topic Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts in EF & RF Lenses

100-400 USM II artifacts

JeffD — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 00:13:33 GMT

I'm a wildlife photographer with an emphasis on rare birds and other species. Over the past 40 years, I've used Leica, Ricoh, Sony Alpha, Lumix and Nikon systems but decided to switch to Canon when I got more serious about wildlife photography.

I purchased one of the early 100-400 USM II for my 7D Mk II from a Canon dealer. Within the first few months I found lens would often not autofocus unless the lens was fully retracted, particularly with the 1.4x attached. In addition, many pictures were showing echo-like artifacts when there were branches, narrow leaves, long blades of grass or other linear features in the background or foreground. By "echo" I mean these kinds of narrow features would often show up doubled or tripled in the image. Some sample photos showing the problem are provided below.

Last year I sent the 100-400 and 7D-II back to Canon for evaluation. After a month or so, Canon sent the camera system back and said the echo artifacts in the photos I had sent were from chromatic aberration which was normal for this lens. I've seen chromatic aberration in other lenses, but never like this.

I then showed some of the same photos to two experienced wildlife photographers who were also using the 100-400 II, and both said they had not seen these kinds of artifacts in their images.

The artifacts are so distracting that they have ruined many otherwise nice shots. Even when there are no obvious echoes, the bokeh is often so bad that it also spoils the photo. I assume this from the same cause.

When there are no linear features in the background or foreground, the 7D-II + 100-400-II combination has provided me with some exceptional photos. Unfortunately, because I spend a lot of time photographing in forested and brushy habitats, most of my photos end up degraded by the artifacts. It's been disappointing and frustrating. Many of the subject animals were very difficult to locate and get well framed. Some of them are so rare and difficult to locate that I will never have another chance to photograph them.

I'm posting this to ask if other photographers using the 100-400-II have experienced these kinds of artifacts ... or whether I should send the lens back to Canon again for further evaluation and repair. If any of you have experienced these kinds of artifacts, did you find a way to prevent them and ensure good bokeh? My artifacts and bokeh problems seem to show up at any aperture, focal length, or shutter speed settings.

Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts

RobertTheFat — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 01:55:01 GMT

I'd guess maybe a misaligned lens element. Was the lens ever dropped? Is the 1.4 extender a Canon or a third-party?

Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts

Waddizzle — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 11:59:06 GMT

Those are otherwise magnificent shots. I like them all.

I have seen something similar in different lenses, a 150-500mm and a 150-600mm "C" by Sigma. I have had a couple of shots with my EF 100-400mm USM II show similar distortion in a few shots. Never have I had it as bad a your posted shots, though.

Over time, and experimenting with different combinations of lens and camera settings, I reached the uncertain conclusion that I would occasionally get the perfect storm of settings and shooting scenario to cause it. A combination of settings were causing it under certain shooting conditions.

I immediately noticed, on the Sigma lenses most particularly, that using AI Servo mode could have a noticeable negative effect when shooting subjects that were relatively stationary, which all of your shots show. I switched to One Shot for relatively stationary subjects, and the effect was reduced.

The worse shots were when I was using a tripod with IS turned on, OS in the case of the Sigmas, that I would get ugly bokeh. Although, some combinations of a Canon body and lens can supposedly determine the camera is on a tripod, and self disable the IS systems. I was using a 6D. My shutter speed was sufficiently high that I didn't really need IS, so I turned off IS when I was not panning, and my images improved.

I think I was probably imagining things, but I noticed the effect seemed more noticeable at certain shutter speeds than others. It didn't help my investigations that I would shoot most of my shots on a sunny day at the same shutter speed. So, I began changing shutter speeds and reshooting the same shot. I noticed that the effect was seemingly worse at certain shutter speeds than others, especially when I had IS or AI Servo enabled with "tracking priority" selected, instead of "focus priority".

Now things were really confusing me. So, I decided to reduce the number of variables and unknowns. I began taking manuallly focused shots in One Shot mode from a tripod, with no IS, using only the center AF point. I would focus the camera at a point, switch the lens to MF and take the shot. I also began using Back Button Focus, so that when I depressed the shutter in AF mode, the camera would not try to refocus,

Suddenly, the issue seemed to have gone elsewhere. I no longer had ugly backgrounds. I am not sure what happened, but I had turned off all of the focusing and tracking aids, and all was well. Remember, I was using a 6D. I tried a 7D Mark II and a 1D Mark IV, but could never reproduce the effect to the degree that I had seen with the 6D, which is not to say that I didn't see it. I began turning all of the auto focusing aids and modes back on, while observing some the traps and pitfalls that I "discovered", like not using AI Servo with a stationary camera and a stationary subject, or turning off IS when the camera is relatively still, especially with the Sigma lenses.

