100-400 L USM IS

jrsforums wrote in post #5692192
So stop whining...sell your 100-400 (making someone happy) and re-buy the Bigma (apparently making you happy)

Well others never stop talking about it like its the best thing ever..I found it its good but nothing to blow your mind.

05Xrunner wrote in post #5692270
Well others never stop talking about it like its the best thing ever..I found it its good but nothing to blow your mind.

It's not the best thing ever....either a 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 are significantly better....but weigh more, cost more, and don't zoom...

...and the 70-200's either 2.8 or 4.0 are sharper, but don't have the range...

...but that does not mean that the 100-400 is not a very good lens, which has survived quite successfully for many years...and still is not really challenged for what it does.

Every one has different opinions and levels of satisfaction with a given lens. If they are happy, as I am with the 100-400, so be it. If you...FOR YOU...made a bad move...OK....you have stated your opinion, stop harping about it and trying to beat down those that are happy with it.

Let's not turn this forum into DPReview....

Peace......JOHN

jrsforums wrote in post #5693258
It's not the best thing ever....either a 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 are significantly better....but weigh more, cost more, and don't zoom...

...and the 70-200's either 2.8 or 4.0 are sharper, but don't have the range...

...but that does not mean that the 100-400 is not a very good lens, which has survived quite successfully for many years...and still is not really challenged for what it does.

Every one has different opinions and levels of satisfaction with a given lens. If they are happy, as I am with the 100-400, so be it. If you...FOR YOU...made a bad move...OK....you have stated your opinion, stop harping about it and trying to beat down those that are happy with it.

Let's not turn this forum into DPReview....

Peace......JOHN

I would agree. My 70-200 f/4L IS is much sharper, but does not go near 400mm. For ME, given the range of the 100-400, there simply is nothing readily available to beat it.

I just got mine last week from a fellow POTN'er and I love it. I was in a local camera store the other day with it and the store salesman asked "Have you done any shooting indoors with it?" I replied that I was under the impression that it wasn't a good lens for indoor use and he said "Who told you that?? Here, try this on it" and handed me a new 580EX flash(I haven't bought an external flash yet and wanted to try one anyway). I aimed it across the room, probably 25-30 feet, at another store employee and squeezed off a couple of shots. WOW, it takes great indoor pictures with a really good flash unit attached! Now I know what equipment I'm saving for next

Ronnie

jrsforums wrote in post #5693258
It's not the best thing ever....either a 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 are significantly better....but weigh more, cost more, and don't zoom...

...and the 70-200's either 2.8 or 4.0 are sharper, but don't have the range...

...but that does not mean that the 100-400 is not a very good lens, which has survived quite successfully for many years...and still is not really challenged for what it does.

Every one has different opinions and levels of satisfaction with a given lens. If they are happy, as I am with the 100-400, so be it. If you...FOR YOU...made a bad move...OK....you have stated your opinion, stop harping about it and trying to beat down those that are happy with it.

Let's not turn this forum into DPReview....

Peace......JOHN

Awwwwww...I am sorry I forgot this isnt an open forum where I cant give my opinion on it and my feelings of it towards other lens that would be considered in this range. Sorry to hurt your feelings.

I'm still waiting on my 17-400mm f/2.8 IS lens while we're dreaming

jrsforums wrote in post #5693258
Every one has different opinions and levels of satisfaction with a given lens. If they are happy, as I am with the 100-400, so be it. If you...FOR YOU...made a bad move...OK....you have stated your opinion, stop harping about it and trying to beat down those that are happy with it.

Let's not turn this forum into DPReview....

Peace......JOHN

Not sure how he beat everyone down? He thinks the lens is decent, not mind-blowing? That is an opinion, and he stated it as such. You started with the "stop whining" comment, so you set the pendulum into motion.

Yes it is a good lens, but it is a little long in the tooth, with the older gen IS, and IQ is simply good for that lens. It is plagued by at least a couple of issues: dust and a pretty wide tolerance of IQ error, some get a sharp copy, others don't. Very simple synopsis, mine is pretty sharp, just as sharp as the Bigma it replaced, however not as sharp as some other Canon lenses I have or have had. In summary, it gets the job done, and sometimes it does it quite spectacularly, and others, not so much. It also could just be the gray matter behind my camera too!

It doesn't really bother me if they were to replace the 100-400 in the near future, i've had mine a few months and love it. I've just come back from Silverstone and managed to get some amazing pictures. I've seen sharper images with the 70-200 2.8 IS but like others have said it just doesn't have the range. Those zooms are more to compliment each other not compete. If I wanted a 400 with better image quality I'd have to spend nearly 4 times the amount for the 400 2.8 IS.