Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 15 Dec 2012 (Saturday) 18:00
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

100-400 discussion

 
Ando27
Goldmember
Avatar
1,218 posts
Joined Jan 2012
Location: New South Wales Australia
     
Dec 15, 2012 21:02 |  #16

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


Ando.
"Down Under"
[CENTER][B]Canon 1D4 / 5D3 gripped / 7D gripped / 300f2.8 IS L / 100-400f5.6 L / 70-200f2.8 IS II L / EFS18-200IS / 24-105 f4 IS / 10-20 f4 / 580EXII x 3 /1.4 TC III / 1.4TC II / 2 TC III / 15' Rig / 20' Rig.[CENTER]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MikeWa
Senior Member
Avatar
879 posts
Gallery: 89 photos
Likes: 235
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Seattle Washington
     
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.

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


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"
Avatar
23,197 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 483
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Dec 15, 2012 22:39 as a reply to  @ MikeWa's post |  #18

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**** :D


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,197 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 483
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Dec 15, 2012 22:46 |  #19

drzenitram wrote in post #15371271 (external link)
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/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drzenitram
Senior Member
824 posts
Joined Aug 2012
     
Dec 15, 2012 22:50 |  #20

ed rader wrote in post #15371808 (external link)
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
Romax12
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
189 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2012
     
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
--- EF-S 18-135 f3.5-5.6 IS --- EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS usm ---
600ex-rt and yn-622c (2x)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Ando27
Goldmember
Avatar
1,218 posts
Joined Jan 2012
Location: New South Wales Australia
     
Dec 16, 2012 02:45 |  #22

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..


Ando.
"Down Under"
[CENTER][B]Canon 1D4 / 5D3 gripped / 7D gripped / 300f2.8 IS L / 100-400f5.6 L / 70-200f2.8 IS II L / EFS18-200IS / 24-105 f4 IS / 10-20 f4 / 580EXII x 3 /1.4 TC III / 1.4TC II / 2 TC III / 15' Rig / 20' Rig.[CENTER]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,452 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Likes: 3967
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Portland OR USA
     
Dec 16, 2012 03:55 |  #23

Romax12 wrote in post #15372192 (external link)
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
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,539 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 607
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Dec 16, 2012 07:58 |  #24

Ando27 wrote in post #15372214 (external link)
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.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BrandonSi
Nevermind.. I'm silly.
Avatar
5,306 posts
Gallery: 62 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 144
Joined Sep 2004
Location: Chicago
     
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.


both 400mm @ f/5.6

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


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

[ www (external link)ยท flickr (external link)]

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HKGuns
Goldmember
Avatar
1,469 posts
Joined May 2008
     
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.

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.

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
Avatar
1,083 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 52
Joined Feb 2007
Location: East coast of Florida
     
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.
Happy Shopping!


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
h14nha
Goldmember
Avatar
2,063 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 171
Joined Nov 2008
Location: South Wales, UK
     
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..........


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


Ian
There's no fool like an old skool fool :D
myflickr (external link)
My Gear - 7d, / 16-35mm F4 / 70-200 2.8 II / 100-400 / 300mm 2.8 / 500/4 :D XT-1 Graphite 18/35/56

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Romax12
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
189 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2012
     
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).
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


Canon t3i
--- EF-S 18-135 f3.5-5.6 IS --- EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS usm ---
600ex-rt and yn-622c (2x)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Dec 16, 2012 11:07 |  #30

Romax12 wrote in post #15372898 (external link)
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




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,927 views & 0 likes for this thread
100-400 discussion
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

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!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is socrbob
940 guests, 278 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.