Thoughts on the 100-400 IS

use mine for birding and wildlife in general.........no complaints at all

You can pry my 100-400 from my cold dead fingers!

i loooooooooove my 100-400L! i use it to go birding. i know its not as sharp as primes, but it hasnt let me down.

See?

...

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

gjl711 wrote in post #6969263
I have a real love hate relationship with this lens. It's taken some of my best shots but also delivered some of the worst. As others have said, it not only loves light, it needs it. Though it has IS, it is old and does not work as well as the newer IS lenses. I actually get better shots without IS than with. Also at 400mm, just set it to f/8. Anything else is crap

Wrong!!! I find my copy super sharp at F5.6. This is my only non 2.8 lens and I agree it needs
more light and it's less sharp and contrasty than the equivalent primes like the 300/f2.8 or the
70-200/f2.8 at 200mm, but for the money, this lens is steal. I constantly use it at F5.6 and
I'm more than satisfied. Here's a snap shot sample I shot today with my 5D MKII, set the lens
to 400mm, handheld, iso 400.
http://www.brenner.co.​il/IMG_2057.jpg

Uuuuuh. I can`t wait to get one.

dilgit wrote in post #7040715
Wrong!!! I find my copy super sharp at F5.6. This is my only non 2.8 lens and I agree it needs
more light and it's less sharp and contrasty than the equivalent primes like the 300/f2.8 or the
70-200/f2.8 at 200mm, but for the money, this lens is steal. ...

I'm glad you got a great copy. Not all copies however are great. Some only good and some not even good. But I do agree that for the money this can be a great lens.

Hand held with IS mode 2...more surfing images with this lens

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

I rented one from www.borrowlenses.com to see how it worked for me. I suggest you do the same and see how your images come out. We all have different shooting styles and two different people can get very different results from using the exact same equipment under the same conditions.

I do agree with everyone who says that the lens is a light hog. In my FD days, I had a 300mm 2.8L. I wanted to check out this lens because I can't justify to my wife the cost of a 400mm prime. There is the added convenience of being able to zoom down to 100mm as well.

My biggest complaint with the lens was that my rental lens had been abused by other renters who apparently used the push/pull zoom function with the friction collar engaged. The friction collar is normally engaged so if you're pointing the lens up or down, the focal length doesn't change with gravity if you're not holding onto the lens barrel.

Hope I helped.

That friction collar can be a pain. I tend to use mine with the collar locked down tight at 400mm because I was forever moving the pump action zoom accidentally. The trouble is of course that I cannot quickly reframe.

I've not seen much evidence of the lens needing good light. I think it's more that good light improves any image, from any lens. After all, playing with light is what photography is all about. I actually prefer my glass not to be too contrasty. I can add contrast in PP, but it's extremely difficult to remove excess contrast.

My collar ofter locks itself, which can be a pain when you wish to quickly zoom and re-frame

Can I just ask why Canon decided to make it a push/pull zoom? Is/was there a particular reason?

The Moose wrote in post #7188861
Can I just ask why Canon decided to make it a push/pull zoom? Is/was there a particular reason?

No on probably knows for sure but Canon, but I suspect it's to keep the inner workings simple. A twist design is going to need a more complec mechanism than a push/pull I suspect.

The Moose wrote in post #7188861
Can I just ask why Canon decided to make it a push/pull zoom? Is/was there a particular reason?

Some of us prefer the push-pull, some not so much. I imagine if it was a twist design it would be fatter, and possibly heavier. Possibly not as durable too, since the protruding element on twists tend to have thinner housings compared to the current design. If it was completely internal twist design, like the 70-200 f/2.8, it would be HUGE, heavy and cost more.

I'm happy with Canon's decision.

Yes, the twisting zoom would probably be a bit cumbersome on a lens this size.

Most of the time when I'm using mine, I don't seem to need to change the zoom too often - mostly it's at either 400mm or 100mm. Then the lock does it's job.