PetKal, do you think this lens(e) is good enough for exotic trips?

I have to decide if I will keep this copy of 100-400 for my coming trips. PetKal, you are the ultimate expert - tell me. (Also others' opinions are valued.)

1st pic is 100%, unsharpened crop (saved with 70% quality for the web) of the 2nd (processed: auto levels and colors, USM 300/0.3).

These aras were shot in Safari World Thailand (100-400@285, f 6.3, 1/320s, ISO400).

(This is not a serious question - I can not afford to change this baby.)

Olli, with considerable envy I must say that the lens is unequivocally good, in fact better than my first good copy of the 100-400. I only hope that sort of IQ holds at 400mm and f/5.6. So, to my old eyes she looks like a keeper.

Definately a keeper. Better than both my copies (tho' I was the common variable so could mhave been me!) I don't think it is as capable as the 400mm 5.5 L having also owned two of those (that I DID get good shots from when the only variable was me!) But yopu lose a huge amount of flexibility with that one. You'll have the 100-400 on your camera at least 60% of the time in South Africa. Mainly around the city you will want something smaller and wider and you have that ... so well covered sir.

Good to get these experts' opinions, thanks. Now I can cross my hands and sleep well before the long trip.

Olli, since I foolishly sold my decent 100-400 copy, I have tried THREE specimens of the zoom. Two were unsharp at 400mm (the most commonly used FL) and the third one was plain defective.
What I am trying to tell ya is that a good 100-400 zoom is not always easy to find.
What do I mean by "good" ? Simply, its IQ comparable to the 400 f/5.6 prime.

Agreed ... it is 400mm that you really need a good one. But 6.3-8.0 is fine in Africa much of the time so it doesn't have to do it wide open. I think you can feel you got a good Africa lens there.

Looking at the shots the other guys took in Africa, all used 100-400, then I believe the 400mm was a tad sharper and had better bokeh, but that could have also been part due to the 5D I had, which is superb. CDS's 500mm 4.0 IS was even better. I would have liked to have tried that with the 5D. I'm talking across the board average rather than individual shots and all my own opinion. My set up 70-200 Is L 4.0 and 400 5.6 l was great but I suffered with just the one body. In that situation the 100-400 Is L is a safer option.

wow thats unreal sharp

Not a particularly a Zoom fan, These are Really Good!!!

Sehr impressive, Olli

Is there hope for mine too then?
100% crop, no sharpening

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

Pete wrote in post #4510329
Sehr impressive, Olli

Is there hope for mine too then?
100% crop, no sharpening

Pete, would we notice any difference if we would switch our lenses? I guess not.

Olli wrote in post #4510422
Pete, would we notice any difference if we would switch our lenses? I guess not.

I've never doubted my lenses. I often doubt my ability to get the best out of them. The only softness is in my head.

Looks soft to me ... your head I mean