Bokeh has parallel lines with 100-400 f4.5-5.6 and slower autofocus

[mfostervt]

I recently upgraded from a prime 400 5.6 to the 100-400 4.5-5.6.   Many of my shots have a bokeh with parallel lines in it.  Trying to figure out why.  I have a UV filter on, not a polarizer, which was my first thought.  I have not tried without a filter yet, but will.  Thought maybe someone here might have an idea why I'm getting this.  The other thing I have noticed is that the autofocus is not as fast as with the prime and sometimes struggles to get to focus.  I'm a bird photographer, so sometimes my subject is quite small and in a bunch of branches, but my prime was faster.  I still like the final photo result of the new lens better, so I'm sticking with it.  I attached an example of the bokeh problem

[Waddizzle]

---

@TTMartin wrote:

---

@mfostervt wrote:

Thanks for all the advice. I guess the filter is definitely suspect.  I am shooting with a Canon 70 D and my lens is the latest version (II).  I got the filter as a freebie from Adorama when I bought the lens.  I put it on to protect the lens, but may be better off buying a good filter.  I will definitely give it a try without a filter and get back with you all after I do that.  I've read a little about the AFMA, but never tried it as it seemed pretty complex. I take most bird photos as aperature priority with auto ISO and set the shutter to about 400 depending on if I am using a monopod or if I am trying to get a bird in flight.  I have not looked at the IS modes yet, but right now it is set on 1.   BTW, this pic was cropped to about 1\3 the original so that may affect the bokeh as well.  Thanks again.

---

It is most definately the cheap filter. The cheap filter may be interacting with the image stabilization to create the pattern, but, the culpret is the cheap filter not the IS.

I ordered a B+W 77mm XS-Pro Clear with Multi-Resistant Nano Coating (007M) for my new EF 100-400 L IS II.

I treat a protective filter as an extra lens cap. I remove it in environments where it is not need and leave it on at places where it is (i.e. the beach).

I've only had it for a few days, but, no weird bokeh and no AFMA needed that I can tell. If I do need AFMA I'll use the DotTune method.

---

That's the same filter I use on mine.  Be sure to spend the extra 2-3 bucks for the "Nano" coated lens.  I love the filters.  Not only do they protect the first element of the lens, they seem to be anti-static, too.  It's spring time, and there is a lot of various types of pollen in the air in my area, New York City.  Nothing sticks to the filter, even though it gets all over my car and eyeglasses.

[lhedden]

I've had the 100-400 1 for about 4 months now. I've shot it with the B+W Pro filter on and off. I've used it with and without stablilization but continue to get very weird Bokeh. I shoot mainly wading birds in Florida with it and have a lot of water vegetation in back and sometimes in front of the birds. One reed can turn into 3 or 4 parallel out of focus ones. It doesn't happen in every image, and it doesn't appear in all locations on the images where it appears. I am using hispeed motor drive, maunual focus,  1/2000, F8, ISO 1250. 

When I have specular highlights in the water that are small they end up looking like little wagon wheels that have the spokes sticking thru the wheel. Craziest thing I've ever seen. I've been photographing since 1973 and have had probably 30 or so Canon lenses from the orignal FD lenses, EF lenses, RF lenses and have never had one do what this one does. 

Why does Canon not spill the beans and tell us what is causing this problem? Other than really ugly Bokeh the lens is incredibly sharp and contrasty.

[ebiggs1]

This is a very old thread you may want to start your own new one.  You'll get better results.

But short answer is never, ever use any filter on the 100-400mm ver 1 lens.

"... lens is incredibly sharp and contrasty."  Not really!  It has never been known as a high IQ lens. I had two of them before getting one of the 150-600mm super zooms. Check out the newer ver 2 of that (10-400mm) lens.

[ebiggs1]

"I recently upgraded from a prime 400 5.6 to the 100-400 4.5-5.6."

I forgot a most important question(s).  You didn't see this with the 400 prime?  And you don't see it with your other lenses?

What do you use to post edit?  And lastly, you are shooting RAW?  I am looking for jpg compression artifacts!?!

[mfostervt]

I didn't see it with the prime and I have to admit that I had a crappy filter on it as well, but not the same one.  I think that the softness of my images with the prime and this new lens had everything to do with the filters.  Not sure why I didn't think of that.  I have taken some images today and have not seen any of the bokeh problem yet, but it was only in certain conditions that it came through before.  More images will hopefully show the difference.  I tried some shots of a nesting Great Blue that is pretty far off this morning and found that the images are defintely better, not as soft.  Much better than images of the same thing with the filter on.   Here is a pic that I took this morning sans filter and the non-cropped original image.

I am shooting RAW and using Lightroom for processing.  It converts the RAW to DNG when importing.

[cicopo]

Some of the softness there is likely atmospheric haze / humidity.

[diverhank]

---

@mfostervt wrote:

I didn't see it with the prime and I have to admit that I had a crappy filter on it as well, but not the same one.  I think that the softness of my images with the prime and this new lens had everything to do with the filters.  Not sure why I didn't think of that.  I have taken some images today and have not seen any of the bokeh problem yet, but it was only in certain conditions that it came through before.  More images will hopefully show the difference.  I tried some shots of a nesting Great Blue that is pretty far off this morning and found that the images are defintely better, not as soft.  Much better than images of the same thing with the filter on.   Here is a pic that I took this morning sans filter and the non-cropped original image.

