Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS USM  (Read 10392 times)
VicS
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« on: November 01, 2006, 11:38:38 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi all ... just joined today ... hope to have a good time here !!,

I have been reading with some interest (and concern) about the difference in sharpness and quality of these two lenses. I was always under the impression that the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L was as good (optically) as the 400 f5.6 L and that the main reason for its price escallation over the 400 prime was the fact that it had IS. However having read this article ( 400 f4.5 L review ) it seems as if the 100-400 is quite a bit poorer in quality to the 400 prime - the comparisons at f5.6 are huge  .

I was leaning towards the 100-400 for general wildlife and mostly birding, but I wouldn't want to be trading in an expensive lens after a short while because it is "just not good enough".

Any comments please ... or personal experiences with these two lenses !

Also ... does anyone know if there is a comparitive test done between the Sigma 80-400 OS and the Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L IS ?
Logged
John Sheehy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 838


« Reply #1 on: November 02, 2006, 08:37:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Hi all ... just joined today ... hope to have a good time here !!,

I have been reading with some interest (and concern) about the difference in sharpness and quality of these two lenses. I was always under the impression that the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L was as good (optically) as the 400 f5.6 L and that the main reason for its price escallation over the 400 prime was the fact that it had IS. However having read this article ( 400 f4.5 L review ) it seems as if the 100-400 is quite a bit poorer in quality to the 400 prime - the comparisons at f5.6 are huge  .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83335\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'd have to hit the front lens of my 100-400 with a sledgehammer to get f/5.6 results as horrible as the review's.  I get better results with mine with 4x worth of stacked TCs at f/5.6 (f/22).

The bad thing about reviews is that they don't get retracted when obviously flawed.  This review is doing irrepairable damage to the lens' reputation.  It is a very sharp lens, which happens, unfortunately, to have worse than average bokeh, which is its real weak spot.
Logged
ricwis
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159



WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 02, 2006, 09:35:23 AM »
ReplyReply

I've had the 100-400 lens for 4 years and have used it for almost all of my wildlife photography until I got the 500.  Now I use it when I don't have the 500 setup such as walking around with the camera.  I've used it with the 1.4 TC as well.  No problem.  Take a look at the bird photos on my website.  Most of the songbird photos are with that lens.  The Female Red-winged blackbird with the insects in her mouth was hand held with that lens.  (Keep in mind these are low-res web photos).  The prints show the individual legs on the insect with sharp detail.

Yes, there may be some bad copies but that will show up right away and they don't seem to be that common.  My brother got the lens too and has the same results as I do.   I shoot with several other photographers that have the lens and we are all happy lensers.
Logged

Rich Wisler
Wildlife and Scenic Photography
http://www.ricwis.com
stever
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1065


« Reply #3 on: November 02, 2006, 11:13:08 PM »
ReplyReply

the photozone test is of a bad lens

i have both the 100-400 and 300 f4 -- the 300 f4 + 1.4x is marginally sharper than the 100-400, but both make excellent 13x19 prints

the 100-400 with 1.4x will give good results (but not 13x19 in my opinion) and autofocuses reasonably well with 2 pins taped (on my 20D0) -- the 300 +2x is better, but won't autofocus

i take the 100-400 when i travel, and use the 300 hardly at all
Logged
VicS
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2006, 12:06:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks guys ...

I have subsequently looked at other reviews and tests of the 100-400 and I have taken advise from people who actively use the lens (like yourselves) and I have not had ONE bad comment from anyone.

So it looks like I will get the lens and I should have a lot of fun with it ...

PS: Nice photos ricwis  
Logged
Paul Sumi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1217


« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2006, 01:11:15 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Thanks guys ...

I have subsequently looked at other reviews and tests of the 100-400 and I have taken advise from people who actively use the lens (like yourselves) and I have not had ONE bad comment from anyone.

So it looks like I will get the lens and I should have a lot of fun with it ...

PS: Nice photos ricwis 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83474\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you have a chance, you might want to borrow or rent one before you buy.  When I rented this lens I found I liked the versatility of the zoom range but also discovered I did not like the push-pull zoom design.  The fact that my 70-200 f/2.8 L IS with 1.4x TC beat the 100-400 from 100mm to 280mm made the 100-400 useful to me really only at the long end.  So for now I'm renting long lenses when I need the reach.

Just some food for thought. IMO, YMMV, etc.

Paul
Logged

KiwiExpat
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2006, 03:35:58 AM »
ReplyReply

It's nice to hear these positive comments after reading all the bad reviews and comments in other threads.

