Thoughts from owners on the 100-400 L

[HiFiGuy1]

I have been agonizing over whether to get a 70-200 f/2.8 IS or a 100-400. I don't know if I'm psyched about the push-pull zoom, and I have been reading variable reports on the IQ. On the other hand the 70-200 is a little short for some of my goals, but has universally acclaimed IQ and I think I prefer the zoom ring form factor, in my mind anyway. If I put a 1.4x onit, then I'd have more reach (280mm) but I'd be downnear themax f of the 100-400 native and would supposedly lose IQ. They both have IS, so that's a wash.


I already own an EF 17-40 f/4 L and an EF 28-135IS. Ultimately, I would like to replace the kit lens with a 24-105 f/4 L IS,but I haven't really been unhappy withthe performance of the 28-135, and in the meantime I want more reach. I like to shoot birds and other wildlife, motor racing, and flowers, but I've actually had some success with macroapproximation using my 135 wide open at 135 and close distances, so I don't care about MFD of either zoom. I will also be getting a 100mm f/2.8 macroeventually anyway.


I want to cover the vast majority of focal lengths that I would reasonably use with as few lenses as possible, so I can practically bring them with me when I travel. I also want the best IQ that I can afford.


I have been so impressed with Nate's wildlife pictures using his 400 f/5.6, but it doesn't have IS, and I'm not sure my hands are as steady as his. I would like a lens that can approach that with IS, which is another reason I have been considering the 100-400.


What say ye, owners/experienced users of the 100-400 and or 70-200 f/2.8 IS? Is there really any reason to avoid this lens, or am I reading too much into Bryan's and some others not entirely overwhelmingly positive comments and reviews?

[Keith B]

I have both of these lenses. I love the 100-400 for anything outdoors. I think the image quality is very good and good enough I don't find myself saying "I wish I brought the 70-200" very often.


Indoor low light situations is a different story. My son's concerts for instance, the 100-400 is a good range but at 5.6 is nowhere fast enough. I end up shooting 1600 and at shutter speeds that are pushing the IS so they generally aren't as sharp as one would hope. This is where the 70-200 2.8 IS shine.


For what you are talking about shooting, I'd get the 100-400 and fell good about it. But I's also immediately start saving for the 70-200. It is really everyone says it is.


Also, I may selling a 24-105 in the near future.

[HiFiGuy1]

Thank you for your comments. They are very insightful, especially since you own both lenses. I re-read Bryan's 100-400 review for the umpteenth time [](obsessmuch?)after I posted, and I think I came across wrong. Really, he was favorably impressed about everything that ultimately matters to me.


I do want to be on your list if you sell your 24-105. If I had that along with my 17-40, plus the 100-400, I would cover 17-400 with three very good lenses. And of course, I do still want the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I just can't get both right now. That will have to wait fora little while. I'm also putting off a 580EX II, a Gary Fong Lightsphere kit and the 100 f/2.8 macro. One day, one day.


Side note: I just shot some pics at my son's first Spring concert, and I ended up using the 17-40 mostly, even though my fastest lens is the 28-135 @ 3.5. The light was really tough, and I only got a couple of decent shots all night. I was using a Lightsphere that I had borrowed, but I don't know if I was doing it correctly. It didn't seem to affect the shutter speed like I thought it should.

[Keith B]

Oh, forgot to mention. I actually like the push pull of the 100-400. It is easy enough to find the right tension on the adjustment ring to find a spot you will be comfortable with.


My 700-200 is pretty knew to me. I order it the day all the prices jumped. I got it for $1499 from J&R with the rebate. So I can't wait for the 21st to shoot my son's spring concert.


I use to have the 70-200 4.0 L and never really liked that lens. It was crazy sharp but with out IS and the fast aperture, I found it's uses very limited.


I just sent the 24-105 in to Canon. It was part of the 5Dmk2 kit and it had a spot on one of the inner elements. It didn't effect images in any way but I wanted it fixed if I was going to sell it. That lens is a very very sharp lens anyway and with it going for service it should be ver in-tune when it comes back.


I'm selling it to offset the cost of my recent purchase; 16-35 2.8 II and the 70-200 2.8 IS. I hardly shoot any thing in between 35 and 70. If I do I have the 50 1.4. So I' letting the 24-105 go.

[HiFiGuy1]

I used the 70-200 f/4 L (borrowed) at this concert and wasn't really as happy either. The sharpness is awesome outdoors in good light, but the lack of speed ANDlack of ISreally made shots difficult in that poorly-lit concert. I didn't realize how much I depended on the IS in my 28-135. I think if I'd had even the 70-200 f/4 IS I could have gotten more keepers. The 2.8 IS would have been the ticket, for sure.

