100-400l

[Headshotzx]

Hey guys. I'd want some comments about this lens.

Initially, my dad wanted to purchase the 70-200 2.8IS at the end of year for me, but since I added the 85mm to my collection, I kinda feel that my 17-40L and 85mm combo is enough for what I shoot, which is events, portraiture, some streets, and some product shots from time to time. So I felt that the 70-200 might be an overkill lens-- it won't bring me much added benefit to what I'm shooting, and 200mm max FL won't expand my capabilities that much.

So I went about looking for telephoto lenses, and landed my sights on the 100-400L, 400f/5.6L and 300f/4IS. These will expand on what I shoot, allowing me to shoot outdoor sports, wildlife (not birdpark/zoo, 200mm seems to do well enough for that) and allow me to snipe for outdoor events.

I'm not a tripod-er, and all of the interesting wildlife I come across (feels good to live in punggol, man-- all the egrets, herons sunbirds and yellow birds whose species name escapes my mind) all are alive in the early mornings, evenings, and when it's very cool. Slow shutter speed, that is. 400mm f/5.6L has no IS, and I handled it for a few minutes in stores, seems too long, thin and light such that its difficult to stabilise.

So I got to the zoom vs 300mm, and I thought that for the birds that I come across, 300mm won't do. Heck, 400mm might not be enough for the herons- those things are so..err.. edgy, always flying further away when I approach slowly.

I need info about the 100-400L. On POTN forums (photog on the net: for canon) there seems to be a lot of reports of bad QC which gave bad sharpness, but from time to time, I see a few 100-400L shots at 400mm that are absolutely stunning. So are there similar reports like that in Singapore?

Oh yeah, for the sake of it, I compared the 100-400L @ 200mm and 70-200 f/4IS ISO charts over from TDP, and gave the 100-400L a slight boost with USM, and it looked so similar to the 70-200 f/4IS. Would real-world photos perform similarly with USM?

And while we're on the topic of IS, would this lens be adequate for indoor stage handheld usage with flash? We're talking ISO800 and 1/60 to 1/120.

So anyway, what I do know: Push-pull design (don't tell me about 'dust sucking', just doesn't seem right to me), not weather-sealed, 2 stop IS, as heavy as 70-200 2.8.

EDIT: Anyone has a picture of it mounted on a rebel+grip or xxD + grip?

Cheers, any comments at all regarding this lens will be appreciated.
Zexun

 

[nuthead]

If you got for the 70-200mm, it might just be too short for shoting birdie, but you can use the 1.4/2.0 TC to extend the range.

I tried the 100-400mm f/2.8L at John 3:16 the last time, kinda of heavy and it won't be advisable if you use free hand at the max. zoom.

I got myself the 70-300mm DO for my recent trip to New Zealand, quite like that lens. But it would be quite heavy if you're going to shot pointing upwards after sometime.

There is some pic that I use the lens to shot Albatross, Penguin & Seal. Take a look at it here http://www.flickr.com/photos/31617897@N03/

 

[Headshotzx]

Thanks for the response, nuthead. Lovely photographs too. Newzealand is a lovely place.

I've seen the results of adding a 1.4x tc to the 70-200 f/4IS (I forgot to say that dad can't afford 70-200 2.8IS already), both real world and studio tests, and I don't like the result. Doesn't take sharpening well, and CA is quite bad.

bro, 100-400L can't be f/2.8, or else it'll be 10kg or more! Haha.

 

[nuthead]

sorry my mistake, dream of the 16-35mm f/2.8 after letting go my 10-22mm ;p

 

[headlesschook]

....

And while we're on the topic of IS, would this lens be adequate for indoor stage handheld usage with flash? We're talking ISO800 and 1/60 to 1/120.

