Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM

[woodyracing]

Hi,
anyone tried or own this lens ? what do you think ? any example photos ? I've read most of the reviews, just want to hear your thoughts.
or should I consider one of the 70-200 f2.8 ? I don't have inside track access though thats why I'm thinking the 100-400 would be better.

thanks
Andy

[EastonNeston]

Both are very good lenses and have different strengths.

The extra speed of the 70-200 is valuable in less than perfect lighting conditions.

The best thing would be to see how both lenses feel at your local camera shop and buy the one that feels best to you.

[Hubble]

TBH I've never rated the 100-400.......but then I already had a 400 2.8 before I tried it, so maybe my expectations were a tad high......

I know Snapper Baz used to use one, so maybe you could ping him a PM, get his opinion......

The 70-200 is a great lens, I think still available in non IS version as well. The IS version will weigh in a lot dearer than the 100-400 - probably £2K+ at the mo. I picked mine up brand new a few years ago for £1300, but a friend has recently bought one and it set her back £2200!

Personally I would go for the 70-200 F2.8 L IS with a 2x teleconverter to give you the range. This will drop it to F5.6, but it'll be a constant F5.6 from 140-400mm.....that's of course assuming your budget can stretch to it.....

[grantp]

I rented a 70-200 f2.8 Mk2 for a weekends and was amazed with what could be achieved especially on a body like the 7D.

So I bought one. They are around for a little under £2000 new from a few places (UK not HK) at the moment but the prices seem volatile.

I have also stumbled across a Mk 2 2x extender at a useful price so bought that as well. They will get a work out on a 1D3 this weekend. I have briefly tested the lens with a 2x (and a 1.4x) extender before jumping at this one and the resolution seemed fine. However I have not had a chance to see what effects the f5.6 maximum aperture will have on the AF system for motor sport. Will find out this weekend.

[woodyracing]

thanks for the replies guys, i have considered the 70-200 with an extender. I hear mixed reviews about the extenders but ive not heard much about the new mk III ones.
have you seen this website.. http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk

[AussieTimmeh]

I have tested both the 100-400 side by side with the 70-200 with an extender, I can provide you with the images if you want.

The 100-400 is a clear winner to me. Sharper than the 70-200 with an extender, but the biggest thing is the weight. The 100-400 is only half the weight of the 70-200.

I use it to shoot aircraft, and after holding the lens and camera at head height for the whole day, I appreciate the lighter weight of the 100-400 so much. Plus the 70-200 with extender is not as sharp, at least the one I used. I even tested the extender with the 100-400 to check the extender was not the cause of the loss of quality.

The only benefit to the 70-200 is that you have a good lens that you can use inside when you are not shooting cars. The 100-400 is useless inside. But I didn't buy it for that, I bought it for my photography business outside.

The test gallery on my outdated site is here:
http://www.aussietimmeh.com/gallery/v/tech/400test/

Be sure to expand each image out to full size to get a better idea of the differences.

Hope it helps.

[Richard B]

I've used a 100-400 IS for the past 2 years and love it. What camera are you planing to use it with?

[woodyracing]

nice link, thanks for the info. If im going to buy one i'll most probably hire one first.

[woodyracing]

I have a 450D at the moment, but was thinking of upgrading to a 550D or possibly consider a 7D but thats a bit pricey (imo). I'd just like to get good quality images, I have a 75-300 f/4-5.6 III USM which is fine but the images aren't top quality. The extra reach of the 400 would be good but how would it compare to an image at 200 from a 70-200 F2.8 ?

[Richard B]

I've used my 100-400 on both sides of the fence at Silverstone and it's certainly not lacking in the reach department from any point. even in the stands at Luffield. Like you I'd like a 7D but lens's don't depreciate or "become unfashionable" at such a dramatic rate. Spend the money on a good lens and buy a 40D or 50D.
Examples of my photos are on my web site and without wishing to publically push it...it's www.formula3pics.com

[Woolley]

Originally Posted by Richard B

Spend the money on a good lens

Agreed. You'll see a much greater benefit from spending the money on good glass than on a better camera with your existing lens. In fact, the 7D will probably out-resolve you lens meaning you may even see a decrease in quality. I'm still using a 400D, but with 'L' lenses on the front it performs superbly. For the price of a 7D you could get a 24-105 alongside your 100-400 and you'll not only cover an amazing focal range but see a huge improvement in image quality.