[jeffersonposter]

I have a 100-400. It was my first L glass and I was quite happy with it. I tend to lean towards primes lately and I am selling the 100-400 to a friend and will buy a 300 f4 IS that I can use with a 1.4 extender. On a 5D this gives me 420 @ f5.6 with IS and on the 30D I get 480 @ f4 &670 @ f5.6 IS with the 1.4 extender. I also have the 17-40 f4 and on a 30D is a great walk-around.


Here are a couple of pics with the 100-400 and the 30D at the 08 Petite LeMans at Road Atlanta.





[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.27.05/_5F00_MG_5F00_0003_5F00_edited_2D00_2.jpg[/img]


30D, ISO 500, 130mm, 1/2000, f5.6


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.27.05/_5F00_MG_5F00_0083pl_5F00_edited_2D00_2.jpg[/img]


30D, ISO 500, 100mm, 1/800, f5.6


JeffersonPoster

[40Doodle]

[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.18/Squirrel.jpg[/img]


Squirrel: EF 100-400 (shot at f5.6, 1/160, ISO 1000, 400mm) Auto-focus by the 40D on tripod.


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.25.18/Chickadee.jpg[/img]


Chickadee: EF 100-400 with Kenko 1.4 Converter (shot at f/8, 1/100, ISO 1000, 560mm). Manual focus, 40D on tripod.


The two shots above were just today, totally overcast sky and both subjects were in total shade. No touch-up other than resizing for web was done to the photos. I thought you may be interested in seeing these at the extreme end of the lens' reach. They are not stellar photos by any stretch, just examples for this conversation.


Speaking as a 100-400 newbie, I just got mine this week and am liking it a lot so far. I had all of the same concerns that you currently have and had also read Bryan's thorough review several times. The whole thing about the push-pull zoom has not bothered me at all. It's not like your brain can't shift gears for this one lens and it really becomes 2nd nature after a few uses. When people say the lens is "heavy", that one is true. It is hand-holdable for sure and the IS helps a lot with this lens. But, I wouldn't want to be walking around holding this lens all day either. I have the KatzEye focusing screen on my 40D which brings back the split/focusing system that I have missed since my AE-1 days. I have noticed that it's pretty hard to use that split/screen focus while trying to hand-hold the 100-400 (at least it is for me). On a tripod, no problems.

The 100-400 is a beautiful lens that feels terrific in your hands (except for the weight [] ). Everything on my 100-400 feels very solid and smooth in hand. I'm also testing it with my Kenko 1.4 Converter on it and it really get's me that extra distance that I want for birds. The auto focus is lost with the 1.4 extender, but the KatzEye (on a tripod) solves that for me. I haven't tried any pin taping and probably won't. The 40D is reading the data/settings correctly from the 100-400 lens with the 1.4 Converter mounted.

The reach of this lens is great and since I've just started using it I'll hold on commenting about the IQ. I'd say "trust your gut" on this one. I felt that the 100-400 would be a great lens choice all along, but just didn't want to spend that kind of of money at the time. If your gut is saying "get the 100-400", then do that and take advantage of the $100 rebate while it is here.

Rick

[Mike Coulter]

I've owned the 100-400mm for a few years now and have probably taken 25,000 photos with it. Almost all of those photos are of sports like football, baseball and soccer. I always use a monopod when I shoot because the weight of the lens makes it much easier to shoot. I prefer the push-pull zoom for this lens. I can zoom in and out so fast with the push-pull.


I don't think there is any question as to what you should buy for wildlife photos. You need to be out to 400mm.

[Bill W]

HiFiGuy1;


This is probably piling on after reading others' opinions on which lens to purchase....100-400 is the one, based on your stated priorities at the moment.


This lens is on my camera (2 yrs.) 90% of the time shooting landscapes, wildlife, motor sports.


Here are 2 examples of my experience (sorry, I parked the Porsche, my inexperienced stopped all wheel motion in all my pics) at last year's Grand Prix Du Canada;








Passing the victory Champagne;





For some bird shots click on this link; http://www.flickr.com/photos/organize/?start_tab=sets


All of these shots were take w/the 100-400, anywhere from 35' to approximately 400' (Eagles and Great Blue Herons). I would recommend a monopod for those ultra-long shots.


Some of the shots aren't tack on (e.g. Nate's), but that's due to my pedestrian skills....not the lens.


Enjoy


Bill

[Bill W]

Sorry, that link in original email won't work, this one hopefully will;


http://www.flickr.com/photos/29409592@N03/sets/72157616370413677/