I am shooting RAW and using Lightroom for processing.  It converts the RAW to DNG when importing.

---

I'd like to suggest the following:

1.  I have long ago got rid of all of my protective filters and rely on the hoods for protection.

2.  Based on your pictures, you cropped WAY TOO MUCH.  For good BIF images, do not crop.  I never crop anymore except for compositional purposes...if they are too small, they get trashed.

3.  Even for the non-cropped image, I'd say Image Quality (IQ) is a tad below average from what I've seen for this lens which is touted by most as the holy grail of telephoto lenses.  It's IQ rivals that of the 400mm f/5.6L.  You might want to use a faster shutter speed. I'd start at 1/1000 or faster.

I'm contemplating on getting a 100-400mm II to replace my Tamron 150-600mm.  It's unanimous that the 100-400mm II is way sharper...Even so...below is a shot taken with the 7DII and the Tamron 150-600mm (500mm; f/6.3; 1/2000;  ISO 320) to give you an idea what being close (no cropping) and without a protective filter is capable of, even with a not so good lens...

================================================
Visit my photos on Flickr
www.flickr.com/photos/tongho58

[TTMartin]

---

@diverhank wrote:

I'd like to suggest the following:

1.  I have long ago got rid of all of my protective filters and rely on the hoods for protection.

2.  Based on your pictures, you cropped WAY TOO MUCH.  For good BIF images, do not crop.  I never crop anymore except for compositional purposes...if they are too small, they get trashed.

3.  Even for the non-cropped image, I'd say Image Quality (IQ) is a tad below average from what I've seen for this lens which is touted by most as the holy grail of telephoto lenses.  It's IQ rivals that of the 400mm f/5.6L.  You might want to use a faster shutter speed. I'd start at 1/1000 or faster.

---

@Taken today with the 7D Mk II and EF 100-400 L IS II @ 400mm with the B+W CLEAR MRC-Nano 

light crop for composition 

uncropped

[mfostervt]

Thanks all for the great advice.  I hate to crop, but birds being birds, I wind up cropping just because I want to see the bird and not all the background and so far I have found that I can't get close enough to fill the viewfinder without scaring off the bird.  Some warblers only stay in the very top of the canopy.  Being a beginning birder, I need to identify the bird and the only way I can do this often is by cropping the photo so I can see the detail of the bird.  I totally get that there is loss of detail by doing this, but my objective is first to ID the bird, and secondly to walk away with a good photo.

This pic is a couple of Heron nests that I have been watching since the birds moved in in the early spring.  Today was the first day I saw some chicks in one of the nests.  The other the female is still incubating the eggs.  The only way I can get closer is on kayak, which I plan on doing soon but I did not want to disturb the mothers in their task of getting their chicks born.

With that said, yes I had to really crop the photo just to see the birds.  Loss of detail is a given at this distance.  It was also a bit foggy this morning, so that just added to the haze.

Here are a few images I took this evening sans filter with little cropping.  Shutter priority at 400 and Auto ISO.  The hooded merganser chicks were on our pond, and I stumbled upon the wild turkey chick while crossing one of our fields.  Probably just hatched.  Mom played the broken wing gambit on me before I found the chicks (but I was looking for a nest)

I tried linking to my SmugMug acct.  so the files should come across as not reduced ( I exported the previous photo at 200K)

Thanks again to eveyone who has chimed in to help me out.  I think the filter was my problem, but I still need a day in the field to really try it out.  I'm a dentist, so my time in the wild is limited during the week.

https://photos.smugmug.com/Bird-ID/i-JQ5CfZJ/0/X3/HoodedMerganser-1-160606-X3.jpghttps://photos.smugmug.com/Bird-ID/i-3F6Dhzd/0/X3/Dragonfly-1-160606-X3.jpghttps://photos.smugmug.com/Bird-ID/i-BnBtkC9/0/X3/Wildturkey-1-160606-X3.jpg

Awesome shots of the great blue  TT Martin.  I'm not sure how you got so close without disturbing the bird.

[Waddizzle]

"Thanks all for the great advice.  I hate to crop, but birds being birds, I wind up cropping just because I want to see the bird and not all the background and so far I have found that I can't get close enough to fill the viewfinder without scaring off the bird.  Some warblers only stay in the very top of the canopy.  Being a beginning birder, I need to identify the bird and the only way I can do this often is by cropping the photo so I can see the detail of the bird.  I totally get that there is loss of detail by doing this, but my objective is first to ID the bird, and secondly to walk away with a good photo."  

Great photos is always about location, and angles.  I am not a birder, either.  But, I used to be an avid fisherman, which taught me a few things about hunting.  I have found that there are quite a number of similarities between birding and fishing.  First and foremost, it all boils down to not just getting to a good location, but also WHEN you get there.

Fishermen get an early start, and make a point to be on the water, waiting for the fish to wake up hungry.  If the fisherman gets their late, the fish have already finished feeding, and are taking naps, which usually means they are done for the day, and easily spooked from their naps.  The fish run and hide.  It's the same with birds, and just about any other creature you're hunting.

As you've noted, you cannot just walk up on a nest.  You need to scout your location, and then get there early enough to be one with the surroundings before the birds wake up and become alert to their surroundings.  THAT is how you can get close to creatures in the wild.