In fact, for the price of both you could consider the new 70-300 IS...

[speedy27]

I have used the 100-400 L for about 8 years and cannot fault it in any respect. I am a sharpness addict (!) and truly believe that nothing in this price range beats it. The only significant advantage of the 70-200 2.8 L is the added depth of field offered by the larger aperture when shooting head on. However, as one is typically too far away to do this - especially without media access - you'd be better off with the extra reach of the 100-400, in my opinion.

I recently tried the 400 2.8 L Canon and was way less impressed than I expected to be. I would say that some of the pics were minutely sharper, but not in the ballpark to agonize about the fact that I just cannot afford one. I then bought the Sigma 120-300 2.8 to solve the depth of field desire for straight on shooting and, although it has to be the most sensational value lens of anything I've ever used, I often find that I am missing out on at least a part of those last 100mm of focal length when shooting into the sweet spot of a corner, so am going to be selling this one and staying faithful to my 100-400.

I use a 1DS3 body and have also bought a 7D for backup. Having moved from 20D in 2002 to 40D to 1DS2 and then 1DS3, my feeling - with the benefit of experience of having used my 100-400 with all of these camera's - is that your biggest improvement in quality at this stage will be from upgrading the camera first and leaving the lens until later. You will be stunned by the difference between your existing camera and the 7D, although you need to spend time with the manual setting it up properly to really reap the benefits.

So, if you can afford the 7D upgrade, I would do that first and then consider moving from your existing lens to the 100-400 when possible. Yes, you will notice a difference between these two lenses, but I really believe that the jump in capability from your camera to a 7D will far exceed it.

All these pics - except 1 - were taken with the 100-400 L; the 1 was taken with the 400 2.8 L.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/peterel...detail/?page=2

See if you can spot which one - it's so close that I bet you have a 50/50 chance of not getting it! That's how good the 100-400 is, but you first need the right technology to extract this quality from it. Other than in more extreme light conditions such as high contrast, the 7D will deliver so close to this quality as to make you smile.

Good luck with your decision.

[woodyracing]

Hi Speedy, thanks for the reply it's great that you have tested the lenses that I was looking at. I cannot tell which of those photos is using the prime.
With prices slowly dropping, I am tempted to hold out for a bit to see if a new 100-400 lens is going to be announced. I believe the next batch of new lenses are due in February ?

[speedy27]

Hi there - a pleasure to be able to offer my two cents if it can help you.

The one that was taken with the 400 2.8 is SAHIST09-0773.

I forgot to add that, before the introduction of digital, without question the only consideration for you would have been a lens upgrade. In my experience however, I believe that we have been drip-fed the improvements in camera technology - well at least for much of the past five years, although it seems to be slowing down now as increased competition amid the top models has once again reached pre-digital levels - and this has meant that there is typically quite a jump from most models to their successor and, even more than this, from one camera 'sector' to the next one up.

As regards the lens, yes it would appear that a new 100-400 should now be on the cards, but no doubt it's release will be scheduled according to how the new 70-200 L is doing in the sales department! I will be trying it when it appears, although I am not expecting any notable visual improvements near the top end of the focal range, which is where I most often use it. Hopefully, I am wrong. I don't use image stabilization, so improvements here are not of interest to me.

I still reckon you should test the 7D - preferably back-to-back with yours i.e. same location, same lens, same subject (like a street scene with lots of detail at F11 to F16.) Then open the pics on your PC and, if you don't see a notable difference in areas such as resolving of detail, overall sharpness and fringeing, then ignore everything I've said about upgrading the camera and your decision becomes a lot easier!

