Introducing Big Pete... aka the 100-400L

I got a 100-400L lens from a forum member named Peter who this lens is named after and WOW I am pretty impressed after giving it a good tryout. It is sharp and pretty acurate. Is it as sharp as my 300mm f4 IS L? Hahaha NO WAY! But it is pretty sharp for a super zoom, twice as sharp as the Tamron 200-500 lens.

Here are a couple of shots.

First one is of a Pigeon that wishes he was a duck. Even at one point it tried to go into the water but quickly jumped out.

Second one is of a Mallard.

Thanks a ton Peter.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

LOL...funny name for a lens. Congratulations on your new lens and nice bird shots

hey Chris -- whats the exif on those shots?

thanx,

ed rader

Chris, I am happy to see you like the lens.....and obviously putting it to good use....both shots are sharp and have that hallmark IQ like other fine L telephotos .
Frankly, I miss that 100-400 already, although my most used lenses are 300 f/4's.

Congrats Chris, nice shots too

ed rader wrote in post #3218632
hey Chris -- whats the exif on those shots?

thanx,

ed rader

Both are at 400mm f5.6. Mallard is 1/600th sec and Pigeon is 1/800th sec. Shot in AV.

I got a fair bit of junk shots with this lens but I am pretty sure it was user error such as aiming at the wrong area of the bird. Because checking with the focus points in the Canon program, the middle was always in focus. Even did OK with birds in flight, and I suck as birds in flight.

Congratulations on a great lens. That thing is so usefull.

cjm wrote in post #3219210
Both are at 400mm f5.6. Mallard is 1/600th sec and Pigeon is 1/800th sec. Shot in AV.

I got a fair bit of junk shots with this lens but I am pretty sure it was user error such as aiming at the wrong area of the bird. Because checking with the focus points in the Canon program, the middle was always in focus. Even did OK with birds in flight, and I suck as birds in flight.

thanx chris -- does your 300L + 1.4 produce better pics? i think my pics with that combo are at least as good but other factors like the quality of light play a big role in IQ so it's hard to say.

ed rader

My 300 + 1.4x does produce a wee bit sharper images then this thing at 400mm but when I am talking sharper it is about the difference between a razor and a good steak knife. You know the good kind of knife that cuts that steak with no effort.

I am pretty impressed with it. It does seem to be a more useful lens then a 300 prime. Well sort of anyways. I think I will probably keep both. If I were to sell one of my white lenses, it would be my 70-200 f2.8 L simply because I have more uses for my other two. Not that I am selling any.

cjm wrote in post #3219247
My 300 + 1.4x does produce a wee bit sharper images then this thing at 400mm but when I am talking sharper it is about the difference between a razor and a good steak knife. You know the good kind of knife that cuts that steak with no effort.

I am pretty impressed with it. It does seem to be a more useful lens then a 300 prime. Well sort of anyways. I think I will probably keep both. If I were to sell one of my white lenses, it would be my 70-200 f2.8 L simply because I have more uses for my other two. Not that I am selling any.

i think i've been spoiled by the IQ of the 70-200L f4 IS and i need to rachet in my expectations a bit.

well, i'll try the 100-400L and see what i think and if i'm not absolutely blown away i'll try the 400L but i suspect in the end i'll keep the 300L because it's does very well and it's baggable .

ed rader

Got a good copy I see, congrats and continue to enjoy

hehe... the dang thing does deserve a name doesn't it?... nice shots I hope you like Pete as much as I like Chuck...

Those are some Real Sharp Pics!!! ANY PP done to them? If so Would you mind sharing? I got to know..
(In other words, I am Really impressed.)

ed rader wrote in post #3219271
i think i've been spoiled by the IQ of the 70-200L f4 IS and i need to rachet in my expectations a bit.

well, i'll try the 100-400L and see what i think and if i'm not absolutely blown away i'll try the 400L but i suspect in the end i'll keep the 300L because it's does very well and it's baggable .

ed rader

Hi Ed,

Try taking candid portraits at 300-400 mm F/5.6 with the 100-400. I think you'll be happy with it... The IS is just great...

Kind regards, Wim

saravrose wrote in post #3219281
hehe... the dang thing does deserve a name doesn't it?... nice shots I hope you like Pete as much as I like Chuck...

Well my Sigma 30 ex also has a name, it is called Lil'Ron. Named after its original owner. But that is it, only two of my lenses have names.