I concluded that the biggest contributing factors were IS, AI Servo, and shutter speed, when shooting a relatively stationary subject. I would suggest experimenting with different settings when shooting still subjects like the shots that you have posted.

Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts

Waddizzle — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 12:03:02 GMT

Same camera and lens combination, 6D and Sigma 150-600mm, but dramatically different settings.

The above shot was taken with AI Servo, IS, tracking priority, keep focusing when focus has been lost, and a host of other stuff that I cannot think of as I type this reply. The shot below was focused with AF, but using BBF and One Shot mode, and I used the 100-400.

Below is one of the first shots that I ever took with the Sigma, before the Robin, using One Shot mode. It was this shot that made me realize that I didn't always have this ugly background problem, and it could be a settings related issue.

The better looking shot of the seagull used no filter, while the out-of-focus shot of the robin used a cheap filter, BTW. The shot with the 100-400mm used a B&W Clear MRC Nano filter. Filters can make a difference, too.

Hope this helps.

Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts

ebiggs1 — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 14:15:21 GMT

The ugly bokeh is typical of this lens. I also saw it with the first version. It is not obvious all the time, but will show at times with high contrast backgrounds. The converter makes it worse and if you have a filter on it makes it worse too. Hot or even warmer humid days will make it worse.

My suggestion, lose any filter. Stop using the tele converter or get the new Canon version III if you must. Turn off the IS. Use One shot, never AI-Servo. If you did any focus adjustment put it back to zero.

Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts

diverhank — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 17:46:15 GMT

I also think it is normal for this lens too - many other lenses too not just this one. The trick is to avoid busy backgrounds. I have a few pictures that look like yours so I don't think there's anything wrong with your lens in particular.

Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts

ebiggs1 — Wed, 01 Mar 2017 17:50:45 GMT

"The trick is to avoid busy backgrounds."

Amen!

Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts

TTMartin — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 17:39:31 GMT

@JeffD wrote:
I'm a wildlife photographer with an emphasis on rare birds and other species. Over the past 40 years, I've used Leica, Ricoh, Sony Alpha, Lumix and Nikon systems but decided to switch to Canon when I got more serious about wildlife photography.

I purchased one of the early 100-400 USM II for my 7D Mk II from a Canon dealer. Within the first few months I found lens would often not autofocus unless the lens was fully retracted, particularly with the 1.4x attached. In addition, many pictures were showing echo-like artifacts when there were branches, narrow leaves, long blades of grass or other linear features in the background or foreground. By "echo" I mean these kinds of narrow features would often show up doubled or tripled in the image. Some sample photos showing the problem are provided below.

Last year I sent the 100-400 and 7D-II back to Canon for evaluation. After a month or so, Canon sent the camera system back and said the echo artifacts in the photos I had sent were from chromatic aberration which was normal for this lens. I've seen chromatic aberration in other lenses, but never like this.

I then showed some of the same photos to two experienced wildlife photographers who were also using the 100-400 II, and both said they had not seen these kinds of artifacts in their images.

The artifacts are so distracting that they have ruined many otherwise nice shots. Even when there are no obvious echoes, the bokeh is often so bad that it also spoils the photo. I assume this from the same cause.

When there are no linear features in the background or foreground, the 7D-II + 100-400-II combination has provided me with some exceptional photos. Unfortunately, because I spend a lot of time photographing in forested and brushy habitats, most of my photos end up degraded by the artifacts. It's been disappointing and frustrating. Many of the subject animals were very difficult to locate and get well framed. Some of them are so rare and difficult to locate that I will never have another chance to photograph them.

I'm posting this to ask if other photographers using the 100-400-II have experienced these kinds of artifacts ... or whether I should send the lens back to Canon again for further evaluation and repair. If any of you have experienced these kinds of artifacts, did you find a way to prevent them and ensure good bokeh? My artifacts and bokeh problems seem to show up at any aperture, focal length, or shutter speed settings.

Looks like oversharpening in post processing, if that is not it, yes, something is not right with the lens.