....
Zexun

If shooting indoors with LITTLE or NO ambient light, using flash, the flash duration is more impt than the actual shutter speed. should be around 1/800 secs and you should have no problem freezing motion with that, unless your subject is moving very quickly. Otherwise, the 1/60 or 1/120 is a bit low if you're at 400mm, plus 1.6 crop, even with IS.

It's a good lens, brighter than it's F5.6 suggests.

 

[natx]

Here bro, check out this page to see some photos i posted with this lens... the thread also pertains to your qn =) Hope this helps! =)

 

[alvinpaul]

Here bro, check out this page to see some photos i posted with this lens... the thread also pertains to your qn =) Hope this helps! =)

Nice pictures natx, specially the lizard shot I also saw pictures first hand from a fellow clubsnapper, vince aka funtasy, during a fashion show at Takashimaya and it is sharp! :thumbsup:

 

[Headshotzx]

If shooting indoors with LITTLE or NO ambient light, using flash, the flash duration is more impt than the actual shutter speed. should be around 1/800 secs and you should have no problem freezing motion with that, unless your subject is moving very quickly. Otherwise, the 1/60 or 1/120 is a bit low if you're at 400mm, plus 1.6 crop, even with IS.

It's a good lens, brighter than it's F5.6 suggests.

Ah. So I guess I'd be better off with at least a monopod / tripod / stable platform for it to work, right?

Here bro, check out this page to see some photos i posted with this lens... the thread also pertains to your qn =) Hope this helps! =)

Nice shots!

 

[raptor84]

I used it for a shot zoo trip on a 350D with no grap and its terribly un balanced at 400mm. My palm was a little sore as I ahd to grip it extra hard at times heh.. The one I tested was a little soft at 400mm wide open but overall not too bad.

 

[Headshotzx]

I used it for a shot zoo trip on a 350D with no grip and its terribly unbalanced at 400mm. My palm was a little sore as I had to grip it extra hard at times heh.. The one I tested was a little soft at 400mm wide open but overall not too bad.

Yeah I know that it'll be quite unbalanced with the 400D + grip-- the 70-200 2.8IS was already quite unbalanced, and the 100-400L is much longer at 400mm.

Care to share some photos from your trip?

 

[Rayrider]

Hi,
I bought the 100-400 in late September intending to use it at the Singapore F1 during Friday Practice. However, on visiting the site where I was seated and trying to take shots during the afternoon supporting cars' practice, i knew it is going to be tough in the evening when the F1 Practice starts. Nevertheless, I went back in the evening to have a feel to engine roar but as expected, did not have any shots that I was happy with.
Since I love birding and always finds the 70-200 f2.8 IS is still short on my 40D for the purpose, I decided to try the lens out at the Bird Park and I was pleasantly surprised. I think the focus speed is pretty good. Push-pull needs a little bit of getting used to but it is not difficult to handle. The lens is about the weight of the 70-200 and took all the shots with IS on and without tripod/monopod. I fell in love with the lens when I viewed the downloaded pictures back home. IQ (for this lens I have,more about that later) is very good at different focal lengths. I went on to the Zoo with lens shortly and more convinced that I made a right choice for a super telephoto that meets my interests. I have uploaded a few photos on the 2 field trips at the following link
http://www.flickr.com/photos/22286302@N03/
All the photos were taken with the 100-400 with minimal cropping and tweaking.
Now more about the buying experience I had with this lens: I went to CP at Peninsula on 25th Sep to pick up the lens from my regular sales guy. The 1st copy was pretty obvious that specks of dust internally. 2nd copy seems ok at the shop so took it home. At night, examine it again, noticed at the edge of the lens, there is a black speck of dust (to me is worst than the 'white' specks in the 1st copy). So, went back to CP on Friday (day of the F1 Practice) and change for a 3rd copy. Again, it looks fine and took it with directly to the F1 track and try out a number of shots. Even putting it on 2xTC and try it on manual and take some building structure far away. Decent shot considering i have no support. However, when I examine the lens again at home that night, found that it has a 'small bubble' inclusion in of the lens elements. Further more, this bubble is only obvious from one end of the lens at longer focal length. Back to CP on Saturday and check out the last copy they have in the shop. Spent a much longer time checking he lens from different end and different focal length before leaving with the final copy I have right now. Thus, in terms of QC for this lens is questionable but when you finally land a good copy, I think you will be very happy with the IQ. Though, I doubt the dust specks will really affect the images taken, but can't accept that for what I am paying to buy an L lens. The 'bubble' is a shocker, even the salesman was amazed though one of the 'old bird' salesman at CP said some customers likes 'bubble' especially for Lieca lenses!?! I thought he must be joking! Who in the right mind wants bubble in their expensive lenses!
So, if you eventually decided to go for this lens, make sure you check it carefully prior to purchase or at least the shop must be willing to help you out when you discovered issues with the lens within a reasonable time-frame.
Cheers.

