100-400mm IS L series

I just purchased this and it took me almost 2 months to put on my camera (Rebel XT) and start shooting. I was very intimidated by the lens. Having overcome that I would like to know what can I expect from this lens? I used it indoors at a professional basketball game and came away with lots of blurry shots. Even at 1600 ISO I found the lens slow. Can I reasonable expect to freeze actions shots at 400mm? Can I expect 1/1000 at F5.6? I guess I really need to get better with the IS. Any advice would help. Thx.

The lens at 400mm is f/5.6. For indoor stuff f/1.4 or f/1.8 is generally used. f/5.6 needs 16 times the shutter opening of f/1.4 - that is, 1/100 at f/1.4 would be equivalent to 1/6 at f/5.6. You won't get many players sharp at 1/6 second even if they're standing still. And IS doesn't help if the subject is moving.

I would have to put forth the idea that the 100-400 is not the right lens for indoor sports. It's max aperture is just not fast enough. Also, it's not a great lens for AF speed in low light such as you'd find at indoor sports. It will AF, but not always quickly, and not always accurately and rarely will it focus quickly AND accurately in low light like that.

Sorry Ron, but it's just not the lens for indoor sports in fact, it's not the lens for outdoor sports unless light is decent. Dunno what your main anticipated need is likely to be for this kind of length but it might be worth biting the bullet and selling it and your 75-300mm and starting again. The Sigma 120-300 2.8 is a beautiful lens and with a 1.4x TCon will still do a decent job at f4.0 in many situations and you get up to 420mm. If you want IS and length and speed you're talking big money!

Ron,
I have this lens and love it, but it is NOT an "indoor sporting" lens. I basically use it to shoot outdoor sports like fastpitch softball, soccer, etc. It's very versatile and I get really sharp images.

There is a learning curve with this lens. You won't take it out of the box and instantly get fabulous results. Stance, hand positioning, and breathing are just some of the fundamentals of shooting a lens this long (though, the IS helps in this matter).

Just a tip: When shooting at 400mm, stop it down to f6.3 at the least to get a sharper image. Wide open (f5.6) at 400mm doesn't usually yeild great results.

Hope this helped a bit. It's a great lens! Learn it and enjoy!

Bos

OK I hear you. Then let me ask you "what makes this the lens that they can't pry away from you"? When the weather turns warm again I will be outdoors shooting birds, and animals. Am I getting closer to the mark now? Can I get birds in flight?

Birds and animals. Mostly the animals. You'll find that even 400 mm is often not long enough for birds. I'm another "cold, dead fingers" owner.

OK that makes sense. TY for the comment about stopping down the lens. I plan on learning how to use this lens. While I found it heavy the 1st night with it I did take some good pics and I really like the glass.

YOU should get some great shots with that lens ,a couple of my aircraft friends use it for fast RAF jets and get great shots stop it down a little, and fast shutter speed, 400 iso should be fine in fair light .
its a cracking lens however im a prime guy so dont own one.
Rob

Versatility is the main reason. I can shoot butterflies to birds with this lens. Short tele to long telephoto. The IS is great, the lens is very sharp. It's light enough to hand-hold all day. This lens is on my camera about 80% of the time.

And I shoot a lot of birds, so it should work for you. Though it's not extremely long, it's a heck of a lot lighter and cheaper than a 500mm. You do need to concentrate of birding skills with this lens - getting closer and such - but 400mm is still quite acceptable.

This is not the best lens for birds in flight - it can be a pain at times since it doesn't always like to focus on a small moving object against a bright blue sky. But it can be done.


I wrote a review a while ago, comparing this lens to the Canon 400mm L, and it has a lot of insight into both lenses - good & bad points, where each beats the other and where they lose. https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=43436

I've really thought about this lens and it may be my next purchase. I shoot a lot of fairs and festivals, mainly during the day and in the summer months. I would use it to isolate a costumed performer or fair attendee from the crowds. My 70-200 does a fair job of this, but sometimes I just wish for a little more reach. Has anyone else used this lens for similar events? If so, what were your experiences with it?

Mark

I really believe this lense is best made for wildlife (See post on best wildlife lenses).If you have a Deer, Fox, Bear, Coyote, ect and you can get them to freeze at say 50yards at 400mm, you will be golden. Even if they are moving, and good light is available, you will get great shots with a fast shutter speed. Try to keep your apeture at around f8-f11 if light permits. Your pictures will come out stellar. No, this is not an indoor lens. I have the sigma 120-300 and even indoors it is tough to get great shots with the type of light you are dealing with. If a player is still it is great, but when you have alot of motion it takes serious skill.

Which 70-200? If the 2.8, look into getting a 1.4 TC. You'll be (tops) 280mm f/4, and f/4 is nice for making subjects pop from the background. I do not consider the 100-400 at f/5.6 to be great at popping a subject from it's background. f/5.6 is just too much DoF unless you're really close to the subject. And you won't be if you're shooting humans. If the TC doesn't interest you, or if you have the 70-200 f/4, I'd take a long hard look at the 300mm f/4. Between that and the 70-200 you'd be covered quite well, and the subjects will be pretty well isolated much more often than with the f/5.6 of the 100-400 (of the f/5.6 of the 70-200 f/4 + a TC).

I will agree with this statement but add it is a damn good compromise. What I like about it is its so much easier to hand hold and pan with as opposed to large primes while trying to track eratically flying birds. It's taken me 6 months to finally think I am starting to do this lens a little bit of justice.

... Best ZOOM?

In which case I concur

But best lens is a big prime for wildlife imho...

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
... Best ZOOM?

In which case I concur

But best lens is a big prime for wildlife imho...

Ha, well so I don't cause a fire fight here, I will say that it is a great versatile zoom for wildlife. Imho, my sigma rules, but again that is my belief and many others say the same. About that bigger primes for wildlife, I was crying to Scottes on the phone the other night like a little bit**about wanting a 500 f/4 IS so bad. Unfortunatly 5500 reasons why I can't have one right now come into play.