Hello to all, and Happy new Year !
For a 5D mk II and a 50D, i'd like to buy a zoom for outside sport (greyhound races), landscape, air meetings, and think of the 100-400 ... (don't want a prime, too expensive and not general purpose enough)
Some say that the 70-200 2.8 is best but it's a bit short for me.
But I have read "horrors"[:S] about 100-400 sharpness (so,so) and that fact that one must be a lucky guy to have a good copy (I want to buy it new)
What is your advice ?
I've been very happy with my copy of the 100-400mm (that I bought in February, 2007). It's been around the world with me, dropped (hard enough to crack the casing of the 30D to which it was attached, yet survived unscathed) and I love the range. I've never had any major issue with sharpness, even using extenders that do degrade it somewhat.
I guess I have a good copy. I wouldn't give it up for anything.
Thanks musickna,
A friend of mine told me that sharpness is great on ... a good copy.
That lead me to that problem : are good copy so rare for this lens or is it for older production numbers ? (knowing that, for this price, getting a bad copy is really a problem)
Nothing to worry about. The 100-400 is quick to frame and focus on the fly. 70-200 will not get you there. Here is a 40D crop.
[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.82/IMG_5F00_6998.jpg[/img]
I've rented the 100-400 and was satisfied with its sharpness. I used 400mm 95% of the time and found that f/5.6 was too slow. for me at least I would havepreferreda prime but there is a huge hole in canon's lineup in the $2400 range.
Tabazan...thanks for the well wish and HNY to you also.
I purchased mine new a couple of years ago and I'm pretty happy w/it....I think you'll find the older (5 yrs ?) versions were the ones that had issues.
It's on my 40D 80% of the time for auto racing, landscapes to wildlife w/my focus on birding. If the photo is soft, it's usually my fault and not the lens'. There is a learning curve for using this lens....at least for me there was, I mean, there is.
The only negative point I can blame on the lens is bokeh....unless I'm completely missing something w/this lens, the lens' bokeh isn't very good.
Some examples....
I would recommend this lens to fulfill your needs.
Regards
Bill
I love my 100-400. It is very sharp. Not as sharp as a prime but for the versatility it offers it is hard to complain. I have a friend, who is a pro, who uses this lens for portraits.
I read in a thread a day or so ago by Daniel Browning that 100-400 produced after 2003 do not experience the soft center that models before then experienced.
Originally Posted by Tabazan
I don't think that's true. There may have been more bad copies five years ago, but recently most people (including me) got really sharp ones.
No issues with my 100-400 L.
Bought it about a year and 1/2 ago.
Heres one taken with the 5DMKII .... About 120 yards away ...
Well, thanks to all,
Seeing all these pics, seems that this lens is very good after all.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