 

[Headshotzx]

Thanks for the response, rayrider. Welcome to clubsnap btw =) Lovely photographs.

You had to go through 4 copies to find a (cosmetically) good copy? Wow. That's something.

 

[Rayrider]

Thanks Headshotzx. I have been a Clubsnap's member for a while but not very active in contributing. A great community and I learned a lot from the contributions. Will try to do my part when I can.
Yah, 4 copies to get one that is cosmetically acceptable is quite something but would you accept the 'flaws' on the 1st three copies i mentioned?

 

[Headshotzx]

Thanks Headshotzx. I have been a Clubsnap's member for a while but not very active in contributing. A great community and I learned a lot from the contributions. Will try to do my part when I can.
Yah, 4 copies to get one that is cosmetically acceptable is quite something but would you accept the 'flaws' on the 1st three copies i mentioned?

If there were four copies, no, but if there was one and I needed it soon, yeah maybe.

 

[Rayrider]

If there were four copies, no, but if there was one and I needed it soon, yeah maybe.

Use first and change for a cosmetically good one later ;p

 

[Garion]

Just to share some of my limited experience with this lens:

- they don't call it "dust trombone" for nothing. It's a dust sucker!
- QC/sharpness issues with the lens reputedly resolved with more recent copies (circa 2004 and later). Check the date code when u purchase the lens. But like previous posters said, the QC may still not be up to spec, so check thoroughly b4 buying!
- Slightly soft when zoomed out all the way to 400mm..a trick is to retract the lens a little to obtain slightly better sharpness.
- Push/pull zoom....again this is a personal issue, some like it some may not. Personally I prefer twist zoom....just couldn't get used to the push pull mechanism.
- Its not an ideal indoor lens. Period. That is why the 70-200 f2.8 exists.
- Needs lots of good light to perform at its best (in terms of AF speed/IQ)

Finally, my advice is: rent or borrow a copy and try out in the field to find out its strength and weaknesses b4 deciding to plonk ur cash on this lens.

 

[raptor84]

Yeah I know that it'll be quite unbalanced with the 400D + grip-- the 70-200 2.8IS was already quite unbalanced, and the 100-400L is much longer at 400mm.

Care to share some photos from your trip?

These qwere taken loong ago first one wide open second one stopped down to 6.3 IIRC.
http://velociraptor.deviantart.com/art/Curious-Capuchin-37261169
http://velociraptor.deviantart.com/art/I-Need-A-Break-37196925

 

[Headshotzx]

Thanks for the samples. The monkey shot is a money shot indeed

 

[natx]

word of caution, if you cant test the lens before committing to buy, dont. The first copy i tried was softer than this one... It's not a back focusing thing, it's just not sharp, so please be careful =)

 

[Headshotzx]

word of caution, if you cant test the lens before committing to buy, dont. The first copy i tried was softer than this one... It's not a back focusing thing, it's just not sharp, so please be careful =)

I will test it out beforehand of course. But how'd I test the lens at 400mm? Just like any other lens test?