100-400mm f5.6L [at 100-300mm range]

[prsast]

Tried this on DPReview (so apologies if you read it twice), just wondered if anybody here had any alternative comments.

There are several reviews around comparing the 100-400mm at 400mm with the 400mm f5.6L and also a lot of reviews that indicate this lens is weakest at the 300-400mm range. I cannot however find a review for the 100-300mm range of this lens.

I have recently moved from 35mm to a 1D [Mk2] and would like to use this lens in Africa to reduce lens changing (I currently use a 100mm,200mm and 300mm f2.8 primes with 1.4x if needed). I rarely shoot above 400mm (35mm) as I feel even with bean bags and a dedicated roof mount that I cannot keep the camera (or 4x4/safari truck full of excited tourists!!.) steady enough.

Based on the 1.3 multiplication factor of the 1D I felt that I would therefore be mostly in the 100-300mm range of the zoom (why doesn’t Canon make an L series 100-300mm anymore??). Therefore, I was not over worried about the performance of the lens at the 400mm end but would like to know how it compares to the 70-200mm and the primes in the 100-300mm range.

Also has anybody experienced dust problems with this lens?? I am a little paranoid about dust and there seems to be mixed reviews as to whether any dust that enters the lens is able to get to the digital sensor or is contained within the lens - any ideas???

Many thanks, Andy

[defordphoto]

A lot of 100-400L threads this week.

First off, the old adage of this lens "sucking dust" into your camera is ludicrous. I have had this lens for two years and I clean my sensors maybe twice a year (big maybe).

Maybe this lens is "weakest" at 300-400, but with the high quality of glass in this baby it still blows away most zooms and is a close equal to some primes.

Check this gallery as they are ALL with the 100-400 and mostly at 400: http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/3_Day/index.htm

Remember that many reviews these days are from pixel-peepers that blow up photos to 200%-500% to find minuscule defects. There are MANY threads on this forum covering the 100-400 and many with photos attached that will blow your mind. And be very careful when looking at them as they are so sharp you may slice an eye. ;)

[Molydood]

RFM, great post.
Some questions if you don't mind too much.
Do you need f8 to get the whole car in focus? Even on the side views? I notice pretty much all the pics are f8, and I was expecting almost wide open for sports.
I know you probably are happy with your shutter speed at 1/500, to get the correcxt amount of B/G blur, but why not open up the lens a bit more, shoot at ISO 100, and get a bit more blur to the backgrounds into the bargain?
Sorry if these are inappropriate questions, I'm just wanting to learn

thanks,
Martin

[Scottes]

Yeah, I get a kick out of people complaining about this lens being "soft at 400mm" and such. Without pixel-peeping I have yet to see a difference between the 100-400 and the 400 prime, and I haven't pixel-peeped. It *may* be there if I looked hard enough, but I'd *have* to look very closely. The two are equal as I far as I can see.

[prsast]

Thanks RFM and Scottes (some great pics RFT) I guess I was just getting a bit paranoid by some of the other 100-400mm doom and gloom posts, coupled with some bad experiences with a 75-300mm I owned a couple of years back.

The dust has been a massive problem for me in Kenya, I spend about 3-4 weeks a year on the Masia Mara and have lost numerous shots/films with sctratches from dust grains entering when changing film/lenses. [When surrounded buy several thousand wildebeast the dust and sand can be so thick you can barely see 3-4 car lengths].
I have also completely jammed an EOS 3 shutter and had the focus system block on a 300mm f2.8 burning out the USM motor (Canon informed me both were the result of excessive dust infiltration).

With the digital I was keen to reduce lens changing (the primary source of introduced dust along with changing film) and hence have been looking into a new zoom (I was also hopeing reducing the weight I carry). With the reports of dust "sucking" I was a little concerned but could not believe that it could be that easy to draw in any significant amount (I cannot believe there are not several seals blocking easy access).

Anyway, many thanks for the input,

Andy

[Scottes]

In situations like that I guess that I'd use a bag of some sort - like a film-change bag - for changing film or lenses. Even a trash bag would do wonders I'm sure.

The 100-400 is a damn fine lens, and it would certainly cut down on lens changes for sure.

[defordphoto]

RFM, great post.
Some questions if you don't mind too much.
Do you need f8 to get the whole car in focus? Even on the side views? I notice pretty much all the pics are f8, and I was expecting almost wide open for sports.
I know you probably are happy with your shutter speed at 1/500, to get the correcxt amount of B/G blur, but why not open up the lens a bit more, shoot at ISO 100, and get a bit more blur to the backgrounds into the bargain?
Sorry if these are inappropriate questions, I'm just wanting to learn

thanks,
Martin

Martin,

I do vary my shots a lot. Just not in that particular sequence and maybe not on that particular day. That was two seasons ago and my first sports-shoot with digital. You can get some really cool stuff my panning at 1/15 or less. Check out my sprint boat shots.

[Molydood]

thanks RFM.
I just wondered if F8 was a requirement for that style of shot.
nice shots of the boats too.

I'd like to see some panning at 1/15 :shock:

Martin

[defordphoto]

Thanks. I'll have to dig some of those up. My wife's better at those than I am. And no, there are no requirements for any kind of shooting, in my opinion. Rules of the thirds and all that..Blah. I shoot what I shoot.

[Rayz]

According to Photodo tests, this lens is best at 180mm. However, I'd say that a lot of the complaints about the lens being soft at 400mm are due to inadequate shutter speed. The general rule-of-thumb for hand-held shots is a shutter speed of 1/focal length for an 8x12 print from 35mm.

With the crop factor of cameras like the 10D and 20D, 400mm becomes 640mm. Without IS, a 1/640th sec exposure would be the minimum. However, if you intend making enlargements greater than 8x12, I'd recommend at least 1/1000th sec without IS. Since IS is claimed to give about 2 stops latitude, that translates to a minimum of 1/250th sec exposure for a hand-held shot at 400mm.

However, 1/250th will not guatantee a razor sharp image, just an 'acceptably' sharp image. If you think your lens might be soft at 400mm, check it out with a good tripod or a hand-held shot at 1/500th with IS.

[Theo]

Hello Andy,

I Only had my DRebel and 100-400L for 1 Week, No Previous Experience with DSLR Before! Total Newbie!!! All Shot Wide Open, IS @ 400mm!

http://community.webshots.com/album/209734710gAUxtn

http://community.webshots.com/album/210587562CuOtts

http://community.webshots.com/album/207504289xPHpyW

Love the Canon 100-400L IS - It ROCKS!

Good Luck,

Ted

[defordphoto]

However, 1/250th will not guatantee a razor sharp image, just an 'acceptably' sharp image. If you think your lens might be soft at 400mm, check it out with a good tripod or a hand-held shot at 1/500th with IS.

Hah! I love playing against the "so-called" rules and winning. 8)

[Rayz]

I should have called them guidelines :D .