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
Ando27 Goldmember ![]() 1,218 posts Joined Jan 2012 Location: New South Wales Australia More info | Dec 15, 2012 21:02 | #16 I got one. Ando.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
MikeWa Senior Member ![]() More info | Dec 15, 2012 22:20 | #17 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. Mike...G9; 7D; 7D Mark II; EF-S 10-22mm; EF-S 18-135mm IS STM; EF 28-300mm F3.5-5.6L; EF 70-300mm IS USM; EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS-II; EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS; EXT 1.4-II & 2.0-III; The more I learn the less I know.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ed rader "I am not the final word" ![]() More info | 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**** http://instagram.com/edraderphotography/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
ed rader "I am not the final word" ![]() More info | Dec 15, 2012 22:46 | #19 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!? http://instagram.com/edraderphotography/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
drzenitram Senior Member 824 posts Joined Aug 2012 More info | Dec 15, 2012 22:50 | #20 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. | Bodies - 5D Mark II, T2i | Lenses - Helios 44-2, Sigma 35mm 1.4, Sigma 85 1.4, Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, Tamron SP AF 1.4x TC | Lights - 430ex ii x2, Random 3rd party strobes
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Dec 16, 2012 02:25 | #21 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. Canon t3i
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Ando27 Goldmember ![]() 1,218 posts Joined Jan 2012 Location: New South Wales Australia More info | Dec 16, 2012 02:45 | #22 As long as your aware of the 100-400 short comings its great bang for the buck lens. Ando.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Scrumhalf Cream of the Crop ![]() More info | Dec 16, 2012 03:55 | #23 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. Sam
LOG IN TO REPLY |
JeffreyG "my bits and pieces are all hard" ![]() More info | Dec 16, 2012 07:58 | #24 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. My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/photos/jngirbach/sets/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
BrandonSi Nevermind.. I'm silly. ![]() More info | Dec 16, 2012 09:23 | #25 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.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Dec 16, 2012 09:30 | #26 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. I'd rather shoot 400mm at high ISO than try to shoot 200mm and crop that hard. -Amen!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Trique Daddi Goldmember ![]() More info | Dec 16, 2012 09:41 | #27 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. Canon 7DMKII,7D 40D, 20D, CANON 100-400mm IS 4.5/5.6L, Canon 70-200mm 2.8L, Canon 50mm 1.8, Canon 100mm 2.8 macro, Kenko Extension Tubes, Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS, 580EX II Flash,Gittos MH 5580 monopod, Thinktank Airport Takeoff.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Dec 16, 2012 09:47 | #28 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.......... Ian
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Dec 16, 2012 09:50 | #29 for me, it's alot of money. 1100 or 1400 bucks are nearly 1 year savings (im only 16). Canon t3i
LOG IN TO REPLY |
watt100 Cream of the Crop 14,021 posts Likes: 29 Joined Jun 2008 More info | Dec 16, 2012 11:07 | #30 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)
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
y 1600 |
Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting! |
| ||
Latest registered member is PhillGibson 853 guests, 188 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 |