Buying first lens for my t3i

I really like the 100-400mml but then stumbled into the is problem thread and im now scared to spend that much on that lens. So i want to ask all the wonderfull and kind people of canonopia thier opinions for a holdable/tripod wildlife/bird lens for my camera.
brand doesnt matter and price under 1700. Or should i say to hell with it and get it anyway? Does sigma offer something else that would be better for me?

I rented the Canon 100-400mm lens for my 6 week trip to Australia earlier this year. I was quite happy with the performance of the lens overall and am considering purchasing one (along with a 1.4X TC for those really long shots I may encounter when out in the high country).

there are lot more happy 100-400 users out there than the few whiners you'll see on the various forums.

if you're really done with interest in the 100-400, look at the 300 f4, 70-200 2.8 or 4 and pickup one of the TC's.

ok. maybe i will keep the 100-400 on the table. anyone else have any opinions????

rent it first and see if you like it

Forgottenalarm wrote in post #12594407
I really like the 100-400mml but then stumbled into the is problem thread and im now scared to spend that much on that lens.

The 100-400 is a brilliant lens.
It was my main lens for about four years and still gets a workout fairly regularly.
As RR said, there's always going to be naysayers, no matter what lens or body it is.
I'm not suggesting that there's never any gear that is faulty but nine times out of ten, the problems can be traced to user error.
If you took on face value every negative comment about any piece of equipment, nobody would buy anything.

Forgottenalarm wrote in post #12594407
So i want to ask all the wonderfull and kind people of canonopia thier opinions for a holdable/tripod wildlife/bird lens for my camera.

Only you can tell whether your technique is good enough to be able to hand hold a 100-400.

Edit: I only ever hand hold mine.

What about the 70-300L?

I can learn to use any lens, so im not worried about which i get, as long as a few people out here have used and like it.

Only reason why i don't want the 70-300l is i want more MM-L/$.

Easily put: if i cant sit in my truck on the edge of a corn field and get pictures of deer a distance away, then it isn't good enough.

I haven't read the problem thread, and I don't care to. 100-400 is a good lens. I have had mine for a full year now, and I use it all the time. Like ALL lenses, there are good copies, and copies floating around that need calibration. Buy a good copy, enjoy it.

T3i & 100-400 in low light, low contrast, and low shutter speed (1/160 hand held!).

If you spend too much time on forums you start getting desensitized towards the quality of these lenses. The majority of people talking about gear on gear forums are either those who are planning a purchase, or those who are complaining about their gear, I mean, if you were enjoying what you had, you wouldn't be wasting time on a forum, would you?

The 100-400 is likely good enough for anything you can think to use this focal range for.

that's pretty good looking for low light. i could live with that.


I have noticed that about the people talking about lenses. a lot are "i think i want to sell" or Thinking about buying" etc..
Then there is a handful like me stuck with a kit lens until i save some money. maybe ill go to the slots on sat and win

The 100-400mm is an excellent lens. I would not worry about it if that is what you want.

I am pretty happy with my Sigma 150-500 OS and the Sigma 50-500 OS is highly regarded. Don't discount the extra 100mm. If you are not planning to zoom, have you thought about the Canon 400mm 5.6 L?

Forgottenalarm wrote in post #12598520
I have noticed that about the people talking about lenses. a lot are "i think i want to sell" or Thinking about buying" etc..
Then there is a handful like me stuck with a kit lens until i save some money. maybe ill go to the slots on sat and win

The 100-400 will be a big, big step up from the kit lens. I bought the 400 f/5.6 and 100-400 at the same time thinking I'd sell on or the other (most likely the zoom, because I like primes). And I can't bring myself to sell it...

It's a good lens, and the focal length is very useful. You can throw an extension tube on it and it's fine for shooting closeups (dragonflies, wildflowers, etc.). It's good for tele landscapes. I have seen some REALLY nice landscape images from it.

GregoryF wrote in post #12598569
I am pretty happy with my Sigma 150-500 OS and the Sigma 50-500 OS is highly regarded. Don't discount the extra 100mm. If you are not planning to zoom, have you thought about the Canon 400mm 5.6 L?

Can you post a pic? i cant find any pics from this lens and from what i see on amazon its close to the same price of the 100-400

mco_970 wrote in post #12598588
The 100-400 will be a big, big step up from the kit lens. I bought the 400 f/5.6 and 100-400 at the same time thinking I'd sell on or the other (most likely the zoom, because I like primes). And I can't bring myself to sell it...

It's a good lens, and the focal length is very useful. You can throw an extension tube on it and it's fine for shooting closeups (dragonflies, wildflowers, etc.). It's good for tele landscapes. I have seen some REALLY nice landscape images from it.

i have seen a few pretty pics of it. even the one above is awesome and its not even in standard light.