Canon 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 IS L USM lens?

Personally, I'd much rather have the 100-400L, for a couple of reasons. One, I only own Canon lenses (just a quirk of mine that I'm firm on), and two, because I'm not a tripod man. I have to be able to hold my lenses.

Tom W wrote:
LOL - or on a 10+ mile hike!

Tom, you got that right

Its the Best Zoom in the world (Maybe) but not the best lens by far.

I don't own the 100-400, but I did put it on my camera. That and the 24-70. When you look through the lens, you know why the L's are so popular. I think the 100-400L is great for its range, but I might consider the 120-300EX or 130-400EX, sigma that is. Actually I would most likely go to fstopjojo web page and check things out. I think he has already compared these, I could be wrong.

I've used both the 100-400 and the Bigma, I wouldn't say one is better or worse than the other. It's more a matter of they are different, which is better is a personal issue as for which features are more of what you need or like. For myself the Bigma was the choice for me, hard to beat the value/bang for buck of the Bigma. As for needing a tripod, that too is personal ability/choice. A tripod is always a better/more stable way of shooting no matter what the focal length but the Bigma is certainly able to perform very well handheld if your ability is up to the task.

So I much prefer the Bigma myself and for what I use it for the focal range suits my needs better also. To be honest I prefer to use it too a 500 or 600 prime, but I'd prefer the 100-400 to those also. The 100-400 is a very good lens, great even maybe but it's a far cry from the best there is most certainly. The 100-400 Vs Bigma debate is an old one, as I said the better lens of these 2 is the one that suits your needs best, I'm very happy with my Bigma.

Really this is more of a mess around/fun posting than anything really helpful. "Best zoom" is too general and also is "class dependant." That is, there is no way to say the 100-400 is a better zoom than the 24-105 or 24-70 or the 17-40. They are totally different kinds of lenses. But, since this is a "fun" thread, I'd probably say the Sigma 120-300 takes the 100-400IS vis-a-vis pure optics and with its f2.8 throughout. At least they're closer in class/kind.

Sorry David, no posted tests with the 120-300. I've shot with it and I must say: me likey

yeah it's real soft........this is such a myth.......here is a shot at 400MM wide open

http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/54266286/original

lol...first of all, that shot isn't *really* sharp, which is what I'm going for. You just won't get prime sharpness from that lens, and it's something I accepted and dealt with. Don't get me wrong, I loved my copy to death. I got a million very nice keepers with it. However, it IS a bit soft at the long end. It's no myth..it's been proven. Anyway, it's anything BUT unbearable.

yea, i have been looking at some people who use this lens in the nature and animals; some people say that it is a bit soft...? and yes, possibly some of the pictures look a bit soft, but i don't know whether it makes that much difference?

it's just i've been thinking that mabye the canon is a better choice as aposed to a 'bigma' due to its portability and practability, but if the IS reallydoesn't help much, and the 'bigma' gives sharper images in the end... i don't know?

Ron, I'm not convinced that the 100400IS is "soft at the long end"; in fact, I'd argue to the contrary. I think it's far from "proven." I don't know if your particular copy was sub-standard, but a normal working copy of this zoom is quite excellent, even wide open at 400mm. Here are some points in favor of my claim:

1) My own tests here http://www.pbase.com/f​stopjojo/tests

2) Art Morris' comments here http://www.birdsasart.​com/faq_1-4is.html . Note specifically when he says, "The lens performed well and--contrary to some early reports--proved to be exceptionally sharp, even when shot wide open at the 400mm focal length."

3) Art Morris' comments a few years back on a thread at photo.net: "Reports that the 100-400 IS zoom is "less than sharp" are totally ridiculous. I have been carrying and using the 1-4 more and more every day and have been making razor sharp images at all focal lengths with wide open to moderately stopped down apertures. In addition, I have it used it wide open, handheld with the 1.4X tele-converter with excellent results (with static subjects). For bird photography its versatility is unmatched; I find myself making images that I would never even have thought of before--groups of birds in their surroundings among others. Though heavier than the 400 f/5.6L, it is a superb flight lens. At Bosque Del Apache NWR late this fall, I used it on a tripod before sunrise for "bird-scapes" and then again almost exclusivley for the spectacular blast-offs."

The point being that the 100400IS is an extremely good lens, even (or especially?) at 400mm wide open. I can say without a doubt my copy is very sharp and contrasty wide open at 400mm. Enjoy the light.

can't even make out the cobwebs huh?..........sorry my bad........i thought it was pretty good considering it is a Jpeg from the camera.

cool, so the it's settled? the canon 100-400mm IS is the best choice for me... i mean for photos of animals such as birds....etc...?

Richard, I think it should come down to either the 100400IS or the 400f5.6. If you're primarily shooting birds in flight and hiking around from spot to spot, I'd say the prime. If you want maximum flexibility for both wildlife/zoo/birding, then the zoom. If you mostly shoot wildlife/zoo/safari, then the zoom. Both lenses are highly received and will deliver the goods.