you have IS on? If so this is perfectly normal for IS lenses. They all do it and you notice it more on telephoto lenses like the 100-400. 🙂

🙂 I have got the 100-400 L IS lens.I haven’t used the other so cant compare.I have found the lens to be very good especially if you shoot RAW and sharpen up.
My lens has started jumping about when the I S is used so i think it may have to go back in to be looked at some point.
Personally it is a heavy lens for everyday use,the slide zoom i find a pain but you do get used to it.
Overall a very good lens and they do seem to hold their price.
To be honest you need to try them both for yourself to be sure. 🙂

Canon sliders, if you get a “Friday afternoon” one it can drag a lot of dust in, caused by the slight vacuum created…….especially if slid(?) quickly.
Some members of my camera club have experienced this.

As for not being an expert in Photoshop, you must be using some sort of photo-processing????……..as all digital images need some sort of sharpen and/or saturation boost.

10:1 is too much in what way? There are plenty of photographers worldwide using lenses with a zoom ratio of 10:1 or greater to great effect. I have 2 such lenses and get excellent results from both, so I’m not quite understanding your reasoning for thinking it’s too much. :confused:

My Canon Sureshot has a 10:1 lens and it give precisely the results I would expect, ie barrel distortion at the shorter end of the range and lot of pincushion distortion at the upper. Also colour saturation is notably diminished at the upper end. It doesn’t matter to me because I tend only to use a stills camera for recording nowadays but if it did then I would go back to an SLR and have three lenses to cover the range.

If you look at the lens tests published in ‘Amateur Photographer’ you will find that these results from such a lens are the norm. Some lenses do a little better than others, but they are all much of a muchness. Personally I’m perfectly satisfied with my Canon, it is fit for the purpose I have for it, but if I wanted to emulate some of the utterly superb photos that are published in these threads, then I would definitely need an SLR with a long zoom with a 3:1 range. (I would also need to be a virtuoso with Photoshop which I would prefer not to be but that is another issue!)

Regards

10:1 is too much in what way? There are plenty of photographers worldwide using lenses with a zoom ratio of 10:1 or greater to great effect. I have 2 such lenses and get excellent results from both, so I’m not quite understanding your reasoning for thinking it’s too much. :confused:

I think a 10:1 zoom is too great a ratio for stills although it would be OK for video because of the lower resolution of the TV screen. 3:1 is better for photography.

I’d be a little concerned however about the report of unreliability of the Canon lens. Is there an alternative to both of these lenses?

Regards

Have owned both of the above lens, the Sigma as the best range.
i do miss the 50mm end a lot.

Shooting recently at RAF Cottesmore with the 100-400 i cannot get a full side on shot of the Harriers when on the wait point, i can with 50mm.

all super zooms suffer at the long end. the 100-400 suffers around 350mm-400mm.
the Sigma over 430mm -500mm.

Both give very good results, the Canon is a little sharper, but its not as sharp
as the Sigma at 50mm or 500mm as it does not go there.

Tha Canon is very prone to failure of its Image stablizer system and also its locking ring, reapairs are costly with only 12 months warranty on Canon.

Not any issues with the Sigma, 2 years warranty with these i think?.

One thing to be aware of if using a 50D is the fact that the more pixels you pack onto a camera sensor the sharper your lenses need to be to resolve the extra detail the sensor is capable of producing. In this sense the 100-400 *may* give slightly better results, although to be entirely honest there probably won’t be much in it. Just something else to possibly bear in mind though!

1. Canon EF 100-400mm F/4.5-5.6 L IS USM
2. Sigma 50-500mm F/4.5-6.3 DG APO OS HSM Ca
Maikel

Hoi Maikel,

I’m using the 100-400L and got no issues at all. If you want to discuss on MSN (so we can more easily share real-size photos) send me your adress through as PM.

Can the quality of the Canon lens with my camera be used from some cropping?

It does so easily on my 30D, so your newer 50D should have no problems whatsoever.

The Sigma has 100mm more mm’s on paper, but what is really the difference in the picture, if you go from 100mm to 200mm, it is clear to see, even 200mm to 300mm, but 400 to 500?

No significant difference. I have not yet missed the extra 100mm at Schiphol. Also, the slide-zoom goes faster then the twist-zoom, which is in my opinion more important then a few more MMs. The photos at the higher end of zoom are usually heathazed to death anyway, unless your going for close-ups and in those case moving a step or two forward will yield the same result.

edited to add:
PMN’s point of the 50MM at the bottom end is very good and one I had not considered!

