-
100-400mm or 400mm
I am still debating between the 100-400mm and the 400mm. I must decide soon because a great horned owls nest has been spotted and I really want to get a shot of those adorable downy balls. The lens is going to be used outdoors on active wildlife, alot of birds, etc. My concerns are sand, sand and more sand. I live in a sandy environment, my camera has sand on it now. The push pull on the 100-400 really concerns me, I am afraid sand will get inside my camera. I've read some of the discussions and reviews on this site.
Also, the rotating zoom friction adjustment collar, I've read in some reviews on other sites the adjustmant collar doesn't hold tension properly.
Would you mind telling me your experience with these lenses?
will air in a can be best for blowing sand off my camera or will the ones you squeeze with your hand, they come in three different sizes (i forget the name) do just as well?
Thank you,
naturac
-
I'm quite happy with my 100-400mm. I started with a 300/4 IS, but wanted more focal length, and I still wanted IS. In the <$2K range, that left me with the 100-400mm. I've considered the 400/5.6 as well, but I really wish it had IS - the IS is quite helpful for static subjects, and owlets in the nest qualify! The 400/5.6 is great for birds in flight, where you need a high shutter speed, but otherwise, I'd plan on using it on a tripod. FWIW, both the 100-400mm and the 400/5.6 have "moderate dust and moisture resistance for their switches, focusing rings and zoom rings where applicable." (quote from an email exchange I had with Chuck Westfall, Canon's technical guru).
The other thing I like about the 100-400mm is it's relatively compact length - when retracted, it's about the same length as a 70-200/2.8, and fits in a Lowepro Toploader Pro 75 AW case. The 400/5.6 doesn't retract, and it's a pretty long lens. OTOH, the 400/5.6 is a little sharper away from the center, and the AF is slightly faster than the 100-400mm. Admittedly, I was pretty tempted by a 400/5.6 that came up on my local Craigslist for $800, but I passed.
Since you mention owlets, here's a relevant shot with the 100-400mm:
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2479/5...e8fd41eb_z.jpg
EOS 7D, EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM @ 400mm, 1/500 s, f/5.6, ISO 400
-
I also have the 100-400, and it was my first L lens. Personally, if I was to do it over, I would get the 400 5.6. I tend to use it at 400mm most of the time anyway, and at 400mm it would be on my tripod which negates the need for the IS. So I would rather have the added IQ of the prime. I would occasionally miss the range, but I would rather fill it with a 70-200 f/4 IS (actually the f/2.8 II, but that is a little out of reach right now).
Based on some of the shots John has posted, his is a very sharp copy of the 100-400. I was not as lucky. I found out how bad mine was this past spring. While in the Smokys I dropped mine on a rock (don’t go on vacation with a new ball head that you are not use to). Basically the body cracked and dented, but the glass was intact. So after $200 in repairs, the glass was reset in a new body, and it was the best thing that ever happened to the lens… it is much better now.
As for the push/pull thing... that seems to be a big issue more by people who do not have one. It may take a little time to get used to, but I have never seen it as a problem, and as John pointed out, it does make it compact. I also think the friction ring works OK - I would rather not have to mess with it, but it is not a problem either. I have not experienced a problem with dust either.
If you are going to use the range or hand hold it, then the 100-400 IS would probably be better.
-
I bought the 100-400mm 3 years ago, I gave it to my brother to use 2 years ago. It has been used very heavily and it has never had a problem with push pull dust or the ring.
I never use canned air, always the blower. Canned air could be to intense IMO.
-
Another consideration
-
Hi Naturac,
I have never used the 400 f/5.6 but have owned the 100-400L for ~ 1.5 years now and have probably taken ~10,000 pictures with it. I have not observed any dust issue with my lens. I believe I benefit from the IS. It may only be two stops, but I can shoot sharp photos at 1/160th-1/200th of a second (I've even kept a couple that were shot at less than 1/100th, but those are the rare exception). Looking at the reviews, the prime does seem slightly sharper, but that is mostly at the edges of a FF camera. The center seems equal. If you are shooting a FF camera, this will be an issue. However, it is much less of an issue with a crop sensor camera as the smaller sensor uses more of the center of the light circle generated by each of these lenses, not the outer edges displayed in the tests with the FF camera. The friction collar is a little funny, but works well. I find I have to adjust it fairly often, but I do not consider this to be a problem. I've gotten used to a pump action and in some ways like it. I also think the quality of the 100-400L at ~100 mm is underrated. It is actually sharper at 100 mm than it is at 400mm and while I also tend to shoot this lens 90% of the time at 400 mm, when you need a shorter focal length, it is great to have, so I find the 10% of the time well worth it.
My last thought on comparing the two lenses is simply to evaluate them as part of your overall kit. Do you already have the 100-300 range covered? Do you need it covered?
On the canned air vs the rocket blower, I'd be concerned about the pressure from the canned air pushing something further in rather than just off.
Hope that helps,
Brant
-
I actually have both and they get used about equally. The 400 f/5.6 though, I think trumps the 100-400 for sharpness, particularly with targets at longer distances.
Especially at f/5.6.
-
Thank you everyone for your feedback. I have read the reviews and the 400 looks to have better IQ, but I had been thinking if I would need a shorter range then I would be out of luck. Especially when I am out on the kayak or going on a long trek and want to pack light, taking only one lens with me. Kayaker72 you mentioned this in you post, thank you.
Neuroanatomist thank you for posting the owlet photo, I hope mine will come out at least half as good. I am still very green with the bells and whistles on my camera.
How can I quickly test my copy to make sure it is a sharp copy? Since the return for B&h I believe is 14 days.
naturac
-
Roger Cicala (lensrentals.com) wrote up a nice piece on testing a new lens. Minimally, test for sharpness (shoot something with lots of detail from a reasonable distance, manually focus with 10x Live View to rule out AF errors), test for decentering (can be done with vignetting, although that's tough with this lens on APS-C - you get the most vignetting at 400mm f/5.6, shoot a blue sky and look for symmetry; else, shoot something flat with the lens well-aligned to the subject, check that the sharpness in all four corners is the same).
