Substitutes for Canon 100-400L

I rented the 100-400 over 4th of July weekend and used it for water skiing pictures from along the water. I really enjoyed the zoom capability and found the sharpness to be good, although I think the rental was below what a well maintained lens could deliver.

Here's the thing, the 100-400 is pretty pricey, so I was wondering if anyone could throw out some suggestions for substitute lens that have the same focal length and relatively close IQ. My budget isn't super low or anything but something around 800 would be nice.

So, should I just save up more for the 100-400 or are there other comparable options?

Thanks!
Mike

Stick with the 100-400. You could possibly find a lightly used copy on the for sale forums (or even at fredmiranda) where the price is down to $1100-1200.

Or if you really want new, you can wait until Canon reinstates their semi-annual rebates again.

The alternatives are SIGMA, they have an 80-400mm OS which is the most affordable, then there is the 150-500mm and 50-500mm. Pricewise in that order.

With an $800.00 budget, I too might suggest scrimping, saving and shopping for a used one at about $1,100.00

Canon refurb store gets them for about $1,350.00. but used is your better bet for lowest price.

I figured the save up option would be the winner, just thought I'd check the forum for any opinions.

Any idea when Canon's semi-annual rebates start back up?

And thanks again for the help

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #16208635
The alternatives are SIGMA, they have an 80-400mm OS which is the most affordable, then there is the 150-500mm and 50-500mm. Pricewise in that order.

With an $800.00 budget, I too might suggest scrimping, saving and shopping for a used one at about $1,100.00

Canon refurb store gets them for about $1,350.00. but used is your better bet for lowest price.

it's a 120-400OS

the sigma 150-500OS is a good lens, and it's a whole lot cheaper than the 100-400L, it's bigger, heavier...is slightly softer wide open, but close at f8 and has better stabilization

I'd go for a used one, and you can use it now...if you feel it doesn't live up to what you want, you can always sell it for near what you bought, while you've saved up the extra money for the more expensive lens

It is tough to beat the 100-400L for it's combination of performance, size and versatility. Even if the Sigma 500mm zooms were its equal in performance, I still would prefer the Canon due to the smaller size and weight.

If you simply can't swing $1,100 or so for a 100-400L and need/want a lens right now, I'd suggest just picking up a Tamron 70-300 VC for a good price used, and using it until you have the money together for a 100-400L. That way you get a good lens to use for now that'll be easy to sell later, and have time to save up for a 100-400L.

I would suggest the same strategy for a Sigma 120-400, but it seems like the Tamron will be easier to sell later on than the Sigma due to the lower entry price.

Another "in between" option would be a Canon 70-200 f/4 non-IS, but only if you already own a 1.4TC.

Someone's selling a 100-400L in the For sale section for $950

I would save up and go for Canon 100-400L. I have tried Tamron 70-300mm VC and Sigma 150-500mm and ended up keep the Canon 100-400mm.

I currently have the 100-400L and have had and sold the Sigma 150-500 and the Sigma 120-400. Of those lenses, I'd rate them very clearly in this order...100-400L at the top, then the 120-400 and finally the 150-500. Yeah, yeah, maybe I have a good copy of the 100-400 or had a bad copy of the 150-500 but the 100-400L is clearly the best in my experience. Surprisingly, the 120-400 wasn't THAT far behind it though and if you could pick up a used copy of that one for $600-700, it would probably be a really good option and at least $300-400 less than a used copy of the 100-400L.

One other point, questions like yours are always difficult because you're often comparing apples to oranges. In my example above, I ignored that one of the options offered 100mm extra on the long end. If you were willing to make some sacrifices in other areas for the extra length, the 150-500 might be a good option. I had it and took many very nice and sharp photos (including my avatar) but my keeper rate wasn't even in the same ballpark as the 100-400L.

I've read some reviews that cite the 500mm end of the 150-500 is closer to 460. So the extra reach advantage is nominal at best.

gabebalazs wrote in post #16210761
Someone's selling a 100-400L in the For sale section for $950

I just came back here to post the same thing

jwcdds wrote in post #16211015
I've read some reviews that cite the 500mm end of the 150-500 is closer to 460. So the extra reach advantage is nominal at best.

It's true, the 100-400mm is actually pretty much 400mm at the long end, the Sigmas (both 500mm zooms) are well under 500mm

i feel like mine measured out to be about 480mm...it's still the best option if we were to actually stick to the op's budget of $800...but it's POTN...everyone always ignores budgets...

DreDaze wrote in post #16211467
i feel like mine measured out to be about 480mm...it's still the best option if we were to actually stick to the op's budget of $800...but it's POTN...everyone always ignores budgets...

They're doing their best to stimulate the economy.