I bit the bullet!

[JPAZ]

I've been struggling with getting a longer lens for way too long. I have debated 300 f4 vs. 70-300 L vs. 400 f5.6 vs. 100-400 vs. 70-300 DO (not too much consideration) along with the TC issue (I have the Canon 1.4 but would need a Kenko to use with some of the above). You see what I have below.

Thought I'd settled on the 70-300 L after taking some shots of the moon with my 70-200+TC last week. The night was cloudy but the shots were not too bad with cropping post (BTW, the Redged legs are great but I'll probably up the ballhead in the future). I knew what I wanted and was just waiting for the right price.

Then, the 2 day Canon refurb sale comes up. As I was ready to buy a 70-300 L, I had a quick change of heart and purchased the 100-400! Should arrive soon. I truly hope there is no "buyer's remorse," but my thoughts were to expand my options with some IS and little overlap. We'll see.

 

[9VIII]

400mmf5.6 is the last step before the leap between affordable telephoto and prohibitively expensive telephoto. If you're after maximum reach and value for money it's pretty much the only way to go.

 

[JPAZ]

Refub 100-400-- arrived today. Date code is 2012. So far, so good.......

 

[steven kessel]

My principal lens is the 100-400, which I use primarily for wildlife photography. I doubt very much if you'll be disappointed with this lens, it produces beautiful images. Like everyone else, I long for something longer that is still affordable but I've come to accept the reality that it's not gonna happen.

 

[Bruce Photography]

Now that the Nikon 80-400mm upgrade lens in now in the hands of customers and reviewers, perhaps Canon will think it is now safe to announce their new 100-400 lens (I'm hoping for 200-500 F4 non-push pull - probably would be too heavy) version.

 

[J.R.]

Now that the Nikon 80-400mm upgrade lens in now in the hands of customers and reviewers, perhaps Canon will think it is now safe to announce their new 100-400 lens (I'm hoping for 200-500 F4 non-push pull - probably would be too heavy) version.

If Canon were to release the 100-400 II, what would be the chances of Canon retaining the I in its lineup? I believe the II will be priced at least $ 1,000 - $ 1,500 higher than the I version.

 

[Bruce Photography]

Now that the Nikon 80-400mm upgrade lens in now in the hands of customers and reviewers, perhaps Canon will think it is now safe to announce their new 100-400 lens (I'm hoping for 200-500 F4 non-push pull - probably would be too heavy) version.

If Canon were to release the 100-400 II, what would be the chances of Canon retaining the I in its lineup? I believe the II will be priced at least $ 1,000 - $ 1,500 higher than the I version.

Zero.

 

[tron]

Now that the Nikon 80-400mm upgrade lens in now in the hands of customers and reviewers, perhaps Canon will think it is now safe to announce their new 100-400 lens (I'm hoping for 200-500 F4 non-push pull - probably would be too heavy) version.

200-500 would be monstrous in size, price and weight.

The fixed 500F/4L IS II costs at the 10K region...

 

[RMC33]

Now that the Nikon 80-400mm upgrade lens in now in the hands of customers and reviewers, perhaps Canon will think it is now safe to announce their new 100-400 lens (I'm hoping for 200-500 F4 non-push pull - probably would be too heavy) version.

200-500 would be monstrous both in size and price and weight.

The fixed 500F/4L IS II costs at the 10K region...

Do you mean the sigma 200-500 f/2.8? That costs 25k or so? http://www.dpreview.com/news/2008/1/31/sigma250500

 

[Bruce Photography]

Now that the Nikon 80-400mm upgrade lens in now in the hands of customers and reviewers, perhaps Canon will think it is now safe to announce their new 100-400 lens (I'm hoping for 200-500 F4 non-push pull - probably would be too heavy) version.

200-500 would be monstrous both in size and price and weight.

The fixed 500F/4L IS II costs at the 10K region...

Do you mean the sigma 200-500 f/2.8? That costs 25k or so? http://www.dpreview.com/news/2008/1/31/sigma250500

No. I was meaning a NEW product from canon that would surpass the Nikon 200-400mm F4. You remember when things could be totally new - right? Maybe a 300-500mm F4.

