100-400mm users?

Forums: 
Hello, this can sound wierd to people who don't use the 100-400mm, and maybe also to the ones who you the lens, but when i use the lens, and fast move from 400mm to 100mm. I can feal some air blowing in my eye. yea, when i say that i also think it can't be, air true the lens glass, and true the camera body, but it realy does, i tested it a couple of times. Now, my question is, does it also blow dust in to my lens and in my camera? or will that be not such a big problem? Greetings

I don't own this lens, although it's reputation for being one of the best in it's class speaks for itself. It is refered to as a dust pump for the reason you are saying, in that, if it blows out air when you zoom from 400-100, then it will, so they say, suck in dust when you zoom back to 400. The lens has been going for long enough to be a proven winner, so if I were you, I would put glasses on to avoid dust in the face/eyes. [I am saying this quietly in case Health & bloody Safety ban the thing!! ;-X]

happysnapper64 wrote: I don't own this lens, although it's reputation for being one of the best in it's class speaks for itself. It is refered to as a dust pump for the reason you are saying, in that, if it blows out air when you zoom from 400-100, then it will, so they say, suck in dust when you zoom back to 400. The lens has been going for long enough to be a proven winner, so if I were you, I would put glasses on to avoid dust in the face/eyes. [I am saying this quietly in case Health & bloody Safety ban the thing!! ;-X]
i have no clue if you just said [*]It's a good lens, keep using it, or[*]Take it away from your camera as fast you can Greets

100-400mm is a pretty good, but not great lens. Its perpetually rumored to be on the que for upgrade. Its got the dust pump nickname for a reason. I don't find the dust issue to be something to worry about but some do. Its a pretty effective range for a telephoto zoom and is hand holdable.

Eadward wrote: 100-400mm is a pretty good, but not great lens. Its perpetually rumored to be on the que for upgrade. Its got the dust pump nickname for a reason. I don't find the dust issue to be something to worry about but some do. Its a pretty effective range for a telephoto zoom and is hand holdable.
I disagree. It is an excellent lens. If you want a better zoom in this range get a 200-400 for $12K. Mine has had heavy use for 8 years and still performs great. I just sent it to Canon to have the friction lock replaced and to be cleaned. But there was no performance degradation due to dust.

Oly Canikon wrote:
Eadward wrote: 100-400mm is a pretty good, but not great lens. Its perpetually rumored to be on the que for upgrade. Its got the dust pump nickname for a reason. I don't find the dust issue to be something to worry about but some do. Its a pretty effective range for a telephoto zoom and is hand holdable.
I disagree. It is an excellent lens. If you want a better zoom in this range get a 200-400 for $12K. Mine has had heavy use for 8 years and still performs great. I just sent it to Canon to have the friction lock replaced and to be cleaned. But there was no performance degradation due to dust.
Same here had one for some time now no dust problems with mine. I think the idea of it being a dust pump came about because it is a push pull design. Thing is even if it was a twist design the same amount of glass will be moved inside, which will displace the same amount of air. So being push pull as opposed to twist people see it as acting more like a pump, but look inside any zoom and you will see stuff moving back and forth displacing air. It would be nice to have an updated version with the new 4 stop IS though. Perhaps now that Nikon have released a new 80-400 Canon will follow suit shortly? It's going to cost more that's a given sadly

I use to have it, but now shoot with a 70-300L IS USM lens i really dont miss the extra 100mm and that coupled with weight, and the sucking dust pump, which does seem to suck the dust in and out, get the 70-300 you wont be disappointed.

Thanks for the advice, but i think if i buy a other lens in that range it will be the 120-300mm sigma 2.8, because i need the extra stops of light a lot of the time with the 100-400 greets

ASR45 wrote: I use to have it, but now shoot with a 70-300L IS USM lens i really dont miss the extra 100mm and that coupled with weight, and the sucking dust pump, which does seem to suck the dust in and out, get the 70-300 you wont be disappointed.
Agreed 70-300L is great if you don't need 400mm. However to many that extra 100mm is indispensable that makes big difference in birding, airshows, zoo, motorsports, safari...especially on crop cameras. I believe the new 100-400L/4.0-5.6 IS II optical quality (note: it also starts at F4.0 as rumored, 4-stop 'IS' and weather sealed) will be fantastic as good as Nikon's new one if not better (less extra 20mm compromise at short side), but it will be in hefty price at least initially.

