Canon EF 100-400 f/4-5.6L IS [CR2]

[bvukich]

The 100-400 will round out my collection, I'll have the 8-16 zoom fisheye, 16-35 II, 24-105, 70-200/2.8 II and 100-400 II. If the latter plays well with TCs then even better. If canon comes out with a EF mount mirror less crop then I'll really be set.

That's funny, that's the exact lens kit strategy (minus primes) I'm working towards. Heavily overlapping focal lengths, and alternate f2.8 & f4(obvious exception of the 100-400). I'm also adding a few key budget primes 28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 & 135/2L; as well as the 100/2.8L macro.

 

[K-amps]

This had nothing to do with AF, it had to do with IS being pretty darned worthless on this lens, at least compared to more modern lenses.

Hmmm... Again not my experience. My daughter who is 5'3 hand shot the moon a couple of times on my 300D at 400mm and 1/60th. And the shots were sharp. Sorry you are not happy with yours.

I got about 50% at 1/60th and 300mm. I get 90+% at 1/30th and 300mm on my 70-200 (with TCs).

Same boat as you. I get better keepers with 70-200mk.ii + 2x iii. The only area the 100-400 (my copy) beats the latter is contrast. I have mine AFMA'ed at +10 on the Tele and +3 on the wide end.

I got better keepers with my 70-300L, feel bad that I sold it.

 

[Radiating]

This had nothing to do with AF, it had to do with IS being pretty darned worthless on this lens, at least compared to more modern lenses.

Hmmm... Again not my experience. My daughter who is 5'3 hand shot the moon a couple of times on my 300D at 400mm and 1/60th. And the shots were sharp. Sorry you are not happy with yours.

I got about 50% at 1/60th and 300mm. I get 90+% at 1/30th and 300mm on my 70-200 (with TCs).

That coresponds perfectly to the difference in the known abbilities of the IS system.

 

[4thchicken]

Provided IQ is close to excellent, for an amateur phtographer with wild-life ambitions what would be the alternative to spending more than 2k for a (highly speculative) mark II version of the Canon 100-400? Sigma 120-300 f/2,8 is too short in reach and @ f/5,6 not superior to the current Canon 100-400. The other serious alternatives are way too expensive. Unfortunately

As someone who has been looking to get into this area and that has been eyeing off the sigma120-300/2.8 OS vs 100-400, I'm curious as to your comparison?

Outside of weight the sigma has looked better to me given the potential extra reach (420mm with 1.4X or 600mm with 2X TC)

Are you saying that sigma @ 300mm + 1.4 TC (effective 420mm, F4) is optically worse than the 100-400 @ 400mm? Even when the sigma is stopped to F5.6 equivalent?

Or is the comparison based on the sigma with a 2X TC? In which case 600mm = substantial reach advantage over 400mm...

 

[psolberg]

The lens isn’t for an immediate announcement, as we’re told they may be waiting for Nikon to announce the much needed replacement to their 80-400

lol that is ridiculous.

1) push/pull zooms are just in much need of replacement. probably more so. so it makes no sense to "wait" as if waiting fixes anything.

2) if canon waited for nikon to do anything, they would never release half their stuff.

 

[TeenTog]

Yeah, I agree. I can't stand push/pull zooms, they are fairly difficult to use. One of the reasons I haven't bought the 100-400 is because of it's push/pull. And what if it takes nikon a year to replace their 80-400?

 

[Marsu42]

Yeah, I agree. I can't stand push/pull zooms, they are fairly difficult to use.

I think it's difficult if you *have* to use it. With my 70-300L, I frequently find its easier just to grab the lens hood and pull or push, but that really depends on the situation. Of course you can only do this with extending zooms, not the 70-200's, and I'd only try do it with a quality build lens.

 

[Loswr]

Yeah, I agree. I can't stand push/pull zooms, they are fairly difficult to use. One of the reasons I haven't bought the 100-400 is because of it's push/pull.

So...what push/pull zoom lens have you used for a sufficient amount of time to determine that they're difficult to use?

 

[bdunbar79]

I actually don't mind it. I love the 100-400L zoom lens. I can keep my hand and arm in the same orientation and zoom in and out, vs. rotation of my hand and arm orientation while turning to zoom. This way I can keep a close eye on my object out at 300-400mm when I'm fine adjusting. So yeah, if you haven't used it, what's the problem?

 

[Loswr]

I actually don't mind it. I love the 100-400L zoom lens. I can keep my hand and arm in the same orientation and zoom in and out, vs. rotation of my hand and arm orientation while turning to zoom. This way I can keep a close eye on my object out at 300-400mm when I'm fine adjusting. So yeah, if you haven't used it, what's the problem?

Agreed - any 100-400 zoom is going to be a moderately heavy lens, ideally you want a hand cupped under the barrel for stability. The push/pull design on my 100-400L and 28-300L allows me to zoom while keeping my supporting hand in the optimal position the whole time.

But people do love to read and echo complaints with no direct experience - the 1D X threads are ample evidence of that.

 

[wickidwombat]

Yeah, I agree. I can't stand push/pull zooms, they are fairly difficult to use. One of the reasons I haven't bought the 100-400 is because of it's push/pull.

So...what push/pull zoom lens have you used for a sufficient amount of time to determine that they're difficult to use?

It doesnt take long to get used to push pulls, they are wierd at first but once you are used to them they are extremely fast for changing focal length.

 

[Loswr]

It doesnt take long to get used to push pulls, they are wierd at first but once you are used to them they are extremely fast for changing focal length.

