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.
@Edward1064 wrote: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
I like this photo. I don't think the background is as bad as you might think. For better or for worse, the background is LOUD, and draws your attention. I think the chaotic background contrasts nicely with the pocket of calm in the foreground. The background is nearly monochromatic [tinged with yellow], while the foreground is full color, however appearing as black and white. Overall, this is a very interesting photo, IMHO.
Lenses can have varying number of internal elements, which suggests that they may achieve focus in different ways. I have lenses the exhibit CA on objects outside the DOF, but not on objects within the DOF. Objects behind the DOF are purple fringed, while those in front of the DOF are green fringed.
Canon "L" lenses do not seem to operate like I just described. They seem to exhibit OOF characteristics that seems to me to be closer to that of the human eye. Objects outside of the DOF become more and more "smeared" the further they are from the plane of focus. Objects can become so OOF that they may seem to become less and less opaque. I am near sighted, and when I remove my eyeglasses, your background is similar to what I see, or used to see in my younger days.
Easy enough to fix just using global settings in Lightroom even with just the JPG.
Crop, Desaturate Yellow and Orange, add some Post Crop Vignette
Great Egret, Corkscrew Swamp Sancuary, Naples, FL, March 4, 2017
EOS 7D Mk II w/ EF 100-400 L IS II + 1.4X TC III
560mm 1/1250, f/8, ISO 1250
@TTMartin wrote:Easy enough to fix just using global settings in Lightroom even with just the JPG.
Crop, Desaturate Yellow and Orange, add some Post Crop Vignette
That's one way to hide it. It might look better without the vignette, though. If only there were some way to swap the color channels to make the background green, instead of yellow.
Then again, the bird could be easily cut out of the shot, and placed on top of a different background altogether.
I finally got some time to do a little comparative testing with different scenarios you all suggested.
The accompanying photo is the first one I shot with no filter and IS-off (400mm, f/5.6, 1/320; the branch in focus was about 10 feet away.) So filter and IS are not the cause of the echoes.
I did find the echoes are more prominant at full bore ... which is what I'm usually using since it's usually difficult to get close to wildlife. Other than that, I couldn't find any correlation between camera / lens settings and the artifacts.
Any other suggestions on possible causes will be welcomed.
Maybe your lens is defective. I cannot remember if you had Canon check it out. Your distortion is most definitely worse than what I get. And, ditto for Tom, although his shots have very different backgrounds. He's not picking birds out among branches in the shots that he posted on this thread.
Personally, I did find that changing the the filter and shooting mode made a noticeable difference. The lens did seem to perform as well with a UV filter, in my very unscientific shot examples. I have a few more than what I posted, but I also deleted nearly all of the bad ones.
The shot below is typical of what I get with mine when there are branches in the background. The sun kept chasing in and out behind clouds that day, and there was a passing thunderstorm, too.
7D Mark II, 1/125, f5.6, ISO 1600, 400mm
You mention that the branch is only 10 feet away, which I am sure is a ballpark guess. The MFD on the lens is 3.2ft/97.54cm.