Eadward wrote: 100-400mm is a pretty good, but not great lens.
The IS could improve, as well as the sharpness at the short end, and the bokeh could be a little less edgy. At 400mm, however, it is very sharp in the focal plane, unless you have a defective copy. It has very little lateral CA, and very little IR-based purple fringing, both of which will become much more critical as pixel densities increase.

Telhma wrote:
happysnapper64 wrote: I don't own this lens, although it's reputation for being one of the best in it's class speaks for itself. It is refered to as a dust pump for the reason you are saying, in that, if it blows out air when you zoom from 400-100, then it will, so they say, suck in dust when you zoom back to 400. The lens has been going for long enough to be a proven winner, so if I were you, I would put glasses on to avoid dust in the face/eyes. [I am saying this quietly in case Health & bloody Safety ban the thing!! ;-X]
i have no clue if you just said [*]It's a good lens, keep using it, or[*]Take it away from your camera as fast you can Greets
Sorry, just my warped sense of "humour?". Seriouisly, I would keep it. No lens, is without fault, & if you look through enough threads & posts on this forum, very few WHO HAVE ACTUALLY USED IT have a bad word about its optical performance. The pump action is probably the main issue with it, you either love it or loathe it. Problem is, what would you replace it with that does 400 & has stabilization?. I tried the Canon when I was looking for a long zoom , & a Sigma 120-400 OS. Both at the same time outside the shop on a busy street in bright sunlight, to try the panning ability & the stabilizations ability to freeze moving cars etc. After dozens of shots with each, I went with the Sigma as I could see very little, if any difference between them. The Canon was £1,000 used with 6 months warranty, the Sigma £650 new with 3yrs warranty. After 6 months, I am unsure if I made the right decision. Sometimes you just have to go with your gut feeling. However!!! serious mood is now over [never did like it anyway :-D] your other worthwhile option is to parcell it up, VERY carefully, & I will send you my address to post it to;-)

It's a great lens that isn't sealed, and sucks air into the lens, and pushes it out of the lens. This will likely increase the amount of dust in your camera, but I've never noticed this to really be an issue. What camera are you using with it, btw?? I can't say that I've ever felt air coming through the viewfinder with mine on my 7D. It's about the most versatile super-tele out there, I think, except for maybe the Sigma 50-500 OS, which I also liked quite a lot, but was significantly heavier.

Keith Z Leonard wrote: It's a great lens that isn't sealed, and sucks air into the lens, and pushes it out of the lens. This will likely increase the amount of dust in your camera, but I've never noticed this to really be an issue. What camera are you using with it, btw?? I can't say that I've ever felt air coming through the viewfinder with mine on my 7D. It's about the most versatile super-tele out there, I think, except for maybe the Sigma 50-500 OS, which I also liked quite a lot, but was significantly heavier.
Hey Keith, sorry to but in, but I am trying to get as much feedback as I can about the 50-500 OS. Either here or in a PM. I would be very grateful for any info good or bad on the lens. I have the 120-400 OS. See my above post. Thank's in advance.

I liked the 50-500 OS, the zoom was really stiff, but my understanding is that it wears in over time. It was so stiff and big that I couldn't hold the rebel body and turn it without fear of tearing the rebel apart. The 7D seemed ok with it though. The lens is VERY versatile, but heavy. It's soft at 500mm, but then again...it's 500mm. 50mm IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854298575.jpg) 287mm IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854318576.jpg) 500mm - not the sharpest image, but still useful IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854348577.jpg)

Thank's keith. Were these taken on a tripod? How effective is the OS? The bird looks nice & sharp to me. I will be using it with a 7D. I apreciate you taking the time to reply.