Top two photos are with a 1.4X TC which I almost always use now, the bottom two are without a TC.

Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts

TTMartin — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 17:22:52 GMT

EOS 7D Mk II - EF 100-400 L IS II w/ 1.4X TC III - No lens correction applied

Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, Naples, FL - Florida's Special Places: Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary

560mm, 1/800 f/8 ISO 12800

Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts

Waddizzle — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 19:26:03 GMT

@TTMartin wrote:
EOS 7D Mk II - EF 100-400 L IS II w/ 1.4X TC III - No lens correction applied
Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, Naples, FL - Florida's Special Places: Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary
560mm, 1/800 f/8 ISO 12800

Tom, what sort of lens filter do you use, if any, on the 100-400? In addition to changing some settings, I replaced the UV filter with a less costly B+W clear filter, and now all of my backgrounds are beautiful. The lens has a learning curve, IMHO.

Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts

TTMartin — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 20:34:01 GMT

@Waddizzle wrote:
Tom, what sort of lens filter do you use, if any, on the 100-400? In addition to changing some settings, I replaced the UV filter with a less costly B+W clear filter, and now all of my backgrounds are beautiful. The lens has a learning curve, IMHO.
[link removed per forum guidelines]

I agree a cheap filter could be causing the issue too. Either that or it has something to do with the post processing.

And to a certain extent you have to 'get the shot'. No lens can eliminate forground clutter. In some of the other shots it just looks like the background was sharpened in post processing.

Since the lens has already been to Canon once, I would lean towards working to eliminate all factors on the user side before blaming the lens.

Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts

Waddizzle — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 20:29:26 GMT

Tom,

That is the same B+W filter that I use on all of my "L" lenses. On the 100-400, I had been using a Tiffany 77nn UV 16 filter, which works fine on my EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. I think the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM just doesn't like UV filters.

Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts

ebiggs1 — Thu, 02 Mar 2017 21:08:31 GMT

"The ugly bokeh is typical of this lens."

Most of those shots prove it.

Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts

JeffD — Fri, 03 Mar 2017 00:06:21 GMT

Thanks to all for sharing your thoughts. Looks like I came to the right place to ask about this. I didn't expect so many replies or such quick turn around. Much appreciated.

@ Bob: The camera and lens have never been dropped or mishandled in any way. The artifacts were showing up right after I received the lens. All but one of the sample photos (sapsucker - 1/800, f/9) were all taken without the 1.4x (which is a Canon III), but the artifacts show up with the 1.4x on as well.

@ Waddizzle: Nice photos. I can see a touch of echo in your second photo (branch along right margin) but it is minor compared to what I'm getting and doesn't spoil the shot. Your bokeh also looks smoother than mine. I've tried different shutter speeds and I haven't found a correlation with the echoes. The sample shots range from 1/250 (elegant trogon-f/5.6 and goshawk-f/6.3) to 1/1600 (rose-throated becard-f/5.6, hoping to catch it in flight). The ground doves were at 1/1000 f/5.6 and the brown thrasher was at 1/500 f/5.

I use back-button focus as well ... which helps in other ways but doesn't get rid of the artifacts. MF isn't really an option since many of my subjects move around quickly and are hard to get in focus even with AF. IS-off usually isn't an option since my hand isn't that steady and animals are most active in low-light conditions ... so with IS off I'd have to push up the shutter speed which would require unacceptably high ISO. Not sure how an IS problem would produce echoes. However, I'll do some on/off comparisons and see if it resolves the issue.

@ ebiggs1: I generally use One Shot and IS (no tripod). I haven't messed with the focus adjustment since it seems good as is. I do use a Hoya Fusion UV filter (over $100) to protect the front lens surface since I'm often bushwhacking off trail. It has an anti-reflective coating with near 100% transmissivity so I don't think it could be causing the echoes. However, I'll take some comparison shots with it on/off and see if that reveals anything.

@ diverhank: There's no way for me to avoid busy backgrounds given where most of my subjects are found. The two Canon photographers I mentioned in my original post are both dedicated bird photographers who take most of their images in the same kinds of habitats (forests, brush, shrubs, grasses, etc.) but haven't experienced the same kinds of echoes ... though both told me they have had disappointing bokehs at time. This is why I wondered whether my lens is defective.

