Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM

[xcess]

Hi all,
I was looking at the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM and it looks like a pretty good lens with its focal length. I have read some reviews online but would like to know in your view, what you all think about this lens... Anyone out there using this lens post some pictures and give your pros and cons on this lens? :dunno:

Thank you!

 

[MarkNKL]

I'm looking at it too... I haven't had the chance to fully test it out but I guess for the pros its got:
Long focal length (good for birding) or if you're scared of people
Long focal range for versatility

Cons:
from 100-200mm not as "fast" as the 70-200 f/2.8
Push-Pull a bit cumbersome(didn't really think so, but it is a bit weird)
Vacuum cleaner... you can feel the vacuum sucking up the air as you extend the barrel...beware if you're going to sentosa!

 

[ManWearPants]

I do not have this lens but was comtemplating it at one stage and has always been pondering.

There is a good review on this lens and comparison with 70-200 and with tele-convertors in dpreview. Do search for it.

For me, my main hesitation is that for the 70-135mm range, I will not have the f2.8 that my 70-200 has. This range is useful for portraits.

My main reason for wanting it is as I find that it is a versatile lens for travelling - covering shooting animals, sports to distant subjects which the 200mm is defintely short.

However, I am more swayed towards keeping my 70-200f2.8 and getting a second 40D body. This setup would give me 6fps for burst mode which is really useful for shooting animal/sports and a 1.6 multiplier on the focal length giving me max 320mm. I would also gain a backup body in the process. I am still trying to justify my solution.

 

[xcess]

I'm looking at it too... I haven't had the chance to fully test it out but I guess for the pros its got:
Long focal length (good for birding) or if you're scared of people
Long focal range for versatility

Cons:
from 100-200mm not as "fast" as the 70-200 f/2.8
Push-Pull a bit cumbersome(didn't really think so, but it is a bit weird)
Vacuum cleaner... you can feel the vacuum sucking up the air as you extend the barrel...beware if you're going to sentosa!

So it will be sucking up the dust in the air into the lens also? :bigeyes:

 

[Deyeno]

Review of Lens Here


Cheers ....

 

[xcess]

Yup i have seen that review... I want to know what you guys & gals think about this lens or those who have used this lens...

 

[charlesleong]

Hi all,
I was looking at the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM and it looks like a pretty good lens with its focal length. I have read some reviews online but would like to know in your view, what you all think about this lens... Anyone out there using this lens post some pictures and give your pros and cons on this lens? :dunno:

Thank you!

Yup i have seen that review... I want to know what you guys & gals think about this lens or those who have used this lens...

it's not so much of what people use it for...

what are you intending to use it for?

 

[Cartman2000]

If you dont need the long range, or are not shooting sports, dont bother. might as well get proper 70-200mm f2.8 is

 

[Canonized]

I have this lens as well as the 70-200L IS.

I rate the 100-400 very highly. In fact for me, its more useful and more satisfying than the 70-200. I shoot mainly outdoors with the 100-400 and I use it to shoot animals at the zoo or birds at the bird park. Please check out the animals in my photoblog at http://htfotos.com.

I have said in various forums that if I lost all my lenses and of the three that I would buy again, the 100-400 will be in my first three lenses.

There are lots of people who complain about the lens but I discovered that most of the complaints are from those who are just starting on the use of long lenses. They will get soft images even on the most expensive prime long lenses because they did not get the basics right. Shooting long is not the same with lenses up to 200mm. It takes more discipline, control, strength, use of tripod and proper long lens techniques. Once you mastered long lens techniques, this lens will reward you.

ALSO - there are those who claim that the lens is a dust sucker. I have had mine for more than a year now and its not any dustier than my primes. Simple proof of this - take a torchlight and shine through the lens from the back as you look through it. Even primes have dust on them. Do not delude yourself to think that primes have no dust. My 100-400 does not have more dust than my primes. ALSO - its been proven with clinical testst that the average fine dusts on lens that is commonly found does not affect the image capture.

The Push Pull system works fine for me. Silly newbies loosen the front element to the point that there is no traction so when they discover that there is lens creep. The simple solution is to mark with a sticker on the lens when the lens is able to have traction when faced down yet is not so tight that it can be pushed and pulled.

BUT do not delude yourself that this lens is in the quality of a 300L f2.8. You do get what you pay for. Its a good L quality and better than third party equivalents but it will take some work to make the shots as sharp as a 300L - e.g. shooting at least 1.5 stops slower. Having sufficient light to shoot faster than 1/200 to stop shakes and use liveview with zoom to pinpoint focus.

But as with all the best lenses - there is a learning curve. Just do not blame the lens if your technique needs improvement.

This image of the young Utan was licensed by a Tshirt company in Australia:

 

[Canonized]

 

[Cartman2000]

well, there is no doubt that it is a good lens. amazing colours and sharpness. im renting it next friday for a soccer match lol

 

[fibredrive]

well i rented it today and am going to test it out properly tomorrow. only gripe right now is...the WEIGHT! oh man...!

 

[xcess]

Yup I would be shooting sports and wildlife... Thanks all for your views and Canonized for the inside on this lens btw this lens is not weather sealed?

 

[yehosaphat]

well i rented it today and am going to test it out properly tomorrow. only gripe right now is...the WEIGHT! oh man...!

Share your reviews with us once you are tried it!

 

[xcess]

Anyone experienced any bad copy?

 

[Kit]

Anyone experienced any bad copy?

I guess for those who can't use the lens well, it will always be a bad copy.

 

[fibredrive]

ok, must say i really enjoyed using this lens. i did try it at the redbull motorcross but between lousy technique, no external flash and an 8pm dinner date, let's just say nothing exciting came out of that.

i tried it at SWBR and i managed to get some nice bird shots imh-newbie-o. i tried it at a practice cricket session today and found the reach and iq pretty impressive. however, i imagine i might end up (pending another test this weekend) with the 70-200 f4L mainly due to cost and weight. lugging the 100-400mm around and hand holding it was no joke. i did not have any issues with the push pull function either. all in, i would say that i enjoyed the reach and flexibility of this lens given it's range, but the weight is something i would think about. i might go the 70-200 route, with a 1.4X extender in future if i am really serious on wildlife and sports photography, although some might say this might still not be enough. in the meantime, here's some sample noob shots with the lens, cropping and slight pp in saturation and contrast...

cheers!

 

[Headshotzx]

Anyone experienced any bad copy?

I've tested a few 100-400's around john3:16 and CP, tripod mounted mirror lockup and all, and yes there is a bit of IQ variation with the lenses. None looked 'bad', but there were certainly better copies with sharper edges and less CA.

 

[xcess]

I've tested a few 100-400's around john3:16 and CP, tripod mounted mirror lockup and all, and yes there is a bit of IQ variation with the lenses. None looked 'bad', but there were certainly better copies with sharper edges and less CA.

Alright, thanks fibredrive for your views Btw where are the better copies? CP or John 3:16?

 

[yehosaphat]

Alright, thanks fibredrive for your views Btw where are the better copies? CP or John 3:16?

You have to test it yourself depending on the existing copies they have! If one always carry better copies than another, the other will go bust!