Wanted: Devil's advocate....

No, I am a religious person here.... just that the little devil on my shoulder is telling that I should get the

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM ......

should I or should I not....

Oh, I like actions shots, nature shots, and close crop photos....

Was a Pentax film buff until I fell for the 300D DSLR, after getting sick of the S40 / 50's lack of zoom option...

Ok, the $$$ isn't easy to come by either, but I am not going into debt to get this....

So, my devil's advocate & the oppositing attoney, please state your cases....

For the kind of action you shoot and the limitations it brings, I cannot think of a better way to use the money than the 100-400L.

FlipsidE

The EF 100-400L is a nice thing and you want it. Therefore go and buy it. Any other argument is just an excuse to justify an expensive purchase to make yourself feel less guilty.

That is nice opening lines from the opposing attoneys.....

where da le devil's avocate(s) ?

You will nto regret getting this lens!! From 100mm to 400mm its great and the IS is a real PLUS!!

JZ

If you can afford it without getting into trouble then do it

Here is a review I wrote comparing the Canon 400 Prime to the 100-400. It may give you some more insight into the 100-400.


This lens is not so great for action - it's slow to AF compared to others in it's price range, and doesn't do so great in low light situations. The 300 f/4, 400 f/5.6, or any of the 70-200 lenses are much better for action - though the primes lock you into one distance and the zoom is kind of short.

"Nature shots" covers a large amount of things, anywhere from bugs to birds to mountains, thus it covers every lens ever made. What type of nature shots?

"Close Crop" photos same thing. I also can say that I like nature shots and close crops, and if I apply my thinking then I look at 2 lenses - the 100-400 or a 70-200. For wildlife of *any* kind - bugs to bears - the 100-400 kicks some serious butt. The zoom range, IS, short min focus, and length of the lens are all wonderful. Get some extension tubes and this lens will do anything. The 70-200 does much of this but at half the reach - which can be a killer. But it's potential for action shots might make up for that.

I'll have to quote something that I say quite often: "If I had only one lens it would be the Canon 100-400 L IS."

You won't be unhappy with this lens unless you do low-light action.

You've asked the question in the wrong place ...

You'll only find devilish lens advocates here...

Best regards,
Andy

Hmmm, trouble with my concion (wats that word again)...... rather. I am still single , so no finance minister (gf or wifey) to answer to . Just my bank account and the greatly reduced numbers.....

I got my 100-400L two month ago and I love it!!!

...............OOHHHH!​!! You don't need a devils advocate!!! You need a 100-400 L IS and a 70-200 f2.8 L IS!!!! The former for wildlife, and the latter for sports.



RO1

The Sigma 50-500 is just as sharp, has a wider zoom range and costs significantly less.

The push pull zoom on the 100-400 works like some old fashioned Nikon to suck dust and moisture into the lens.


The only justification for the 100-400 is that it has image stabilization if you can't hold a camera steady and are too lazy to use a tripod.

- Personally, I don't see another option out there for watersports photograhpy unless you can just absolutely guarantee that you will have access to the boat...or maybe if you get lucky enough to have access to a tower or nice section of low-traffic bank to set up on with a very strict circuit course in front of you (like for slalom skiing especially).

But, I've been through this in my head a lot as of late. I just don't think the 70-200 lenses (even with the 1.4x TC) would be long enough to capture some of the wakeboarding shots I want to capture. Watersports action usually requires a fairly large area (larger than a football field or a soccer field), and I've heard that on soccer fields, the 70-200 with 1.4x TC can still be a bit too short. While a long focal length prime would probably be ideal, the watersports world isn't going to cater to those lenses I don't think...simply because you never know when you might get an invite to get into the boat where the boarder may only be 50 feet from you. A 300mm lens at 50 feet is going to be just a bit too much. Plus, a 300mm prime may be a bit too much to fit in a boat with you.

Honestly, the cost of the 70-200 is a bit more than I want to spend. But, even after looking into this subject quite a bit recently, I've come to the conclusion that, for my purposes, slow or not, the 100-400L is really my only option.

FlipsidE

- That Sigman 50-500 almost seems too good to be true. What's the catch?

- Hmmm....in this case I must disagree. From what I understand IS is quite good when used with a monopod.

FlipsidE

Andythaler wrote:
You've asked the question in the wrong place ...

You'll only find devilish lens advocates here...

My thoughts exactly. It's why we're all poor.... well at least I am.