No, we were hand holding the thing all day, on a 7D and XTi. Keep in mind that it was San Diego and bright sunlight, so we didn't push the OS very hard. Some more shots...my cousin's stream... http://www.flickr.com/photos/getjazzed/5233379751/in/photostream these 2 are interesting, owl box at 50 and 500 mm http://www.flickr.com/photos/getjazzed/4568254083/in/photostream http://www.flickr.com/photos/getjazzed/4568890962/in/photostream

Keith Z Leonard wrote: It's a great lens that isn't sealed, and sucks air into the lens, and pushes it out of the lens. This will likely increase the amount of dust in your camera, but I've never noticed this to really be an issue. What camera are you using with it, btw?? I can't say that I've ever felt air coming through the viewfinder with mine on my 7D. It's about the most versatile super-tele out there, I think, except for maybe the Sigma 50-500 OS, which I also liked quite a lot, but was significantly heavier.
i use it on a 650d.

I'm not sure I've actually ever used this lens on my rebel, I'll have to try that once it comes back from on loan to my brother. It's now my backup camera, still a great little camera, but says something about the sealing differences maybe. Still I don't think it is really an issue with the sensor cleaning tech, if the lens is pulling dust into your camera body, the better sealing is actually probably worse, as it's got nowhere to go. I've used mine for years though without any issues. It reminds me that maybe I should take a nonsensical f22 blue sky shot to see exactly how much dust is on the sensor.

Mine sucked in fungus spores and ruined, -was sent to canon. I was quoted $800 for cleaning. I didn't bother, its probably in a dumpster somewhere now.

Kevin Coppalotti wrote: Mine sucked in fungus spores and ruined, -was sent to canon. I was quoted $800 for cleaning. I didn't bother, its probably in a dumpster somewhere now.
Hey Kev, You look remarkably like a certain Alfred E Newman there, or am I going MAD?? A real blast from the past. [or is it still going?]

My copy is in relative late batch that I bought in Dec 2010. It's a bit of tight in tension that might prevent dusts get into tube I guess. BTW I never feel air-blow during push-pull zooming. I think push/pull zooming has one advantage that I can zoom in/out very rapidly without causing much vibration on the lens that is important in some types of shooting such as in airshows where I used the lens most so far. I love my copy that is pretty sharp especially at 400mm side.

I can feel a little air movement around the back element of mine, but certainly not through the body! Are you saying yours is tight even with the tension collar fully loosened then? Interesting, maybe different seals now??

Keith Z Leonard wrote: I can feel a little air movement around the back element of mine, but certainly not through the body!
I don't feel air moments much probably due to so far I only used in fast push/pull zooming in airshows that I was so focus and background was pretty noisy so I didn't feel much.
Are you saying yours is tight even with the tension collar fully loosened then? Interesting, maybe different seals now??
Yes the tension of my copy is still relative tight (compared to the copy I borrowed from my coworker to shoot my first airshow) even the tension collar is fully loosened. I had to get used to it initially. So I guess Canon made a little adjustment to address the issue in addition to improve QC. I used to own 400L/5.6 and my copy of 100-400L is pretty close to 400L/5.6 at 400mm in sharpness.

qianp2k wrote:
Keith Z Leonard wrote: I can feel a little air movement around the back element of mine, but certainly not through the body!
I don't feel air moments much probably due to so far I only used in fast push/pull zooming in airshows that I was so focus and background was pretty noisy so I didn't feel much.
I think we have a failure of communication here. I have never felt any air moving in or out of my lens while it was attached to the camera, that was my point. If I take the lens off of the camera and specifically feel for air motion around the rear element (that would be difficult to do while it is mounted to the camera) I can feel a very slight amount of air motion. So in the situation you describe I wouldn't expect you to feel air motion, when the lens is on the camera. That's why I asked what camera was being used here, as the seals of the camera mustn't be very good in his case.
Are you saying yours is tight even with the tension collar fully loosened then? Interesting, maybe different seals now??
Yes the tension of my copy is still relative tight (compared to the copy I borrowed from my coworker to shoot my first airshow) even the tension collar is fully loosened. I had to get used to it initially. So I guess Canon made a little adjustment to address the issue in addition to improve QC. I used to own 400L/5.6 and my copy of 100-400L is pretty close to 400L/5.6 at 400mm in sharpness.
Whether or not the newer lens is better sealed has no bearing upon the lens sharpness, so I wouldn't think it would necessarily imply that your lens is sharper because of it. It is well known though that at some point (2007 I think?) there was a significant improvement in the sharpness of 100-400s coming off the line, that's a separate issue though, I think, they've probably made incremental improvements over the years. I remember it being discussed here before.

