Canon EF 400mm f4 DO IS USM Lens (1 Viewer)

[Neil Morris]

I'd be interested to learn of anyone's experience with this lens.

I've recently purchased one for use with a Canon EOS 7D. After just a few outings, the lens has performed well under sunny conditions. However, under overcast conditions the dreaded 'lack of contrast' (as discussed in various reviews) seems to become apparent. It is particularly noticeable in the attached untouched shots of a couple of Great Black-backed Gulls.

I wonder what you have found to be the best remedy for this weakness of an otherwise excellent wildlife lens? Is it in-camera adjustments or photoshop adjustments after the event? Thanks,

 

[Saphire]

To give a bit of contrast on the first image I used levels by bringing the brightness up slightly moving the middle slider down then to give a bit more contrast the end slider until it looked about right.
The second image I did it with color efex Pro 3 Tonal contrast its quicker.
All the detail is there it just needs a bit more punch.

 

[Saphire]

I have just done another edit on the first one using color Efex pro 3.0, I wish I could reproduce the effect with levels.

 

[HokkaidoStu]

Can you not just turn the contrast up one or two notches in-camera?

Of course if you shoot RAW you can do this when you convert it, either in DPP or whatever program you use.

 

[inags]

I am sure I am not the only one wondering why so much post-processing is required with a £5.3k lens & £1.2k camera (both well out of my league btw).

 

[michha62]

I've not found lack of contrast an issue with this lens. In murky light i may boost the contrast a little in DPP, but no more than with an image shot with the 500 f4. Try dialing in a bit of contrast in the user defined shooting mode or if shooting raw, just boost in dpp. If shooting in one of the defined modes, faithful or standard, maybe try switching to the other. Is the auto lighting optimizer switched on? I think it is a default setting, but bird photography seems to benefit from it being switched off. (i don't own a 7D, so I may be way out on this)

Regards
Mike.

 

[macshark]

I don't think there is anything wrong with the two images you posted. Under overcast conditions, the scene would naturally have lower contrast. If you want the image to have higher contrast than the actual scene, you have to resort to post processing.

 

[paul goode]

I don't think the images are far out at all. I have to say I prefer the originals to the edits.
Taking the first one into photoshop a small levels adjust improves it in my opinion, but nothing more than I'd class as routine.
As an aside when the image opened in photoshop it came up with a message saying no colour space was embedded. Its best to embed the sRGB colour space to images that will be viewed in non colour managed apps, like most browsers.

 

[dbradnum]

I don't think the images are far out at all. I have to say I prefer the originals to the edits.

Agree completely.

 

[edenwatcher]

I also agree. Incidentally I find my images from the 7D with the 100-400L seem too contrasty.

Rob

 

[Fowl Mouth]

Whenever I think that my big lens budget (long in savings...far to go) is going to a 300 2.8 IS or a Sigma 500 4.5 EX DG, I start considering the possibility of this little gem. I do have one question, are those cropped portions of an original photo or simply reduced for web? They seem to be lacking some type of sharpness, but I can't put my finger on it. They are good photos, BTW.

 

[Fowl Mouth]

I just looked at the images again. Neil, have you dialed in the focus of the lens with your 7D? Maybe it's just me, but it looks like the lens is front focusing a tad. The dirt (garbage?) piles in both images almost seem sharper than the birds themselves.

 

[spock]

photos look ok to me,if there is lack of good light it's not easy to get a good shot...
I had a play with one of the images.

 

[Neil Morris]

Thanks for your suggestions Christine. Your adjustments look just a little too harsh to my eyes, but I can see what you're getting at.

 

[Neil Morris]

I am sure I am not the only one wondering why so much post-processing is required with a £5.3k lens & £1.2k camera (both well out of my league btw).

Me too. Though to be fair, when I bought the lens I was aware of some of the criticism. But I couldn't face carrying one of the extremely heavy 400s or 500s around. It was always going to be a bit of a compromise...

 

[Neil Morris]

I don't think the images are far out at all. I have to say I prefer the originals to the edits.
Taking the first one into photoshop a small levels adjust improves it in my opinion, but nothing more than I'd class as routine.
As an aside when the image opened in photoshop it came up with a message saying no colour space was embedded. Its best to embed the sRGB colour space to images that will be viewed in non colour managed apps, like most browsers.

Good point. In my rush to get out in the field with it, there are probably a number of things I haven't yet done. Less haste, more...

 

[Neil Morris]

I've not found lack of contrast an issue with this lens. In murky light i may boost the contrast a little in DPP, but no more than with an image shot with the 500 f4. Try dialing in a bit of contrast in the user defined shooting mode or if shooting raw, just boost in dpp. If shooting in one of the defined modes, faithful or standard, maybe try switching to the other. Is the auto lighting optimizer switched on? I think it is a default setting, but bird photography seems to benefit from it being switched off. (i don't own a 7D, so I may be way out on this)

Regards
Mike.

Yes, auto lighting optimizer is switched on. Thanks for the suggestion. Am reassured by your experience of this lens. Hoping it's more a case of user error (or lack or prep) on my part, rather than the technology. Have to say, in terms of weight and handling, it's a joy to use.

 

[inags]

Me too. Though to be fair, when I bought the lens I was aware of some of the criticism. But I couldn't face carrying one of the extremely heavy 400s or 500s around. It was always going to be a bit of a compromise...

I can relate to the weight issue.

Off topic I know, but do you find a prime v a zoom a problem at reserves where you often can't move much?

 

[Neil Morris]

I just looked at the images again. Neil, have you dialed in the focus of the lens with your 7D? Maybe it's just me, but it looks like the lens is front focusing a tad. The dirt (garbage?) piles in both images almost seem sharper than the birds themselves.

Thanks Jason. I've tried to resist any micro-adjustment (if that's what you mean) to the focussing before using the lens at least a few times. I'm pretty sure the focus locked onto the eye of the bird (using AF point Expansion), so given your comment I might need to take a look at this.

Re your previous post about sharpness, the image shown is a 75% crop from a much larger resolution original. The crop was resized from about 2.5k pixel width to 800 pixels. As I find sharpening can sometimes give the false perception of a slight increase in contrast (which was my original worry), I didn't add any sharpening at all. The JPEG was then saved, I think at 60% compression. So I'd hope that the lack of res/sharpness is down to my raw reduction of the image size.

Certainly appreciate your comments. Cheers,

 

[Neil Morris]

I can relate to the weight issue.

Off topic I know, but do you find a prime v a zoom a problem at reserves where you often can't move much?

I've always liked the versatility of a zoom, but every time I've used one I've been left dissapointed with soft focussing. So I've tended to stick with primes. (BTW my favourite was a Tokina f2.8 ATX. Heavy, old fashioned, but a fantastic piece of glass, especially when used with K64. It's still difficult to replicate that sort of quality with digital shooting.)

Another issue is that most often a zoom will in any case be used at max length. So you might as well be using a prime of same length. Only rarely have I found myself close enough to something that I need less than say 300mm.

Incidentally, because the EOS 7D is a 'crop camera', my 400mm lens is now effectively providing 640mm anyway. So maybe I might just be wanting less range sooner than I think! Certainly hope so...