[agosling]

I have both the 70-200 and the 100-400. I bought the 100-400 as a general purpose lens without any high expectations for it, but now find that I use it much more than I ever thought I would...

I hate the fact the it isn't constant aperture, but it is sharp and at least when mated to a 1D it is reasonable fast. I have tried it on lesser bodies and the focus seems to struggle a little.

I guess it comes down to expectations, the 100-400 is a cheap lens as L series go, but it is solidly built and at least in Series 2 spec it is more than usable...

The 70-200 2.8 IS, well that is just one of the best lenses there is, end of story....

[Peter Mallett]

I've got the 70-200 IS on a 50D and it struggles at length and speed.

[grantp]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

I've got the 70-200 IS on a 50D and it struggles at length and speed.

Which version Peter?

As I understand it the IS versions are different from their non-IS cousins in ways other than just having IS. There is a lot of potential for confusion amongst the products Canon list in the 70-200 zoom range.

[Woolley]

f/4 is different from f/4IS - different lens construction, no of groups, etc. I think the f/2.8IS is the same as the regular f2.8 plus IS. On the other hand there is now a mkII version which is completely different.

[Peter Mallett]

Er, actually I was wrong. Looked at it this morning it's an F1.4 70-200, USM, L. Oops.

Carry on, just ignore me.

[agosling]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Er, actually I was wrong. Looked at it this morning it's an F1.4 70-200, USM, L. Oops.

Carry on, just ignore me.

If you've found an F1.4 70-200, I want one of those :-)....

[woodyracing]

thanks for the replies,
does anyone have any comments about the 70-200 f2.8 with a teleconverter (ideally the latest versions) ?
I don't think 200 will have the range I sometimes need. 75-300 is what I have now and that is usually long enough.

I'm pretty sure Canon are going to release a new 100-400 next year so I might just wait around before taking the plunge.

[agosling]

The 70-200 works nicely with the 1.4x and even passably with the 2x, But the 2x is definitely a last resort not something you used as standard.

Not really that sure that the 100-400 will be inline for an update anytime soon, it isn't that long since it had a minor overhaul, it got IS mode 2 for one thing. Really looking at it, what can they do to upgrade the lens, give it a constant aperture, that is basically impossible due to the push/pull zoom, make it lighter, there isn't much and all of them would just make a cheap, workhorse lens more expensive.

[Woolley]

I use a 70-200 f/4 with a 1.4 converter (Sigma) and it's fine. f/2.8 is better - I've seen plenty of pros using them, but don't be tempted to use a 2x converter which slows autofocus below a useful point.

If you're looking at a 2.8 + converter but put off by price and weight, the new 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS might be a viable alternative?

[AussieTimmeh]

Originally Posted by woodyracing

thanks for the replies,
does anyone have any comments about the 70-200 f2.8 with a teleconverter (ideally the latest versions) ?
I don't think 200 will have the range I sometimes need. 75-300 is what I have now and that is usually long enough.

I'm pretty sure Canon are going to release a new 100-400 next year so I might just wait around before taking the plunge.

I posted my opinion of this with test shots earlier in the thread. You end up with a very heavy setup that will not perform as well as a 100-400L but is more versatile when you don't want that sort of range.

I shoot aircraft as a side business and I wouldn't want to be holding that weight above my head all day to get worse results, but my situation is different to yours.

[andrewc]

Actually I have found my Sigma 100-300 f/4 EX to be superior mostly to the Canon 100-400L. Its at least half a stop faster over the whole zoom lens, I think the focussing is slightly faster and its slightly sharper. It doesn't have IS/OS/VR but that can be substituted for good technique.

As for a replacement of the 100-400L, there is a strong argument to say its already here. Canon have recently launched a 70-300L IS, at a similar price point, and a 100-400 Mk II would tread on its toes unless they make it a constant f/4 which would be heavier and more expensive. The alternative would be to make it a 200-500 for example.