I have used this lens for about 8 years with 20D, 1D2N, 1D4, and 5D2.....no dust. Great lens for the price. Will never sell it!

TDC223 wrote: I have used this lens for about 8 years with 20D, 1D2N, 1D4, and 5D2.....no dust. Great lens for the price. Will never sell it!
Same here. The 100-400 was one of my first "L" lenses. It isn't going anywhere. I am intentional about when I use it. I only carry it when I am going to a race or somewhere where I know I need some reach. I also have the 2x multiplier but that is almost useless unless the day is very bright. (I haven't tried that combo on my new 6D. It might work better with high ISOs. Don't know.) It does act like a bicycle pump but as far as I can tell the air isn't being forced into the camera.

gfspencer wrote:
TDC223 wrote: I have used this lens for about 8 years with 20D, 1D2N, 1D4, and 5D2.....no dust. Great lens for the price. Will never sell it!
Same here. The 100-400 was one of my first "L" lenses. It isn't going anywhere. I am intentional about when I use it. I only carry it when I am going to a race or somewhere where I know I need some reach. I also have the 2x multiplier but that is almost useless unless the day is very bright. (I haven't tried that combo on my new 6D. It might work better with high ISOs. Don't know.)
I don't know if it will AF well with a non-reporting 2x, or with tape (mine does AF well on the 6D with a Kenko Pro DGX 1.4), but if you manually focus, the ISO needed on even a heavy overcast day will result in minimal annoying noise. So, if you have a choice between 1.4x with APS-c vs 2x with the 6D, with the same physical aperture and shutter speed, the 6D will have significantly less visible noise, even though the photon collection is roughly similar, because the electronics in the 6D are a lot cleaner.

qianp2k wrote: I love my copy that is pretty sharp especially at 400mm side.
That's the way that it should be, as that is what the Canon MTF charts say as well; that at 400mm and f/8 the zoom is almost as sharp as the much more expensive super-teles. People who put the lens down because it is not sharp past 300mm are actually saying, "I used a defective or poorly assembled copy of the lens".

I've only had mine for a little over a year, but have used it quite a bit in a windy mountain environment. I've never felt the air movement you've described through the eyepiece (60D). Dust has not been a problem in the lens or camera through normal use. Zooming creates a vacuume when the barrel extends so whatever is in the air could get sucked in. The more dusty the environment (downwind of a busy dirt road, strong winds out in a field, etc.) the more chance for dust, mold spoors in a damp environment, pollen, etc., getting in. A rocket blower can take care of internal camera dust pretty easily. And it would take a lot of dust in the lens to notice any difference in your photos. Dust in my Canon 17-55mm (sometimes affectionally known as the "dust magnet" lens) is getting pretty noticable after years of use, but the IQ is still excellent. The 100-400 is a great lens. Just use and enjoy it. Nick

I use it regularly especially for sports/animals but I don't notice it blowing on me. Its a good lens for the price but I do find the push pull kind of annoying as your hands move apart/closer when you try to track and change zoom. It makes it a bit less stable. Here is one from Sabah 5D2 and 100-400L http://www.flickr.com/photos/gavinz/3438155360/medium.jpg

gavin wrote: I do find the push pull kind of annoying as your hands move apart/closer when you try to track and change zoom.
I have never used a zoom lens other then push pull, my fathers old camra had a 70-210mm lens with push-pull zoom, only diference is that the subject come closer when you make the lens shorter i think. and now i use the 50mm 1.8 the 100mm 2.8L macro, and this one. so, i have no clue how it is to zoom with a zoom ring greets