I am trying to make the same choice as the original poster - Sigma 80-400 or Canon 100-400.  The thing that is really putting me off the Canon is all the reports of the zoom friction ring bearings failing.   Also, the almost constant rumours for the last couple of years about an imminent replacement lens from Canon.

Anybody want to comment on?
- Zoom bearing failure
- Canon's plans to redesign / replace this lens
- comparitive value of the Sigma 80-400 and the Canon 100-400

David
« Last Edit: November 03, 2006, 03:38:46 AM by KiwiExpat » Logged
ricwis
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2006, 09:33:30 AM »
ReplyReply

David,
In all the heavy use this lens has had, there has never been any problems with zoom bearing failures or dust in the barrell or other problems.

There has been a lot written about the push-pull design of the zoom.  I do not find it a problem at all.  In fact, I have gotten to like it much better than the twist type.  When I have it mounted on my tripod and am zooming to frame (no I cannot use my feet to zoom or I would fall in the water with mud up to my knees or be in blackberry bushes  ) the push-pull is much easier for me to use.  No twisting involved.  I do not find this a problem at all.

The other thing written about often is that the zoom is a bellows that sucks dust into the lens.  Again, I do not find this to be the case.  I've wondered where this idea comes from.  When you think about it, push or twist, if you are moving the lens barrell and it is not an internal zoom, it will move.  Why this is supposed to be a dust sucker in one case but not the other does not make sense to me.

This lens has been all over the Northwest, back to the east coast, on an Alaska Cruise at sea and I've had no problems with it.
Logged

Rich Wisler
Wildlife and Scenic Photography
http://www.ricwis.com
KiwiExpat
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 9


« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2006, 03:55:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The other thing written about often is that the zoom is a bellows that sucks dust into the lens.  Again, I do not find this to be the case.  I've wondered where this idea comes from.  When you think about it, push or twist, if you are moving the lens barrell and it is not an internal zoom, it will move.  Why this is supposed to be a dust sucker in one case but not the other does not make sense to me.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=83501\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I have to agree that these claims seem to be odd.    Frankly, I imagine that pumping is always going to be a possibility on any lens that is not sealed to the rear.  

If the inner rear elements move much when zooming, air is going to be have to fill the volume.  

I can't see that the way that you drive the lens in and out (push/pull or twist) has any bearing in the volume of airflow.

David
Logged
BobShram
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 120



« Reply #9 on: November 04, 2006, 03:42:08 PM »
ReplyReply

I've had a 100-400 for 2 years and have had some very good shots from it. It suffers from not only dust getting in but also moisture which is an expensive repair.

At the moment it is my telephoto lens untill I can afford something else. I feel I have out grown what it can give me.

It was worth the money at the time. It is not a good field lens in my opinion as it needs more pampering than I wish to give it, but then I do get into some sticky corners.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2006, 03:44:47 PM by BobShram » Logged
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 04, 2006, 04:02:56 PM »
ReplyReply

I've had mine for about 5 years - and can confirm Bob's experience.  I've had it in to Canon twice for repairs - its environmental sealing is, IMHO, not up to the same level as the other L's.

Having said that, images are decent.  If Canon updated I'd upgrade in a minute. I can't comment vs the Sigma, but if it had HSM, I would check it out.  (or if I ever had to have the 100-400 serviced again).

Overall I'd say the 100-400 is decent value.
Logged
grizzly
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2


« Reply #11 on: November 09, 2006, 11:13:49 AM »
ReplyReply

my 100-400 has been dragged around in the p-----g down rain, on the beach, in the bush;and yes it gets dirty. Visible Dust products get used. I am not a pro. just an insane amateur. These tools should get used and few good photos are made during optimal conditions.I have stuff on the inside that looks as big as dog hair,so far not effecting the photos. Great relutance to send it away as a great shot will appear as soon as it's gone. My other lens is 24-105 and I love it but it ain't no wildlife lens. Buy one,use it,enjoy.
Logged
kkovak
Guest
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2006, 12:25:06 PM »
ReplyReply

I have had my 100-400 for 4 years now and have always been happy with it.  A month or so ago I had the well known focus ring bearing failure and the lens became completely unusable.

Sent it to Canon in Jamesburg, NJ and it was back in 10 days as good as new for the sum of $193.00.

I use it all the time.

Ken

Ken Kovak
Lehigh Valley, PA
http://users.rcn.com/kkovak
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad