Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 100-400L  (Read 5486 times)
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« on: May 02, 2006, 07:10:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Does anyone here still really like the canon 100-400L?  I've heard many reviews, both good and bad, but lots of wildlife shooters seem to keep on liking it.  Your thought, comments?
Logged
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 692


WWW
« Reply #1 on: May 02, 2006, 07:52:51 PM »
ReplyReply

I have a 100-400 IS L, 24-70 L, 70-200 f2.8 IS L, 16-35 L, and I just ordered a 24-105 IS L to replace my 28-135 IS (non-L).

I still use the 100-400 if I need the "reach" on my 1DsMkII and 20D. The 70-200 L is sharper and faster, but with a 1.4 Extender, they are about equal.

I have many fine images shot with the 100-400, that's why I hate to part with it even after reading many posts about how this lens is not up to par with the 1DsMkII's resolution capability.

Bud James
North Wales, PA
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
francois
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6951


« Reply #2 on: May 03, 2006, 02:35:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Yes, I still like the 100-400 for its versatility. I don't like the push-pull system and while it doesn't compare in image quality (and IS) to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I've yet to find a better alternative.

Now, if you give me a non push-pull design along with a better IS unit and sharper image quality at full aperture I'd be in heaven.
« Last Edit: May 03, 2006, 04:02:19 AM by francois » Logged

Francois
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 692


WWW
« Reply #3 on: May 03, 2006, 04:11:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, I still like the 100-400 for its versatility. I don't like the push-pull system and while it doesn't compare in image quality (and IS) to the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, I've yet to find a better alternative.

Now, if you give me a non push-pull design along with a better IS unit and sharper image quality at full aperture I'd be in heaven.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64346\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I agree with Francois. I think that it's about time that Canon designed a replacement lens for the venerable 100-400 IS. Lose the push-pull zoom control and variable aperature and make it a pound lighter and you have a winner.

Bud James
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
denopa
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #4 on: May 03, 2006, 04:20:34 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't know if you guys read Michael's comments on gear during the Namibia expedition.  I was a bit suprised to see that he dropped the 70-300 DO for the 70-200 f/2.8 IS, quite the opposite from his report of China. I am considering dropping the DO as well, mainly because I'm not happy with how hard the zoom ring is to move. Image quality I'm happy with after DxO, although I'm sure the quality of the 70-200 is better. Anyone else dropped the DO ?
Logged
michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4916



« Reply #5 on: May 03, 2006, 07:15:37 AM »
ReplyReply

The 70-300 DO wasn't considered for this trip because I needed to get out to at least 400mm. 300mm just isn't enough for much wildlife work.

The 70-300DO has lower contrast than regular lenses but it is nevertheless one of my favourites, and is the only lens with reach to 300mm that I would use for urban shooting. A bit of extra USM and all's right with the world.

Michael
Logged
denopa
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 11


« Reply #6 on: May 03, 2006, 09:24:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 70-300 DO wasn't considered for this trip because I needed to get out to at least 400mm. 300mm just isn't enough for much wildlife work.

The 70-300DO has lower contrast than regular lenses but it is nevertheless one of my favourites, and is the only lens with reach to 300mm that I would use for urban shooting. A bit of extra USM and all's right with the world.

Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64357\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thanks for the explanation !
Logged
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #7 on: May 03, 2006, 10:46:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Thank you all for your responses.  I agree that it would be nicer with ring zoom and faster and what not, I just wanted to guage what was thought of it as is.  It seems to me that, on a cost limited budget and a smaller sensor, it would be a decent lens for wildlife.
Logged
budjames
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 692


WWW
« Reply #8 on: May 04, 2006, 02:38:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thank you all for your responses.  I agree that it would be nicer with ring zoom and faster and what not, I just wanted to guage what was thought of it as is.  It seems to me that, on a cost limited budget and a smaller sensor, it would be a decent lens for wildlife.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=64373\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Absolutely! I have many fine pics taken with the 100-400 on my 10D (no longer have this body) and my current 20D.

Bud James
Logged

Bud James
North Wales, PA
www.budjamesphotography.com
Sune Wendelboe
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 19


« Reply #9 on: May 04, 2006, 07:39:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I use it all the time and find that I'm able to produce very sharp crisp A3 sized prints from the files. However it's far from the 70-200mm but better than 70-200 with a 2x TC which I sometimes use too to save weight.

It'll consitently produce sharp results with wildlife at medium distances but also often not resolve indefinite landscapes too well??

I just brought it to Patagonia on a shoot and I'm pleased with the results, it'll be in my back when I'm off to Iceland and Greenland in June.

sincerely
Sune Wendelboe

www.globalphotographic.net
Logged
aae991
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #10 on: May 04, 2006, 09:31:49 AM »
ReplyReply

I have used the 100-400 IS for about 4 years now.  I have a "love-hate" relationship with it.  Sometimes I get tack sharp results, other times it's unpredictable and very soft.  

I shot some Egrets with it and my 10D a year ago from close range.  The birds were waiting for handouts at Sea World.  I framed the upper 2/3 of the bird with a rocky background.  The shot could have been taken anywhere in the wild based on the results - no evidence of Sea World in the background.  The bird was about 15-18 feet away from me.  I shot at 400mm.  The results were nothing short of amazing.  Subtle detail in the feathers, beautiful crisp eyes, etc...

Other times I've shot with this lens and can't get a sharp shot unless I stop it down.  As others have said, raise your ISO setting and get to at least F8 or F11 to maximize the sharpness.

Having said all this, I still do and will continue to use this lens.  It's too versatile to give up when I'm traveling.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad