Anyone got a Canon 100-400. If so, what do you think?

Tobers · 30-05-2008, 1:16 PM

I'm looking for opinions on the Canon 100-400 lens. I've found myself wanting some more range than my 70-200 F4L + 1.4x extender can offer. That combo gives me max f5.6 anyway, so the f/5.6 of the 100-400 means I essentially get the same aperture but another 120mm of reach.

With the 1.4 I can then go to 560mm at f/8 (and the 1D still autofocuses at f/8).

I've read the POTN archive, and the Fred Miranda reviews. All seem fairly positive but I'm always after more info if I can get it.

I'd really like a 300 2.8 but it's monster in both size and price, whereas the 100-400 would fit in my bag where the 70-200 currently goes.

And if anyone fancied lending me one for a weekend I'd be eternally grateful.

Ta!

Tobers

edddie_veddder · 30-05-2008, 2:19 PM

Another option would be to sell your 70-200 f4 and 1.4x, and buy a 70-200 2.8 is (love mine to bits) and 2x converter? just a thought. I'm planning on getting a 2x soonish.

h4rri · 30-05-2008, 2:29 PM

Had it and sold it after serious lack of use. It's an older gen lens and I found it too slow and as it can't be used with a TC [without serious degradation and loss of AF] I went for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS and 2xTC.

maverick52 · 30-05-2008, 2:47 PM

i have one quite pleased with it it i have used it with a kenko 1.4 tc with the pins taped and it afs ok but there is some image quality loss
so i tend not to use it with the tc

it is very sharp at the 100 end

these were taken with it all hand held

http://www.flickr.com/photos/robd12/...78457950/show/

iGiDK · 30-05-2008, 3:10 PM

No personal experience with it, have heard good reports and bad reports

& some folk don't get on with the push-pull zoom

Why don't you pay a visit to http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk/

stevegreen · 30-05-2008, 4:45 PM

This might be of interest Andy

jenufa · 30-05-2008, 5:07 PM

I have one and I'm more than happy with it.

This was taken in Kenya with the Canon 100-400.
Click the pic for more info.

mpritch · 30-05-2008, 5:32 PM

I'd second eddie's idea - go for a 70-200 2.8 (with or without IS) with 2x tele. You'd end up with practically the same sort of lens as the 100-400 , but with the bonus of f2.8 when you wanted. Keep the f4 for the times when you need a lighter lens.

That's what I'd do. I love fast lenses and a tiny part of me of regrets getting my 70-200 f4 rather than the 2.8, but I'm a sucker for zero depth of field !

Mark

Bristol Pete · 30-05-2008, 7:28 PM

Great lens Tobers.

I had one a few years back and whilst it is too slllloowww for sport and evening work, in good light this is some glass. Highly recommended.

Some examples of my 100-400mm work here -

chrisbaker42 · 30-05-2008, 7:30 PM

I have had mine for about a week now after a year of using the 70-200 f4 L. I find it totally awesome although it takes a bit more getting used to. I find the pq to be great and I certainly don't miss the 70-200.

Tobers · 30-05-2008, 8:26 PM

Thanks for all the opinions.

The idea of a 70-200 2.8 and a 2x is one I hadn't thought of. I guess 2x would give me 5.6 at 400mm, same as the 100-400. But I would get the 2.8 without the 2x which is attractive. A bit more of a costly option though - the 100-400 can be had for £750ish. Could always go for a non-IS version I guess. Interesting chat on that Flickr link from Steve.

Whichever way I went I'd be at f5.6 at 400mm and relying on the good ISO performance of the 1D to get the shutter speed up. With the 100-400 and my 1.4x extender I can get even more range if I need it.

The obvious answer is a 300 2.8 and 1.4x converter but I'm a tad short of £2500 at the mo (as well as being short of £750!!). And it's big. But I loved the teeny play I had with mpritch's one.

Or a 200 f/2.0 with a 2x extender

I reckon I'll have to hire a 100-400 for a weekend and try it out. Watch this space.....

Tobers · 30-05-2008, 8:29 PM

Pete - stonking pics. When you say it's too slow for sport, I'd be thinking of bumping up the ISO on the 1DIII - if you had to cover some daylight sport with a 100-400 and 1DIII do you think it would be OK?

Not being weathersealed is a concern though...

Tobers · 30-05-2008, 8:36 PM

Or a 400 2.8

Bristol Pete · 30-05-2008, 8:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobers

Pete - stonking pics. When you say it's too slow for sport, I'd be thinking of bumping up the ISO on the 1DIII - if you had to cover some daylight sport with a 100-400 and 1DIII do you think it would be OK?

Not being weathersealed is a concern though...

Well, the 4.5 - 5.6 is slow but as I said in good light this lens rocks. The ISO performance of the Mark III would be OK, but you dont really want to be shooting at high IAO just to obtain your speed.

Really, if you are looking to freeze action, you should obtain 1/500 or faster which is pretty available in most light and the IS is a bonus.....so yeah, ideal for daylight sport but dont forget that the bokeh will look less smooth than a 2.8 lens so watch the backdrops.....

Tobers · 30-05-2008, 9:24 PM

For those interested, I found a cracking comparative review and sample photos with 1.4 and 2x converters here.

RobDickinson · 30-05-2008, 10:13 PM

A good 100-400 is very close to the 500f5.6L prime, does seem to be sample variations though.

And LL tested the 100-400 against the 70-200f.28+2x tele and the 100-400 came out on top by a fair way, its fairly usable at f5.6

I want one. Many people I know with them wouldnt be parted from them and the push pull is ideal for sports/airshows etc, very quick

allymac123 · 31-05-2008, 10:08 AM

What about the 300 F4L IS? Then with your 1.4x extender you'd have 420mm @ F5.6 and with a 2x 600mm @ F8

Strobe · 31-05-2008, 11:58 AM

I read somewhere, I'm pretty sure it was Luminous Landscape, that if you want just one do it all telephoto zoom on the Canon mount, the 100-400 L is the one to go for.

JohnG · 02-06-2008, 11:23 AM

I had a play with a 100-400 the other week and soon got used to the push-pull method. I wonder if this lens is due for an upgrade though ? It seems to have been around for quite a while.

Tobers · 02-06-2008, 11:35 AM

Thanks for that.

There's a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 that does seem to fit the "fast zoom" gap in Canon's range. Looks like £1200 so not that much more than the 100-400, and it will take a 1.4x extender to give 420mm at f4. Hmm....might be a better bet.

JohnG · 02-06-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tobers

Thanks for that.

There's a Sigma 120-300 f2.8 that does seem to fit the "fast zoom" gap in Canon's range. Looks like £1200 so not that much more than the 100-400, and it will take a 1.4x extender to give 420mm at f4. Hmm....might be a better bet.

That sounds very interesting, does it have IS do you know ?

Torpedo · 02-06-2008, 12:12 PM

Got a 100-400L and am more than happy with it. I reckon 60-70% of my photos are taken with it. As said above, I've read that a 70-200L + 2x TC is nowhere near as good as the 100-400L.

dood · 02-06-2008, 1:54 PM

A photojourn friend of mine who does a fair bit of wildlife photography swears by the sigma 120-300. He uses it on a Nikon though........

RobDickinson · 02-06-2008, 8:42 PM

Sigma 120-300f2.8 does NOT have IS.

But you wont be handholding it for long either. I looked at the 120-300 and the 100-300f4, both nice lenses but lacking the extra 100mm and just as heavy or heavier. I want the 100-400 to handhold shoot.

IMO the HSM didnt seem as snappy and solid as USM.

Tobers · 02-06-2008, 10:38 PM

Yes, but you could have a 3x faster shutter speed on the 120-300 at 2.8 than on the 100-400 so get a sharper shot.

And the IS wont help with fast moving subjects anyway so becomes fairly irrelevant in that environment.

Fast wide aperture appears the way to go.