100-400 discussion

I got one.
Dont use any filters on it, its light hungry.
Use with good light & fast shutter its OK.
Maybee better with 70-200 2.8 II is with 1.4TC II....awsome

I use my 100-400 a lot. I agree with Ando27. It is a light hog. Sunny day vs a cloudy day you will definitely see a difference. As the light dims, even a little, focus slows noticeably on the long end. You have to be more careful to get a sharp picture. Especially with AI Servo. That said it is still a fantastic lens. I use mine mostly for wildlife and BIF. With practice it can be hand held to 400mm. I also have the 70-200 f2.8 IS-II and 2x teleconveter. Very versatile but personally I like the 100-400 better.

I also have the 18-135 is lens. I like it a lot and it is my primary indoor walk around lens. It is much sharper than it gets credit for. And yes even with the 7D it is sometimes a little short.

I have never used the Sigma so I can't comment on them except to say that a colleague of mine uses the Sigma 50-500 second edition and likes it quite a lot.

Best of Luck
Mike

how is the 100-400L anymore of a "light hog" than any other f4.5 - f5.6 lens? this is thread sure contains alot of bull****

drzenitram wrote in post #15371271
For less, you can get the sigma 70-200 2.8 os. The difference in 200mm and 400mm is less than youd think. It's not double the amount of zoom.

what? you've got to be kidding me!?

ed rader wrote in post #15371808
what? you've got to be kidding me!?

Yeahhh yeah, I already admitted I was wrong, the difference just doesn't seem that significant to me. I'm no wildlife or sport shooter, though.

First of all, thanks alot for all of your comments. The only reason i doubt the 70-200 f4 IS is the fact that the long end is 200mm. My dad has A d7000 + 18-200 lens so i'm pretty much familiar with this focal length.. Yesterday i was shooting birds from 100-200 meters away and once again, i was REALLY FAR AWAY. Thats the reason why i want the 100-400 and I've read both good and bad reviews. I cant choose which one to go with.?

As long as your aware of the 100-400 short comings its great bang for the buck lens.

As for the comments from "@#****** Raider",...about it being a light hog,..& it being f4.5 / f5.6 .....perhaps you want to try one on an overcast afternoon...

As long as you do everything to get as much light fir the 100-400 its great , but overcast & low light makes it very hard work... a great lens in good light..

Romax12 wrote in post #15372192
First of all, thanks alot for all of your comments. The only reason i doubt the 70-200 f4 IS is the fact that the long end is 200mm. My dad has A d7000 + 18-200 lens so i'm pretty much familiar with this focal length.. Yesterday i was shooting birds from 100-200 meters away and once again, i was REALLY FAR AWAY. Thats the reason why i want the 100-400 and I've read both good and bad reviews. I cant choose which one to go with.?

Why don't you rent one for a few days and see if you like it? Seems like a cheap way to make sure you don't make an expensive mistake.

Ando27 wrote in post #15372214
As long as your aware of the 100-400 short comings its great bang for the buck lens.

As for the comments from "@#****** Raider",...about it being a light hog,..& it being f4.5 / f5.6 .....perhaps you want to try one on an overcast afternoon...

As long as you do everything to get as much light fir the 100-400 its great , but overcast & low light makes it very hard work... a great lens in good light..

It's f/5.6. But you guys call it a 'light hog' as if there are just tons of other 400mm lens options that are much faster and are in the same range for price and weight. There are not.

There are other slow options like the 400/5.6 and third party zooms. And then there are faster options that cost around $10000 and are a lot bigger and heavier like the 400/2.8L and the 200-400/4 (not yet available).

So yeah.....f/5.6 is kind of limiting in low light. But it isn't like there are easy ways around that at 400mm.

Another topic that came up in this thread was one of reach. As in, why not just use 200mm. It's worth pointing out that when you double the focal length, the FOV is reduced by half on each axis. That means that to shoot at 200mm and crop to 400mm would require you to crop away 75% of the image. You just can't crop that much without affecting the image quality. I'd rather shoot 400mm at high ISO than try to shoot 200mm and crop that hard.

I found the 100-400L to be very sharp (even at 400mm f/5.6), and pretty accurate for focusing, and the IS to be good, though obviously it's old tech. Of course all of that assumes you have enough light to work with. To me, it's a specialized lens, I couldn't imagine using it for portraits, but I imagine it'd work.


both 400mm @ f/5.6

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING! HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

The only lens better than the 100-400, for the focal length, is the 500/4 for a LOT more money. I traded my 400/5.6 for an 85/1.2 and still own my 100-400 for versatility, IS and IQ. You WILL miss the IS of the 100-400 when going to the 400/5.6.

The comments about it being a light hog are unfounded. It is no more a light hog than any other 4.5 - 5.6 lens.

You will also notice degradation in IQ, focus accuracy and speed when using tele-converters with any lens, there is absolutely no such thing as a free lunch.

-Amen!

I think if you already have a 70-200mm in your kit then the 100-400mm makes more sense. I use my 70-200 a great deal more than my 100-400mm but whe you need the length it has it. It is a great lens that requires a little getting used to. I am very steady hand holding and I can do so withthe 100-400 but find I get a better "keeper rate" with my monopod. Renting one is a good suggestion.
Happy Shopping!

It's a great lens to have at your disposal. Lightweight ( for a 400mm ), sharp and with such a long range very versatile. It's about as good as it gets for the money. Here's the only portrait I could find with it at the moment..........

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

for me, it's alot of money. 1100 or 1400 bucks are nearly 1 year savings (im only 16).
if the image quality on the 100-400 any better than my 18-135 i think ill go for it so please answer this question

Romax12 wrote in post #15372898
if the image quality on the 100-400 any better than my 18-135 i think ill go for it so please answer this question

they have a different focal length range ! (and to some extent aperture)
one is not necessarily better than the other, "IQ" or otherwise, they are used for different purposes