No, no, no...they're terrible and almost impossible to use. I mean, I've never actually used one myself, but everyone on the Internet says so, it must be true. Plus, they suck dust like a vacuum cleaner, I read that somewhere, too, so I know it's true as well (despite the fact that neither of my lenses have dust in them, and one of them is 'officially' weather sealed).

 

[wickidwombat]

i had used my 28-300 in dust storms with a filter of course. never had a spec of dust inside.

probably one of my major complaints with the lens was the front section was a large part of the weight so at full zoom even on a 1D body it felt very front heavy this also makes it feel heavier than it really is.

My wife hated the lens because it was simply a combination that was too heavy for her to use (shes not very big) a 70-200 on a 5D is about her absolute limit for hand holding.

I think the 100-400 is a little lighter but essentially the same size and dimensions

 

[Bob Howland]

Push-pull zoom lenses were invented for manual focus systems. In that application, they made perfect sense, since they allowed the photographer to both zoom and focus without repositioning his/her hand on the lens. I owned three in Canon FD, including the Vivitar 35-85 f/2.8. I also used extensively the Canon 80-200 f/4 FD L zoom lens which, as it happens, was a 2-ring zoom.

Guess what! With AF systems, most of us let the camera do the focusing most of the time. I currently own the 100-400 and a 2-ring 70-200 Sigma EX, plus three shorter zooms, all 2-ring. The 70-200 has been a workhorse for 12 years. The 100-400 had to be sent to Canon for repair after it stiffened up and ultimately froze at 400mm. I've never had problems with dust though. Count me among the people who badly wants the next-gen 100-400 to be 2-ring, with the zoom ring behind focus ring.

 

[Renato]

I own the 100-400 for two years, mostly used for bird photography with 7D. I have had both dust and moisture problems and finally died a couple of months ago. Now it is back from canon repair after some $300 refurbishing. It is a very versatile lens and you can even do some great macro shots by adding a Hoya +4 macro lens in the front. But... my prime 300mm f/4 IS L has better image quality and is sharper, so now it has become my preferred birding lens specially after adding a Keno 2X TC.

Here is a link to some tests:
http://10000birds.com/bird-photography-equipment-canon-ef-300-f4-l-is-macro.htm

I will probably not upgrade to the new 100-400. I would be more interested in an improved version of the EF 300 f/4.

 

[bdunbar79]

I own the 100-400 for two years, mostly used for bird photography with 7D. I have had both dust and moisture problems and finally died a couple of months ago. Now it is back from canon repair after some $300 refurbishing. It is a very versatile lens and you can even do some great macro shots by adding a Hoya +4 macro lens in the front. But... my prime 300mm f/4 IS L has better image quality and is sharper, so now it has become my preferred birding lens specially after adding a Keno 2X TC.

Here is a link to some tests:
http://10000birds.com/bird-photography-equipment-canon-ef-300-f4-l-is-macro.htm

I will probably not upgrade to the new 100-400. I would be more interested in an improved version of the EF 300 f/4.

I was shooting hawks (not literally, I was photographing them) today with my 1D Mark IV and 100-400L lens. It was fantastic. What other lens would I have used? I was able to zoom from 100 to 400mm whenever I needed to and on a 1.3x factor, even more. Try zooming out on birds in the sky and as they "swoop" down, you need to bring the focal length in, which can be difficult of course, but not if you practice. Overall I think the lens is pretty good. I'm not sure if it would be easier to rotate vs. push/pull in my situation today or not. Maybe.

 

[Renato]

I'm not sure if it would be easier to rotate vs. push/pull in my situation today or not. Maybe.

I have experienced the push-pull ease of zooming in many situations where the birds are very close. I especially like the push-pull because I can assist focusing manually if needed. If the lens cannot focus accurately I prefer to do a manual assist and then let the camera AF do the rest, in this manner I avoid the focus hutting that could prevent you from taking the critical photo. A perfect use for this lens would be taking photos in a zoo; in this case the fixed 300mm lens would not have enough flexibility. The 100-400 is the clear winner when flexibility is necessary but the prime lens such as the 300 f/4 produces better image quality.

If I need flexibility I use te 100-400, if I need extra reach and image quality I use the 300mm f/4 with a 2X Kenko teleconverter.

 

[leecheeyee]

I am waiting for this new verson with my patience. 2000USD is my budget.

 

[Loswr]

I am waiting for this new verson with my patience. 2000USD is my budget.

Fortunately, it likely won't come out soon - which may be good, in that it'll give you time to save for it, as I think it will likely be in the ~$2500 range...

 

[bkorcel]

I worked with both the 100-400 as well as the 70-200 2.8L II with 1.4 and 2xIII TC. I did not have a 1D version body so found the 100-400 AF to hunt a lot due to f5.6 at 400mm and excessive coma wide open. Still, with the 70-200 and 2xIII TC, the AF hunting was less and faster likely due to the increased contrast at f2.8(5.6) having better optics and more contrast for the AF to work with. The TC does soften ever so slightly the image from the 70-200 but it's far better than the 100-400 wide open.

I returned the 100-400 and later picked up a used 300mm f2.8L prime which is my main wildlife lens right now w/1.4 and 2x III TC's. I still use the 70-200 but less so now with the TC's.

So for the money, the 100-400 is pretty good and you can sharpen it up but stopping it down a click or two but wont help the AF system as it has to work with the lens wide open. If your budget supports it trade up to a 70-200 2.8L II with the 2XIII. Your next stop is a big investment into the world of fast primes.