"L"pologies and a Thank You

First off, to all those who responded to my post asking for your help in aiding me to decide what to get for Christmas, Thank you. To those who didn't respond, thank you too.

Now to the apology. While I always wanted more reach than I currently have/had, and not really being able to justify spending thousands on a huge prime, I had hesitated getting the Canon 100-400IS because I was under the impression that it was too soft at the long end. I read that on www.luminous-landscape.com and took it as gospel.

Yes, my brethren and sisteren, in spite of all the posts here showing stunning examples of photos taken with it, I held it in disdain.

Well, yesterday at B&H I finally pulled the proverbial trigger and bought it. Other than some test shots in my house last night, I haven't had a chance to use it. And today it's raining cats and dogs. But what I looked at last night was amazing. I will say that even with IS it's not the easiest thing to hold completely steady. It is a heavy beast.

Congrats on the purchase of your Xmas pressie - the best presents are always the ones you buy yourself! You are going to love that lens more each time you use it.

I read the same reviews as you before I bought the lens, but on actually trying it I was very pleased with its performance wide open at 400mm. I've done a bit more research since and it would appear that when the lens first came out there were some copies which were soft at 400mm, I guess some of the reviews may be based on these early examples and it has since spread (as these things do on the internet) to become a 'fact'. From what I can tell all current copies of the lens are sharp throughout the full focal range.

I prefer to make my own opinions on lenses by trying them out for myself and seeing if they suit my needs. I read negative reviews of both the 17-85 and 70-300 DO before buying them which I subsequently found to be pretty much unfounded!

congratulations!
I predict that you are going to be very pleased with how well this guy works.

The push/pull, weight criticisms may be valid for some but this lens consistently delivers quality images across all focal lengths/apetures for me.

I look forward to your future photo posts with the 100-400.

Regards

Many of the online reviews are of questionable value. I'm not singling Luminous Landscape out as being any better or worse than all the others.

You did the right thing: you looked at 'real world' results from people who actually own the lens. Ultimately, that's the best way to decided.

Congratulation, and best of luck with your new weapon.

Thanks, everyone.

[SIZE=2]I didn't realize how heavy this was compared to my 70-200 f2.8IS, nor did I realize how much bigger it actually is. I am loving it. I've never had a lens this powerful. I can't wait to really put it through its paces. I will definitely post examples from it. Also need to get hands that are a bit steadier. Or maybe a monopod. Actually own one. I'll have to use it, I guess.

mark

Don't have that lens but my guess is you will have camera shake on your first efforts - but no doubt with practice at optimum settings and maybe use of monopod things will get much better. ie don't panic!

I have one of those bad boys coming on Monday . . . guess I'd better hit the gym!

It is lighter than the 70-200Lis.

I hand hold this lens a lot. Keep the elbows in and rest them on your body and control your breathing. Keep your shoulder down and gently squeeze the shutter release. Same technique used for shooting a bazooka.

Enjoy the lens!

malla1962 wrote:
It is lighter than the 70-200Lis.

Per B&H specs:
70-200mm f/2.8L IS 3.2lbs without collar
100-400mm 3lbs (doesn't say with or without collar)

I think the fact that fully extended, the lens puts more pressure on your arms and hands to keep it steady and that makes it seem heavier than the 70-200mm.

Just a guess

aha! so that's what's been failing in my bazooka technique

Cheers

ayotnoms wrote:
Per B&H specs:
70-200mm f/2.8L IS 3.2lbs without collar
100-400mm 3lbs (doesn't say with or without collar)

I think the fact that fully extended, the lens puts more pressure on your arms and hands to keep it steady and that makes it seem heavier than the 70-200mm.

Just a guess

aha! so that's what's been failing in my bazooka technique

Cheers

It does seem heavy,but here are canon specs,70-200=1.57KG
100-400=1.38KG.