Calling all 100-400L owners!

Hello everyone,

I'm in the market for either the much discussed 100-400L or a 400 5.6L (or even 300 + 1.4x TC). I've read lots of threads on this, and have come to the conclusion that you get a sharp copy of the 100-400L, it's optical quality is near to the 400L's. The AF speed doesn't seem to be up to par with the 400L's though.

Anyway, a friend of mine works at Canon so I will have the opportunity to get my lens properly calibrated up to my liking. Will the sharpness increase after calibration?

To know if my lens is as sharp as it can be, would you be so kind to answer/do the following:

1) Do you find your 100-400L sharp, when comparing to other people 100-400L's (family, friends, etc) That is, would you rate your photos as sharp as the one's posted here on POTN?

2) Would you be so kind to set up your lens on a tripod, take a few pictures of the USAF 1951 lens chart from about 13 meters / 40 feet (download: http://murdock123.file​ave.com/USAF.pdf) wide-open at f/5.6, pick the best one (unsharpened in PS), and post it here (100%)?

I'd be very, very grateful.

Thanks in advance.

looking at your name, I assume that you're into aviation photography? go for the 100-400...
f8 is the sweet stop - you got IS...and versatility for airliners.net quality stuff

Accepted wisdom seems to say that more recent 100-400s are generally better than older ones. I bought mine new towards the end of 2008 and it's great. In my opinion, some of the threads that complain about the lens show evidence of a lack of understanding of how to get the best from it. Like rcaq above, I usually use it at f/8, but I have no problem with f/5.6 when it's needed.

AirbusA380 wrote in post #7404299
Hello everyone,

I'm in the market for either the much discussed 100-400L or a 400 5.6L (or even 300 + 1.4x TC). I've read lots of threads on this, and have come to the conclusion that you get a sharp copy of the 100-400L, it's optical quality is near to the 400L's. The AF speed doesn't seem to be up to par with the 400L's though.

Anyway, a friend of mine works at Canon so I will have the opportunity to get my lens properly calibrated up to my liking. Will the sharpness increase after calibration?

To know if my lens is as sharp as it can be, would you be so kind to answer/do the following:

1) Do you find your 100-400L sharp, when comparing to other people 100-400L's (family, friends, etc) That is, would you rate your photos as sharp as the one's posted here on POTN?

2) Would you be so kind to set up your lens on a tripod, take a few pictures of the USAF 1951 lens chart from about 13 meters / 40 feet (download: http://murdock123.file​ave.com/USAF.pdf) wide-open at f/5.6, pick the best one (unsharpened in PS), and post it here (100%)?

I'd be very, very grateful.

Thanks in advance.

no, but here's a handheld shot wide open @ 400mm that i took last weekend at san simeon ...........

Here's a recent example shot, taken on my 40D at 400mm, f/7.1, handheld (with IS on).

WOW! I need to stop my 100-400 down more.

I *just* bought a 100-400L from a forum member here, can't wait to get my hands on it!
I debated between a 400 F/5.6L and a 300mm F/4L + TC too. After a lot of thought I went with the 100-400L for a number of reasons:

You may need the shorter focal length to take pictures that you happen across by chance. I know that with my current Sigma 70-300 APO, I almost always use it fully extended - but a few shots I needed a wider view and I didn't have time to switch lenses.

It has IS, something that neither the 400 F/5.6 or the 300 F/4 have unless you go to their bigger brothers (and get a bigger wallet). This allows you to hand-hold the lens with better results in some situations.

I am actually looking at the possibility of buying a 1.4x or 2x extender for my lens once I have some shots taken with it, but you lose autofocusing abilities with this idea. I can live with manual focus if it means getting that much closer, and the IS would also be helpful because you lose a lot of light when attaching a TC. As another poster mentioned, F/8 is the sweet spot so pairing the lens with a 1.4x extender and using MF would get you the best combination of reach and image quality.