 

[bycostello]

its a great lens....

 

[AprilForever]

Now that the Nikon 80-400mm upgrade lens in now in the hands of customers and reviewers, perhaps Canon will think it is now safe to announce their new 100-400 lens (I'm hoping for 200-500 F4 non-push pull - probably would be too heavy) version.

500 f4 breaks the 77mm barrier... THe price would be tremendous... much more than the proposed 200-400 f4...

 

[RMC33]

Now that the Nikon 80-400mm upgrade lens in now in the hands of customers and reviewers, perhaps Canon will think it is now safe to announce their new 100-400 lens (I'm hoping for 200-500 F4 non-push pull - probably would be too heavy) version.

200-500 would be monstrous both in size and price and weight.

The fixed 500F/4L IS II costs at the 10K region...

Do you mean the sigma 200-500 f/2.8? That costs 25k or so? http://www.dpreview.com/news/2008/1/31/sigma250500

No. I was meaning a NEW product from canon that would surpass the Nikon 200-400mm F4. You remember when things could be totally new - right? Maybe a 300-500mm F4.

Cost would still be very high, as would weight and the proposed canon 200-400 f/4 covers those ranges with its built in TC.

 

[Phil L]

I would still like to see a 400 f4 for birds and other wildlife. Combine that with a 1.4 to get you a 560 5.6 would be sweet.
Would I be asking to much that such a lens if ever introduced be reasonably priced as well?

 

[Bruce Photography]

I would still like to see a 400 f4 for birds and other wildlife. Combine that with a 1.4 to get you a 560 5.6 would be sweet.
Would I be asking to much that such a lens if ever introduced be reasonably priced as well?

I'd like to see that from both Canon and Nikon. Canon does have the 400mm DO F4 however. I have a friend that has one and he likes it.

 

[mrsfotografie]

I've been struggling with getting a longer lens for way too long. I have debated 300 f4 vs. 70-300 L vs. 400 f5.6 vs. 100-400 vs. 70-300 DO (not too much consideration) along with the TC issue (I have the Canon 1.4 but would need a Kenko to use with some of the above). You see what I have below.

Thought I'd settled on the 70-300 L after taking some shots of the moon with my 70-200+TC last week. The night was cloudy but the shots were not too bad with cropping post (BTW, the Redged legs are great but I'll probably up the ballhead in the future). I knew what I wanted and was just waiting for the right price.

Then, the 2 day Canon refurb sale comes up. As I was ready to buy a 70-300 L, I had a quick change of heart and purchased the 100-400! Should arrive soon. I truly hope there is no "buyer's remorse," but my thoughts were to expand my options with some IS and little overlap. We'll see.

100-400 is the best way to reach 400mm on a budget. About 2 years back I was in the same type of situation and went for the 100-400, happy ever since

 

[JPAZ]

FINALLY got a chance to play around with the new toy. Everything hand-held. Did prove to myself that with the 1.4TC, hand held at 1/125 is kinda rough ;D ........

But, even hand held with or without TC, this lens is a keeper. Expect with tripod, it would be even better. And, I (like everyone else) wait to see the firmware update. The 5diii did not autofocus at all with the 1.4TC on this lens.

Attached is jpeg right out of the camera with no PP at all (400mm 1/250, iso 500).

 

[JPAZ]

Cropped to fit size requirements. Hand held 400 mm at 1/30! Please don't critique the exposure or composition. Not my point for posting this. I was worried about getting a refurb, and now I am not. In the end, I think the 100-400 was the right choice for me.

 

[mrsfotografie]

Cropped to fit size requirements. Hand held 400 mm at 1/30! Please don't critique the exposure or composition. Not my point for posting this. I was worried about getting a refurb, and now I am not. In the end, I think the 100-400 was the right choice for me.

To get critically sharp photo's from this lens when shooting little critters I'd suggest shutter speeds of at least 1/400 and aperture of f/6.3-9. High iso and short shutter gives the best result for anything that moves.

 

[JPAZ]

Yeah. But I wanted to see what this could do handheld at a shutter speed that was a bit too slow and I proved to myself that this lens is a "keeper."