Canon 100-400: Will this make a good sports lens?

[Lonewolf]

I'm looking at the Canon 100-400 for wildlife photography and I expect it should do just fine.

I'm currently using the Canon 70-200 f/4 L for Little League, Airshows, and other fast moving sports.

Will the auto-focus on the 100-400 be fast/accurate enough for my high speed needs?

Thanks - Wayne.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

The autofocus is fine for sports. Question is, will the aperture be fast enough to give you a decent shutter speed? If they're mid-day games and such, it should be fine, I'd think. I've seen spectacular airshow shots with it, too.

[morehtml]

The 100-400 is not much of a outdoor sports lens. Too slow. I haven't tried it focus wise but it doesn't seem as fast as my other lenses. the 70-200 f4 you have is better I believe.

[ssim]

The 100-400 is not much of a outdoor sports lens. Too slow. I haven't tried it focus wise but it doesn't seem as fast as my other lenses. the 70-200 f4 you have is better I believe.

I have to disagree with you. I don't don't know what makes you think that it won't work outside. I will agree that it is not going to be as fast as some of the other lenses in your signature but it does work well outside. I used it for a long time before getting the 300/500/600 lenses that I currently have. The 100-400 still goes with me when I am travelling on short trips. 200mm is just too short for wildlife and then if you put a 1.4tc on it you have a 400mm 5.6 lens, the same as the 100-400 without the hassle of the teleconverter.

If you are shooting in reasonable light, the 100-400 will perform just fine. I've put thousands of shots through mine in a variety of conditions and it yields very good results. If you took the time to browse through some of the posts from Scottes in birds you will find some amazing shots. RFMSports has a dynamite shot at a car race, hopefully he will jump in with it here. At times you have to become adept at managing your ISO so that you can have the right combination of shutter vs fstop but that is all part of the process.

This link is to the 100-400 images on pbase. http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_100-400_45-56l_is. There is definitely some nice work here.

The 100-400 provides excellent quality and value for what you pay for this lens. It is one of Canon's best selling lenses to the masses. I wouldn't hesitate for a moment to recommend it to someone contemplating a lens in this focal range.

[Bosphorousman]

You can take a look at these:
http://www.pbase.com/bosphorousman/sports&cmd=reset_hit_count

All 4 on the second page were shot in very overcast skies with no sun, between 3-6 in the afternoon. All shot with a 300D and EF 100-400L IS.

[defordphoto]

The 100-400 is not much of a outdoor sports lens. Too slow. I haven't tried it focus wise but it doesn't seem as fast as my other lenses. the 70-200 f4 you have is better I believe.

I also could not disagree with you more. Proof is in the pudding: This entire gallery (http://www.defordphoto.com/SportsGalleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/index.htm) was shot using the 10D and the 100-400. And under mostly cloudy conditions.

However, on the downside, the AF of the 100-400 will falter a bit and go into hunt mode under cloudy conditions and a low-contrast subject. It really matters on your subject matter. Shooting a gray bird in a tree in the fall with dying leaves on a cloudy day might prove challenging. Shooting a race car on a cloudy day is a no-brainer.

Another lens to consider is the 400L 5.6 prime. AF is more accurate and precise especially in those low-contrast situations.

[morehtml]

I also could not disagree with you more. Proof is in the pudding: This entire gallery (http://www.defordphoto.com/SportsGalleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/index.htm) was shot using the 10D and the 100-400. And under mostly cloudy conditions.

However, on the downside, the AF of the 100-400 will falter a bit and go into hunt mode under cloudy conditions and a low-contrast subject. It really matters on your subject matter. Shooting a gray bird in a tree in the fall with dying leaves on a cloudy day might prove challenging. Shooting a race car on a cloudy day is a no-brainer.

Another lens to consider is the 400L 5.6 prime. AF is more accurate and precise especially in those low-contrast situations.

Those do look very good! Will it focus good and accurately on people (ie football, soccer) during a less than bright day? I've just used it for wildlife and on overcast days you have to really bump ISO.