Just my two cents. Can't wait for my 100-400L to get here

I'm in need of a longer lens & the Canon 100-400 was the one I wanted. But now, a friend has suggested that I consider the Sigma 150-500. At $875.00, it is worth considering especially with my budget! What do you guys think about this? I guess I'm asking, what would you do? My uses for this lens would be high school baseball, football, and wildlife. Thanks in advance for your reply.

vincent23 wrote in post #7407696
I'm in need of a longer lens & the Canon 100-400 was the one I wanted. But now, a friend has suggested that I consider the Sigma 150-500. At $875.00, it is worth considering especially with my budget! What do you guys think about this? I guess I'm asking, what would you do? My uses for this lens would be high school baseball, football, and wildlife. Thanks in advance for your reply.

i think you better read this..........

LensRentals.com - News: The Sigma Saga

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #7407800
i think you better read this..........

LensRentals.com - News: The Sigma Saga

ed rader

WOW!

ed rader wrote in post #7407800
i think you better read this..........

LensRentals.com - News: The Sigma Saga

ed rader

I'll object with the fact I've seen plenty of people get the 150-500 on here and have no issues with it, its also half the cost of the Canon and if you're not taking it to bloody Iraq it should be fine...I think the early batch had teething issues and now they're fine..I've had plenty of Sigmas without a problem as well..

I'm getting a 150-500 in a week or two because of the range, the non-push pull design and the fact its black and thus more discrete -shrug- and I've seen many pictures from it that rival the 100-400 and of course it just goes in my tight budget a lot better

Theres good arguments on the push pull thing, so thats up to you, as with the white vs black color thing...

As for the cost vs performance, its superb supposedly Just buy from a good dealer, everyone churns out a dud lens, if you play with it and dislike it, well no biggie, you might have gotten a bad copy (It happens, even to Canon you know!) and if you think so, post it and let us see if you did

Don Komarechka wrote in post #7406916
I *just* bought a 100-400L from a forum member here, can't wait to get my hands on it!
I debated between a 400 F/5.6L and a 300mm F/4L + TC too. After a lot of thought I went with the 100-400L for a number of reasons:

You may need the shorter focal length to take pictures that you happen across by chance. I know that with my current Sigma 70-300 APO, I almost always use it fully extended - but a few shots I needed a wider view and I didn't have time to switch lenses.

It has IS, something that neither the 400 F/5.6 or the 300 F/4 have unless you go to their bigger brothers (and get a bigger wallet). This allows you to hand-hold the lens with better results in some situations.

I am actually looking at the possibility of buying a 1.4x or 2x extender for my lens once I have some shots taken with it, but you lose autofocusing abilities with this idea. I can live with manual focus if it means getting that much closer, and the IS would also be helpful because you lose a lot of light when attaching a TC. As another poster mentioned, F/8 is the sweet spot so pairing the lens with a 1.4x extender and using MF would get you the best combination of reach and image quality.

Just my two cents. Can't wait for my 100-400L to get here

The 300/4 has IS...

I love my 100-400 L IS. Very sharp.

Tried the 150-500 and wasn't impressed by that copy's IQ or stiffness of focus ring.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

KenjiS wrote in post #7408272
I'll object with the fact I've seen plenty of people get the 150-500 on here and have no issues with it, its also half the cost of the Canon and if you're not taking it to bloody Iraq it should be fine...I think the early batch had teething issues and now they're fine..I've had plenty of Sigmas without a problem as well..

I'm getting a 150-500 in a week or two because of the range, the non-push pull design and the fact its black and thus more discrete -shrug- and I've seen many pictures from it that rival the 100-400 and of course it just goes in my tight budget a lot better

Theres good arguments on the push pull thing, so thats up to you, as with the white vs black color thing...

As for the cost vs performance, its superb supposedly Just buy from a good dealer, everyone churns out a dud lens, if you play with it and dislike it, well no biggie, you might have gotten a bad copy (It happens, even to Canon you know!) and if you think so, post it and let us see if you did

white black. push pull........screw that i want the best lens. i'll let the head cases worry about about the small stuff .

ed rader