EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Review WOW!

one I took recently of the river(Yarra) that runs back of my place . Dont normally use a long lens for landscapes however this time it was definitely the lens for the job ....Also going by image no one would guess that this section of the river is actually a part of Melbourne's inner city suburb and within walking distance of the city centre)

clipper_from_oz wrote in post #18339211
one I took recently of the river(Yarra) that runs back of my place . Dont normally use a long lens for landscapes however this time it was definitely the lens for the job ....Also going by image no one would guess that this section of the river is actually a part of Melbourne's inner city suburb and within walking distance of the city centre)

Hosted photo: posted by clipper_from_oz in
./showthread.php?p=183​39211&i=i159301637
forum: Canon Lenses

There's something missing . . . oh, that's it, I thought it was obligatory for every photo of the Yarra to have the MCG in it.

dodgyexposure wrote in post #18339497
There's something missing . . . oh, that's it, I thought it was obligatory for every photo of the Yarra to have the MCG in it.

Must be an inside joke.

digital paradise wrote in post #18339031
I played one in the high school band. My favourite part was when we got a substitute we all switched instruments

B-flat is 1st position

so...just put a new Kirk foot on my 100-400 and I am impressed with it. I know that some here have purchased one but for those who haven't here a link to an earlier thread about the Kirk replacement foot with pictures comparing it to the canon OEM foot. Kirk wins in a landslide in my opinion! Well worth checking out if you aren't familiar with it.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1426176

Elton Balch wrote in post #18340405
so...just put a new Kirk foot on my 100-400 and I am impressed with it. I know that some here have purchased one but for those who haven't here a link to an earlier thread about the Kirk replacement foot with pictures comparing it to the canon OEM foot. Kirk wins in a landslide in my opinion! Well worth checking out if you aren't familiar with it.

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1426176

I'm usually not real happy when I drop 2 grand on a lens and have to buy something extra to replace something that is supposed to come standard. Are a lot of people having an issue with the standard foot??

Pigpen101 wrote in post #18340431
I'm usually not real happy when I drop 2 grand on a lens and have to buy something extra to replace something that is supposed to come standard. Are a lot of people having an issue with the standard foot??

The Kirk and RRS feet are Arca-Swiss compatible which makes tripod mounting/dismounting easy. You're always free to use the 1/4-20 hole on the bottom of the Canon foot just like with the camera.

[EDIT]

What he said ^

edmidlifecrisis wrote in post #18341371

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/U754​T2 Tricolored heron in breeding plumage and coloration by Ed Spenser, on Flickr

That's a great shot. Love the detail in the feathers.

Pretty.

Pigpen101 wrote in post #18340431
I'm usually not real happy when I drop 2 grand on a lens and have to buy something extra to replace something that is supposed to come standard. Are a lot of people having an issue with the standard foot??

I am not a fan of the standard foot for this lens. While the thumbscrew arrangement is convenient, it does not inspire confidence. Adding the Kirk plate is no different than adding aftermarket parts to an already expensive car; it makes me feel better and improves my experience.

mike_d wrote in post #18340434
The Kirk and RRS feet are Arca-Swiss compatible which makes tripod mounting/dismounting easy. You're always free to use the 1/4-20 hole on the bottom of the Canon foot just like with the camera.

Like this...

My set up. RRS foot and Arca clamps. Even with the screws at each end of the foot to prevent the clamp from sliding off I added a back up strap.

Elton Balch wrote in post #18341743
I am not a fan of the standard foot for this lens. While the thumbscrew arrangement is convenient, it does not inspire confidence. Adding the Kirk plate is no different than adding aftermarket parts to an already expensive car; it makes me feel better and improves my experience.

Like this...

Hosted photo: posted by Elton Balch in
./showthread.php?p=183​41743&i=i229162757
forum: Canon Lenses

I understand completely about it "making you feel better and improves my experience." My problem isn't with the people replacing the foot. My problem is with Canon not including a foot that already instills confidence for that kind of $$$$$!!

You may want to add something unique to an already expensive car but you shouldn't have to replace the tires.

Pigpen101 wrote in post #18341767
I understand completely about it "making you feel better and improves my experience." My problem isn't with the people replacing the foot. My problem is with Canon not including a foot that already instills confidence for the $$$$$.

You may want to add something unique to an already expensive car but you shouldn't have to replace the tires.

I'm fine with the Canon foot. It doesn't get used that much anyway, because I usually hand-hold. But sometimes I use a monopod, and the OEM foot works fine for that. I'm happy the original foot isn't heavier and costlier to make than it is. I'm also happy for those who like to customize.