[lon10c]

If the lens will work for wildlife, birds in flight in particular, it should work generally the same way for action sports.

You can always bump up the ISO if f/5.6 is to slow.

You don't say what camera you have. As you know, some AF better at high "f" numbers than others.

The 400mm f/5.6 prime is a really good lens as others says but it doesn't have IS. However, at high shutter speeds IS isn't as important.

[S Taylor]

Awesome collection of shots Jim. Viewing them makes me want to go get a 100-400 now! :lol:

BTW, image IMG_2755.JPG in that gallery is simply awesome. Excellent work.

[defordphoto]

Those do look very good! Will it focus good and accurately on people (ie football, soccer) during a less than bright day? I've just used it for wildlife and on overcast days you have to really bump ISO.

I have shot kids soccer games on cloudy days. Every once in awhile it'll get confused, but 98% of the time works perfectly fine.

[defordphoto]

Awesome collection of shots Jim. Viewing them makes me want to go get a 100-400 now! :lol:

BTW, image IMG_2755.JPG in that gallery is simply awesome. Excellent work.

Thanks. As soon as the rain stopped I flew to the wall to shoot whatever I could. Got a few keepers. :)

[defordphoto]

The photo in the avatar is with the MKII and the 100-400.

[Tom W]

I'll stand in favor of the 100-400 as well. It's a compact (relatively), versatile, easy-to-handle zoom of very good quality. I've used it for air shows, football, auto racing, baseball, and some medium-range birding. It has worked well on the 10D, 1D II, 350D, and 5D.

[narlus]

Thanks. As soon as the rain stopped I flew to the wall to shoot whatever I could. Got a few keepers. :)

the photo data on that shot says flash was fired. how? did you have a remote slave which wasn't run over somehow?

[malla1962]

The 100-400 is a superb light weight lens.:D

[calicokat]

I love my 100-400L but I use mine for birding and wildlife.

[basroil]

The 100-400 is a superb light weight lens.:D

yea, the 100-400 is a featherweight compared to 70-200 2.8IS :rolleyes:

basically any lens at least 5.6 will do fine for sports like baseball, and the added reach of 400 should help in airshows too. if focus is annoying, you could always go manual and have 0% confusion of the camera+lens ;) (not saying you won't get confused, because that would be close to 100% without a focus screen)

[MagentaJoe]

The 100-400 is very good for outdoor use. This is from a cascar race last monday. These cars are moving quite fast AND it's an overcast day. This is shot at iso-200, F/5.6, 1/1250. The lens was on IS mode 2 (panning).

Note the piece of car body flying by.

http://www.ceretti.com/msn/carpiece.jpg

[Big Hands]

The main problem with the 100-400L IS for shooting sports: It has a relatively small aperture.

While this may not be a problem for ALL sports shots, it is a problem for many , if not most of them. The obvious issue is that it is basically a daylight sports lens at best. It will not freeze action with fast motion under the lights.

The next problem is that you won't be rendering too many out of focus backgrounds. This is an especially large problem in most youth league sport venues because you will see things like cars in parking lots or disinterested spectators looking the other way that will be huge distractions. The CASCAR photo posted earlier is a classic example of this. It can be hard to isolate your main subject with so much else going on in the shot.

The other advantage with lenses that are f/2.8 aperture or larger is that the AF on cameras like the 20D are optimized to function better than with lenses with larger apertures than f/2.8. This is especially critical to your keeper ratio when shooting fast moving action.

So, will it function as a sports lens in some situations? Absolutely. It will even take some very nice photographs in some situations. Does this make it a good sports lens? Not IMHO. The situations that it will perform really well in are too limited. Would I buy it as a sports lens? Not if sports was my main reason for buying it. If I mainly liked taking wildlife pictures and would only occasionally use it for non-serious sports work, it could be a good choice.

Don't believe me? Look around at major sporting events. What do you see?

Most lenses that are 400mm or below have f/2.8 apertures. The 100-400 is capable of decent sharpness and has a range that would be wonderful (ideal even) for sports and yet you still will rarely if ever see one used for pro work. The reason is that the aperture is too small for regular serious sports work.