Hi, Yes the 100-400 is an airpump, but I've never had serious issues with dust. I think the dust problem is more a bad feeling than a real problem. Even in lenses like the 70-200s I see dust spickels. Optically the 100-400 is like russian roulette : you can have anything between horrible and great. I changed a heavilly used optically OK but not great 100-400 for a new one. It took me 4 copies to get a decent one. Two of them were bad optically, one was fine, but had AF problems. The fourth one finally turned out to be OK. That one performs very evenly throughout the focal range and frame. After the 3 bad copies I tried a Sigma 50-500 OS. I very much liked build, AF and OS. I disliked its weight and optical performance above 300mm (center sharpness was fine, but the edges were bad compared to a good 100-400). The dislikes and the fact the 50-500 zoom is quite stiff were reasons for me to try one more 100-400. My take : if you have a 100-400 that is optically fine, than keep it. No other zoom telezoom beats it optically. Do not worry to much about dust. Regards, Sandor.

maarensv wrote: My take : if you have a 100-400 that is optically fine, than keep it. No other zoom telezoom beats it optically. Do not worry to much about dust. Regards, Sandoidle any IDE
any ideas how it compares with the Sony 70-400?

Chew488 wrote:
maarensv wrote: My take : if you have a 100-400 that is optically fine, than keep it. No other zoom telezoom beats it optically. Do not worry to much about dust. Regards, Sandoidle any IDE
any ideas how it compares with the Sony 70-400?
The Sony won't mount on a Canon body, so to me there's no comparison

maarensv wrote: Hi, Yes the 100-400 is an airpump, but I've never had serious issues with dust. I think the dust problem is more a bad feeling than a real problem. Even in lenses like the 70-200s I see dust spickels. Optically the 100-400 is like russian roulette : you can have anything between horrible and great. I changed a heavilly used optically OK but not great 100-400 for a new one. It took me 4 copies to get a decent one. Two of them were bad optically, one was fine, but had AF problems. The fourth one finally turned out to be OK. That one performs very evenly throughout the focal range and frame. After the 3 bad copies I tried a Sigma 50-500 OS. I very much liked build, AF and OS. I disliked its weight and optical performance above 300mm (center sharpness was fine, but the edges were bad compared to a good 100-400). The dislikes and the fact the 50-500 zoom is quite stiff were reasons for me to try one more 100-400. My take : if you have a 100-400 that is optically fine, than keep it. No other zoom telezoom beats it optically. Do not worry to much about dust. Regards, Sandor.
hi, thanks for the info, I think my 100-400 is optically good. on the short end the images are realy sharp, over 300mm i think they get a little to soft, but that's maybe just a little lack of skill greets

Telhma wrote: hi, thanks for the info, I think my 100-400 is optically good. on the short end the images are realy sharp, over 300mm i think they get a little to soft, but that's maybe just a little lack of skill greets
When you are using those really long focal lengths, you'll need to pay close attention to the shutter speed. Either that or find a way to improve the lighting, or perhaps use a tripod. Movement/vibration becomes a lot more noticeable. I am (or was) extraordinarily happy with the optical performance of my 100-400L. Mine is currently at Canon for repair of the IS unit. But up until when the IS began giving me trouble, I have been very happy with this lens. The "air pump" concerns are in my opinion way "over blown". No pun intended. ?Here's a quick snap-shot, mounted on a tripod
  • ISO 100,
  • 8 sec shutter,
  • f/18,
  • at 400mm.
The camera was setup 40 feet back, the angel is 10" tall. IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854368579.jpg) Pixel Peeping at 100% crop IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854388581.jpg) Regards, Mike

I use mine for sports, so my shutterspeed is always high, i always try to get faster then 1/500. A trypod i can't use, but i have a monopod nevertheless, my images realy never look as sharp as your image is greets

? IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854408584.jpg) IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854428587.jpg) IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854448588.jpg) IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854468594.jpg) IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854478597.jpg) ? IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854508600.jpg) IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854538602.jpg) IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854558605.jpg) I keep my shutter speed over 1/800sec., sometimes faster. Not afraid to raise my ISO over 1600 to keep my shutter speed fast.

mailman88 wrote: IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854408584.jpg) IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854428587.jpg) IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854448588.jpg) IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854468594.jpg) IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854478597.jpg) ? IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854508600.jpg) IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854538602.jpg) IMAGE(http://dpzen.com/dpzattaches/dpzattaches7//201409191854558605.jpg) I keep my shutter speed over 1/800sec., sometimes faster. Not afraid to raise my ISO over 1600 to keep my shutter speed fast.
...because I'm always so envious of your posted photos... I love the....wolverine/hyena????? Regards, Mike

Telhma wrote: Hello, this can sound wierd to people who don't use the 100-400mm, and maybe also to the ones who you the lens, but when i use the lens, and fast move from 400mm to 100mm. I can feal some air blowing in my eye. yea, when i say that i also think it can't be, air true the lens glass, and true the camera body, but it realy does, i tested it a couple of times. Now, my question is, does it also blow dust in to my lens and in my camera? or will that be not such a big problem? Greetings
I have yet to have problems with dust in the lens. Whether it is a push-pull or more traditional twist zoom, however, the glass elements are going to displace air regardless. After having this lens for many years I'm not worried about it. Mark

I have used this lens for 8 years now with my 1DS Mark II. It is a great lens. Keep it. End of story.

Telhma wrote: Hello, this can sound wierd to people who don't use the 100-400mm, and maybe also to the ones who you the lens, but when i use the lens, and fast move from 400mm to 100mm. I can feal some air blowing in my eye. yea, when i say that i also think it can't be, air true the lens glass, and true the camera body, but it realy does, i tested it a couple of times. Now, my question is, does it also blow dust in to my lens and in my camera? or will that be not such a big problem?
If air didn't move in and out of the lens when you zoomed it, you wouldn't be able to zoom it very easily, and if you did, it would always have a tendency to pull to the size where the air pressure was normal inside. Most of the air follows the course of least resistance, and when the lens is attached to the camera, or better, a TC, most of the air does not come out the rear of the lens. If the inside of the camera is fairly well sealed, then very little air is going to exchange between the lens and the mirror chamber; the pressure will merely escalate or decrease while you are pumping the lens. I have been using the 100-400 since 2004, and I have not noticed any extra sensor dust when I use it, even when I am zooming. The lens does collect a little dust inside, but unless you allow the sun or artificial light sources to shine directly into the lens and illuminate the dust particles, all they will ever do is reduce contrast by a fraction of a percent and slightly alter the bokeh. Even if the light does shine directly on the dust particles, you probably wouldn't notice most of the time anyway, unless you did an A/B comparison with a freshly cleaned lens. If you're worried about sensor dust, you can recycle the power every so often. I tend to not shut off the camera while not in use (I hate missing the first shot because the camera isn't on), but I try to power cycle the camera occasionally, anyway. I find with the newer Canons, however, that most dust particles tend not to stick to the sensor for very long, and find their way off the sensor after a few shots. I haven't even cleaned my 50D, 5D2, 7D, or 6D, all of which I've used with the 100-400; in the rare instances in which I've had a persistent dust particle, it has disappeared with a power cycle. It's literally months between visible dust particles, though. My 10D, 20D, and 30D were another story, though. They were a nightmare when shooting with a slow 100-400 + TC combo. I used to use Tv-priority mode, too, which sent the f-stops in to the dust-sharpening range when the ISO was set too low.

There is no problem with the air coming out . It is when you either extend the lens rapidly or pick it up by end and it sucks air in rapidly . That is the reason I don't even own a back pack . All my lenses are laid sideways in camera bag . They also have their own little bags they are in . Back in '94 I bought the 35-350 - no dust yet . I do have a filter on it at all times .

Add new comment

Image
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: png gif jpg jpeg.
Attachment
More information
  • Files must be less than 2 MB.
  • Allowed file types: zip rar.