100-400 USM II artifacts

[JeffD]

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.   

[Waddizzle]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@diverhank wrote:

I'd like to see the same shots using other lenses.  I think given the same background, most lenses will end up having atrocious unpleasant looking backgrounds like the ones you show.

Personally I think your problem is mostly the unfortunate choices of backgrounds and don't tell me that you can't ever avoid them. You don't live in some other places that have worse or better backgrounds than the rest of us.  I think you should move on and accept a certain number of pictures that look "not so good" and move on.

I've had shots with terrible background like this even with my 600mm f/4L lens.  I've learned to either avoid cluttered background or learned to live with them.

---

And it is the foreground stuff that looks the worse to me, and those you definitely have to work at avoiding.

---

You can always use image editing software to replace the background.  Even the free stuff can do it with ease.

[TTMartin]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

You can always use image editing software to replace the background.  Even the free stuff can do it with ease.

---

Most publications or photo competitions don't allow that degree of Photoshopping. You are pretty much limited to global adjustments in Lightroom

[Waddizzle]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

You can always use image editing software to replace the background.  Even the free stuff can do it with ease.

---

Most publications or photo competitions don't allow that degree of Photoshopping. You are pretty much limited to global adjustments in Lightroom

---

So what.  There is no law that says that every photo must be entered into a competition.

[TTMartin]

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@Waddizzle wrote:

You can always use image editing software to replace the background.  Even the free stuff can do it with ease.

---

Most publications or photo competitions don't allow that degree of Photoshopping. You are pretty much limited to global adjustments in Lightroom

---

So what.  There is no law that says that every photo must be entered into a competition.

---

Many of people do have their work published. It's not just contests that prohibit that degree of Photoshopping. The OP was talking about getting serious with his wildlife photography, that would indicate to me more than just taking personal photos. 

[Waddizzle]

---

@ebiggs1 wrote:

"...the background is LOUD, and draws your attention."

That is the problem.  Ugly BG!  IMHO, of course.

---

To each his own.  I like the shots for the reasons I have already stated.  The bird has found a safe zone amidst the chaos.