@TTMartin. Also nice photos. The echoes in my shots are present pre-processing; if I use sharpening at all it is very little. Just to give 2 examples, other than a little exposure adjustment, the two images below have no sharpening or other processing, yet they both show 2-3 echos on branches, etc.

With the 1.4x, I don't think I've ever obtained images with the quality of your first two shots, but I'm strictly hand-held. In any event, your bokeh looks smoother than what I'm getting and I don't see any hint of echo artifacts in yours. Were those taken with a 100-400-II?

Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts

TTMartin — Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:37:13 GMT

@TTMartin. Also nice photos. The echoes in my shots are present pre-processing; if I use sharpening at all it is very little. Just to give 2 examples, other than a little exposure adjustment, the two images below have no sharpening or other processing, yet they both show 2-3 echos on branches, etc.

With the 1.4x, I don't think I've ever obtained images with the quality of your first two shots, but I'm strictly hand-held. In any event, your bokeh looks smoother than what I'm getting and I don't see any hint of echo artifacts in yours. Were those taken with a 100-400-II?

Yes, all of the photos I posted were taken with the EF 100-400 L IS II on a 7D Mk II.

I would start by trying no filter, or switching out the the filter we use. I'll PM you the link.

I don't use BBF, but, instead leave the focus on the shutter button and reprogram the AF-ON button, to work as AF-OFF that way I can suspend focus the few times I need to. Where most of the time I want continous AIServo focus.

Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts

TTMartin — Fri, 03 Mar 2017 12:58:50 GMT

@TTMartin wrote:
I would start by trying no filter, or switching out the the filter we use. I'll PM you the link.

Filter causing issues with the EF 100-400 bokeh isn't a known issue.

Just Google search 'using a uv filter with ef 100-400 bad bokeh' it gives dozens of results.

Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts

JeffD — Fri, 03 Mar 2017 18:35:59 GMT

Thanks for the additional insights.

I'll start by doing comparisons wiith and without filter. Hope that's the problem because it's an easy fix and, apart from the echo/bokeh problems, I like my 7D-100-400 setup.

If it's the filter, I won't buy Hoya ever again. Bought their filter with the best anti-reflective coating specifically to prevent problems like this ... which is why I didn't suspect it could be the culpret.

Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts

ebiggs1 — Fri, 03 Mar 2017 22:29:29 GMT

Just remove the filter and try it. Pretty easy wat to see if it is the filter.

If you check some of the birder web sites you will find most folks complain about ugly BG and boken from this lens. If you like shooting birds you really need to join one of them anyway. Lots of good info there.

Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts

Waddizzle — Fri, 03 Mar 2017 23:39:39 GMT

@JeffD wrote:
Thanks for the additional insights.

I'll start by doing comparisons wiith and without filter. Hope that's the problem because it's an easy fix and, apart from the echo/bokeh problems, I like my 7D-100-400 setup.

If it's the filter, I won't buy Hoya ever again. Bought their filter with the best anti-reflective coating specifically to prevent problems like this ... which is why I didn't suspect it could be the culpret.

Good idea. Never buy Hoya again. Buy the B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear MRC-Nano 007 Filter.

I have never had the ugly background with my 7D Mark II, but I have seen it with my 6D.

I like to use BBF because I am no good at holding the shutter button half depressed. I guess I do the exact opposite of what Tom does. He likes to turn AF off. I like to turn AF on. To each his own. You might like BBF, or you might not.

Re: 100-400 USM II artifacts

Edward1064 — Sat, 04 Mar 2017 01:48:50 GMT

JeffD and all,

Your artifacts are interesting to me, and I try to image (without success) what could cause them. The background objects are brought to a focus in front of the sensor, and the light rays then diverge before they hit the sensor.

I have used a 60D and Canon 100-400 mm zoom for about 3 years now, and your post reminded me of a photo I took a couple of years ago. It has terrible bokeh, by chance, and was my first training of the importance of this characteristic. I dug it out, and am including it. It has the type of background that would bring out your artifacts: large grasses. But the out-of-focus grasses do not have that multiple-edge look yours have.

My setup: 60D, Canon 100-400 mm original lens, Hoya UV filter for lens protection

I think that this would be a good question for a Canon engineer. These lenses are complicated affairs, and someone who has experience in their design and testing might be required to get to the bottom of your issue. If it were my lens, I think that I would push Canon pretty hard to either fix or replace my lens. Aftre all, their reputation depends on it.

Edward1064