Regards,
Jeff

[Bamamike]

@BigHands
Hey, hold your horses, we are talking about a lens for all of us, not for the PROS. And for the non PROS this lens is the best we can get. And anyway, if a PRO needs the blurry background - hey, there is Photoshop !!
Greetings, Mike

[MagentaJoe]

The Canon 400/2.8L is $6400.00 at BH Photo. The 100-400 IS L is $1400.00. I don't think the question was whether or not the 6400 dollar lens is better than the 1400 dollar lens. I think the answer to that question is obvious. The answer to the OP's question is that YES the 100-400 is a great lens for wildlife and sports.

If you are a pro and you need blurred backgrounds, without having to process your shots, then of course you should have the $6400.00 lens. The 100-400 is capable of allowing you to take some AMAZING photos. Many stunning examples have been posted in these forums.

Anyone thinking about getting a copy of one of these lenses should be assured that it is a fantastic tool which is also affordable for most.

I took this a few hours ago... Note the beautiful bokeh.

http://ceretti.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=11224&g2_serialNumber=2

[Theo]

Hi Wayne!

If you check my Birding, Wildlife, Bike Track, Thunderbird\Air Show, Lunar Eclipse (in 04') and Mt. Rushmore Collections on my site, you'll see what the 100-400mm is capable of!!

Here are a few quick examples with the 100-400mm! 1st w\30D, other 5 w\300D!! :D


Full Moon:
http://image57.webshots.com/157/3/25/60/2009325600015749622RCsTBr_ph.jpg

Great American Egret:
http://image42.webshots.com/42/0/33/38/315903338ZxSJhl_ph.jpg

Mt. Rushmore:
http://image40.webshots.com/40/7/35/46/367073546aLJZmW_ph.jpg

Thunderbird F16:
http://image16.webshots.com/17/7/83/27/209778327bsotyt_ph.jpg

White Tiger:
http://image34.webshots.com/34/2/90/27/232329027NEkOUU_ph.jpg

Bike Races:
http://image54.webshots.com/54/3/53/47/409935347cjYsJS_ph.jpg

I Really love this lens due to its Versility, IQ, IS, Bokeh and Quick Zoom Capability!!! It isn't real fast, but used in good light, it is hard to beat!!

Hope this helps with your purchase...Good Luck!!!

Ted

[MagentaJoe]

All those shots come up as forbidden to me Theo.

[jj1987]

It's a great lens, focusing is indeed slow. the 70-200 is much faster, but I still love the 100-400.

[GSH]

Yeah, it's a consistently bad lens, slow focus, terrible image quality and can't do those wonderful out of focus backgrounds...You could never use it for fast moving stuff like motorsports on a dull British spring day :rolleyes:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/geoff.hubbert/Pics/Oulton%20Park/F3GT/IMG_0221C.jpg

A higher res version of the above image.... Click!! (http://gsh-motorsports.fotopic.net/p28226462.html)

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/geoff.hubbert/Pics/Oulton%20Park/BTCC/IMG_2497_1.jpg

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/geoff.hubbert/Pics/Oulton%20Park/BTCC/IMG_2623.jpg

If the light is really poor, then it will struggle, what else do you expect from a lens with a max aperture range of f4.5 to 5.6?

For anything other than low light work, it is more than capable. There's a reason why i also own the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 but the 100-400L is my primary lens for trackside work.

[blackviolet]

wasn't Jim's shot from FHM done with the 100-400? it's definitely fast enough for all but evening/night. it's sharp and the AF is not going to hinder your keeper ratio. my only complaint about it is the push-me pull-you zoom action. that's not a bad lens design - just a user defect.

[rklepper]

So how is this lens for stopping action, then? I have also been looking at this lens and would really be curious.

[lost]

So how is this lens for stopping action, then? I have also been looking at this lens and would really be curious.

Under what conditions? It is great in mid to high light conditions. Low to No light conditions will present problems. But that is the same with *All* sub $2000 zooms in this range. IQ has been excellent for me. IS helps but wont do anything for stopping action.