Yet another lens..... 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS???

Discussion in 'Creative Arts' started by MarkPDX, Nov 8, 2007.

  1. MarkPDX

    MarkPDX F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa

    Apr 21, 2003
    Gulf Coast
    #1 MarkPDX, Nov 8, 2007
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    I have been pretty happy with my 70-200 f4L but there are times that I really would like some more range and have been thinking about picking one of these up. It is big but really isn't as heavy as I expected though it is a little bulky. The push/pull zoom is a bit different from what I'm used to but I'm sure that it won't be too tough to get a feel for it. All the reviews on Amazon seem to be great but I'm curious if anyone has personal experience.

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

    on Amazon

    The 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS is also interesting but it's more expensive and is obviously a bit shorter. I already have the 24-105L f4 which pretty well covers things closer in anyway but it would occasionally be nice to not have to swap lenses.

    Canon's site
    EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM

    on Amazon

    The prime lenses are sweet, particularly the 400mm
    f/2.8L IS USM, but they are pretty damn big in size and price.

    Any thoughts?

    Image Unavailable, Please Login
  2. To remove this ad click here.

  3. blackwood

    blackwood Formula 3

    Dec 15, 2005
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Full Name:
    I considered that very lens. Rented one from a local shop, in fact. I am one of the few people who likes the Push/Pull (seems like every post I see about it is negative).

    Like you said, it's a big, heavy lens. That's the only reason I didn't buy it. Instead I bought the 70-300 DO. I figured I'd rarely use that extra 100mm (even now on the rare occasions I have the 70-300 out I hardly ever go to full focal length), and that another lens the size of my 24-105L would be nice.
  4. MarkPDX

    MarkPDX F1 World Champ
    Lifetime Rossa

    Apr 21, 2003
    Gulf Coast
    I looked at the 70-300 DO but am a little bit unsure about it, the size is definitely nice. How have you liked it?
  5. ylshih

    ylshih Global Moderator
    Global Moderator Advising Moderator Honorary Owner

    Mar 21, 2004
    Northern CA
    Full Name:
    I'm more familiar with the Nikon system than Canon (I have too many lenses to switch back and forth easily), but does Canon have 1.4x and 2x teleconverters? I like those as an option over medium speed telephotos.

    For example, say I have an 80-200 f2.8 and a 1.4x converter, then I get a 110-280 f4; or if I use a 300 f4, I get a 420 f5.6. Throw in a 1.5x multiplier for the DX format over full-frame and I am into the 600 effective focal length and still f5.6 or better. I have a 2x converter also, but I tend to use it less as the speed loss and image degradation are a little more noticeable, but the 1.4x has little effect on the image. This strategy works to help me keep to 2 or 3 lenses of moderate weight at any one time, while preserving some capability at the long end.

    Then you can save the big bucks for the 200 f2, 300 f2.8 or 400 f2.8; when you need long focal length and a really fast lens for depth of field or fast shutter speed.
  6. P1-EH

    P1-EH Formula Junior

    Sep 10, 2007
    Waterloo, Ont.
    Full Name:
    I bought the 100-400mm a few years ago and absolutely love it. I wanted it for use at the Canadian Grand Prix, and I have many great shots thanks to this lens. You can see some of the shots on ... well, i guess you can't post site names here, especially ones that sound like flicker :( The pix (if you get there) are at /photos/ph-stop/sets/72157601696424368/

    It is heavy, so you'll need a monopod if you're going to use it for more than a few shots. And get a good backpack to lug it around in.

    My only criticism is that it isn't as fast as I'd like which results in some underexposure problems when shooting fast objects in less than ideal light.

    I have no regrets about buying this lens.
  7. To remove this ad click here.

  8. blackwood

    blackwood Formula 3

    Dec 15, 2005
    Redondo Beach, CA
    Full Name:
    It's treated me well. The two types of IS work well, though I rarely remember to change it. It's not extremely sharp at 300, but it's tolerable.

    I think this was 300mm:
  9. fiorano94

    fiorano94 F1 Veteran

    May 26, 2006
    I'm looking into one these myself.
  10. bludevil12

    bludevil12 Formula 3
    Lifetime Rossa

    May 12, 2004
    Northern VA
    Full Name:
    David L.
    The only problem I notice with lenses like this revolve around the variable aperture. You could be all set up-shutter speed, exposure etc- and then when you zoom, the aperture changes and over/under exposes. Only problem I have experienced.

    Like someone said, a 70-200 with a 1.4 or 2x teleconverter in good light will give you the same results, and is a lot cheaper.
  11. Razzer92

    Razzer92 F1 Rookie

    Aug 4, 2006
    Im getting my camera this week, it only comes with a 18-55, its not that bad, but in the kit a extra lens comes which is 70-300.

    and wow 400!
  12. To remove this ad click here.

  13. Whisky

    Whisky F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jan 27, 2006
    Upper Great Plains aka Nebraska
    Full Name:
    The original Fernando
    Mark, I owned a Canon 400 2.8 22 years ago, and I also had a Nikon 300/2. I needed speed, even though
    Canon and Nikon focus opposite of each other (when twisting the direction towards infinity, etc.)

    Some of the F1 pics on my website were shot with the 400 2.8 on Kodachrome PKR 64, or on B&W Plus-X.
    Incredibly sharp lens before anyone ever heard of 'digital'.

Share This Page