Hi Maikel,

I’ve owned the 50-500 for around 4 and a half years (albeit the previous version) and I’ve also spent quite a bit of time shooting with the 100-400. I had the same choice and for me the decision was swayed by the fact the 50-500 has another 50mm at the wide end. In all truth the extra 100mm of the 50-500 is next to useless in practice; you generally find zoom lenses less sharp at their extremes, particularly at the tele end and especially with ‘superzoom’ lenses in the order of x10 like the 50-500. I never really use my 50-500 above 400mm because firstly you need a quicker shutter speed to avoid camera shake (not always easy in the UK!) and secondly it just isn’t all that reliable at those focal lengths and the results are often unusably soft, so it’s generally better to hold back a little, get a sharp shot and crop in a bit. In terms of quality the 100-400 has a slight edge; it’s a little sharper and the exposure tends to be a more accurate than the 50-500 but you may find only having 100mm at the ‘wide’ end quite limiting. To a point this will mean you just change the way you shoot slightly, but I’d recommend going through your photos and checking the focal lengths in the EXIF data to see what you tend to use the most.

So overall:

100-400:- Generally very good image quality but possibly limiting in terms of focal length.

50-500:- More than acceptable quality if handled well, has the ability to cover a huge range of focal lengths so can be a tremendously fun lens to use but is generally next to useless at the extreme tele end.

I’d say the main thing to base your decision on is which range of focal lengths is of most use to you. Neither lens has any inherent real quality issues (except possibly the 50-500 above 400mm) so I’d basically say if you need the wide end go for the Sigma, if you don’t then the Canon would be a fine choice. 🙂

Paul

Thanks

35-210 6x zoom / 38-380 10x zoom / 28-300 10.7x zoom

In this case it is the focal lenth of the lens as if it was equivalent to a lens used with a 35mm full frame film camera/lens combination. Since the sensor size in a compact EVF digitals are of smaller sizes than a full frame 35mm film (36mm x 24mm), the manufacturers manufacture them with smaller lenses (for cost as well as ergonomic reasons). They then convert these sizes to show equivalent size as if the sensor/lens combo was a full frame 35mm. The size difference between a digital sensor and a full frame 35mm film is known as the ‘focal lenght multiplier’. Manufactures multiply the FLM with the actual focal lenght of the lens to arrive at 35mm equivalents. A lens’ focal lenght describes the distance between the front of the lens to the sensor/film in mm, it is reduced in proportion to the FLM in digicams.

6x 10x etc… refer to the optical zoom factor of the lens. Optical zoom = maximum focal lenght / minimum focal lenght ie 210/35 = 6x; 380/38 = 10x ; 300/28 = 10.7x and so on.

f2.8-8, f3.2-3.5, f2.8-4.9

Describes how wide the iris (aperture) will open within the lens body at stated ‘zoom’. A 35-210 f2.8-8 describes a lens which in 35mm full frame equivalence is a zoom lens of 35mm-210mm, AND for this particular lens at 35mm focal lenght the iris (or what is more commanly known as the aperture) within the lens has a widest opening of f2.8, when the lens is fully zoomed to its 210 mm focal lenght equivalent the widest opening you can get is f8. The smaller this f number the larger the opening.

The numbers and the opening are inversely proportional and decrease with the increase in the diameter of the aperture and vice versa. This is because the f number describes the ratio of the aperture opening to the diameter of the lens body. For instance an aperture of f1.4 indicates the widest diameter of the aperture is about half the diameter of the lens body – so it will admit half as much light as compared to if the aperture was set at f1. Therefore f1:1.4 (or simply f1.4) describes an aperture of about 1/2 the width of the lens diameter, 1:2.0 (f2) describes an aperture of about 1/4 the width of the lens diameter and so on. To increase the aperture multiply by the sq root of 2 (1.41) and to decrease the aperture divide by the sq root of 2 (1.41).

On conventional 35mm lenses you will get apertures such as 1.4; 2; 2.8; 4; 5.6; 8; 11; 16 and so on. Smaller cheaper glass may not follow the same progression, but will follow the sq root of 2 formula.

f numbers are calculated based on the the sq root of 2. why? because you are calculating the area of a circle, and to reduce the area by half you divide the area by the sq root of 2. Every demarcation of the aperture is known as a f-stop. With the opening doubled (by 1 f-stop), the light that enters the sensor is also doubled. It means that the shutter speed can be halved to get the same exposure. This also applies vice versa – with the opening halved the light reaching the sensor will also be halved, therefore the shutter speed will have to be doubled to get the same exposure. A slower shutter speed means more detail is captured in the image.

Hence the terms fast and slow lens. A lens described as f1.4 is twice as fast as a lens decribed a f2, 4 times as fast as a lens described a f2.8, 8 times as fast as a lens described as f4 and so on.

How does this effect your photography? Lets assume you have 2 identical cameras, however on one you have attached an f1.4 (faster) lens and on the other you have attached an f2 (slower!) lens. If you use the f1.4 camera its light meter decides the picture will be properly exposed at f1.4 with a shutter speed of 1/500(th of a second). Immedaitely after this using the camera with an f2 lens you will get an exposure reading of f2 and a shutter speed of 1/1000(th of a second). If your second camera is not capable of shutter speeds of 1/1000 then your shot will be underexposed. You will loose detail in the shadows as well as end up with an overall dark picture. If the second camera is capable of 1/1000 shutter speed, it will capture less detail than the camera exposing at 1/500 shutter speed.

To compensate modern digicams boost their ISO (in the case of digicams an increase in ISO means they increase the sensitivity of the sensor). This comes with a downside, higher ISOs also show higher noise (random patterns of colour) in the image. This is specially prevalent in the smaller sensors of the compact digicams. SLR digicams usually have bigger sensors (which means bigger pixel size and hence more sensitivity, and less noise).

Of the 3 cameras you describe on the face of it I would first pick the 28-300mm, F2.8-4.9 (10.7x zoom) – even though it states 10.7x it actually has a 35mm focal lenght of 28-300 which is less than the 38-380 10x focal lenght of the second camera, but it has a wider angle lens and it is also faster at its widest angle. However I would also check this and see what the aperture of this lens is at 38mm. If it is the same as the second one (38-380 mm, F3.2-3.5 10x zoom) ie f3.2, I would choose the second one, even though it has a smaller ‘zoom’ it has an overall faster lens. You can always purchase after market accessories to increase the zoom factor. That however is my personal opinion, I initially weigh the wide angle capability and the speed of the lens more heavily than the stated max zoom.

In addition you should also compare the sensor sizes of the cameras. As a rule of thumb, the larger the sensor size the better the quality of the picture, the less the observable noise and the more details you can capture. A nikon D70 with its larger sensor and 6 Mp rating takes better pictures than my nikon coolpix 8700 with is 8 mp rating and smaller sensor.

In any case buying any camera is a compromise between you really want, what you can afford, and what situations you want to use the camera for. You have to decide what is important for you and which features you can live without, and for that you should use the the sensor size, the speed and the focal lenghts of the lens as unbiased data points.

As a general rule – the greater the zoom range the more compromises have to be accepted in lens quality – so you are more likely to get better performance from a 6x zoom than a 10x – all other things being equal – which they never are! In normal use – as you say these cameras have other differences which will have a great effect on picture quality. Before I bought an S5000 I downloaded sample photos from the Fuji and others – the S7000 was ruled out due to the 210 zoom – I concentrated on the cameras with 10x zooms in the same price range and found it difficult to pick an overall winner in regard to quality – I just liked to Fuji results more.

Thanks, I think – so is the S7k’s lens actually better than the S5.6k? and the S9k better again?

I guess it’s a stupid question, because other factors come into play. The S7k & S9k are more expensive, and have better CCDs, more pixels, etc.

What does this mean, to the layman:

35-210mm, F2.8-8 (6x Zoom)

and how does it compare with this

38-380 mm, F3.2-3.5 10x zoom

and this:

28-300mm, F2.8-4.9 (10.7x zoom)?

You are not comparing like with like here. The S7000 has an F2.8-3.1 lens – ie it is has a maximum aperture of F2.8 at 35mm and F3.1 at 210mm (as you no doubt know this is not the actual focal length of the Fuji zoom but the 35mm equivalent – it is quoted for ease of comparison) – these are the figures that compare to the ones you list for the S5600 & S9500. The F2.8-8 range you quote is the full range of available apertures (but not all are available at all focal lengths).

Right. So it’s not an indication of the range of stops then it’s the max apertures at the indicated focal lengths. In that case yes, manky seems to fit here.

It means that at 210 your widest F opening is F8, not 2.8
As Damien says, this is almost unusable BW Roger