Canon 100-400mm L Lens

[Andy76]

Hi All

I've been dabbling with photography for the last 9 months or so, I'm looking for a lens to use for a bit of wildlife and at motorsport events. I'm using a 600d and currently have an 18-135 lens. I find this is a good general lens albeit not the best quality but a good starter none the less. It meets most of my needs but it struggles with the long range stuff.

Are any of you guys using the 100-400?

I appreciate its quite an expense but from reading the reviews its worth holding out for a good second hand lens. It would also provide an overlap to the 18-135. Would appreciate any thoughts

[ajmoir36]

I have to admit I looked at the 100-400mm (push pull sounds odd, they are dust suckers too) then they released the 70-300mm L (gets good reviews) was considered similar price to the 100-400mm, but bought the 70-200mm L IS USM mk2 and a x2 extender eventually.

I think in the end the F/2.8L won it over and it is a fantastic lens, its the best I own and the pictures are the sharpest I have ever seen. On my 450D then 7D and now 5D mk3. I have to admit I took a massive risk buying in the states on a two week business trip from a camera shop with a $200 dollar instant in store rebate. All in with credit card exchange rates it cost me £1525, but it was the best money I have ever spent on camera equipment.

[Andy76]

I must admit the push pull does put me off, not so much from a using it point of view but the issues with it sucking dust.

I suppose as always it comes down to the balance of quality, versatility and cost. I'm not convinced there would be a substantial cost saving buying a shorter lens with TC but equally as you point out there is the benefit of a faster lens.

Decisions, decisions....

[ajmoir36]

One question is what body do you have a FF or a 1.3x/1.6x? When I started out I had the 450D with a 1.6x so it was really a 112mm to 320mm, but then again the 100-400mm would be a 160mm-640mm. The range is so much further. Now I have moved to full frame the x2 extender had to be purchased as the 400mm is useful. But I suppose the price difference is £600ish. which is quite a bit, that's nearly another lens.

I suppose as a crop compare

http://www.flickr.com/photos/techie_ali/8637146469/in/photostream

Cropped No extender just the 5D mk3 and the 70-200mm mk2 there was no time for the extender with this shot.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/techie_ali/8478660201/in/set-72157632779270753

[Andy76]

I'm using a 600d so it's a 1.6 factor. Thanks for posting the pics it's good to see the quality. You have some nice shots on your flickr account too.

I had a quick look at second hand lenses on ebay and there isn't much difference price wise, probably not enough to justify going with the shorter lens and the TC

[ajmoir36]

I'm using a 600d so it's a 1.6 factor. Thanks for posting the pics it's good to see the quality. You have some nice shots on your flickr account too.

I had a quick look at second hand lenses on ebay and there isn't much difference price wise, probably not enough to justify going with the shorter lens and the TC

Thanks, one thing I do know is good quality equipment holds its value well. Its a bit like an investment.

[Diamond Hell]

The slow aperture will frustrate you.  Find a 70-200 F2.8 as cheaply as possible.

Once you've gone F2.8 you'll want the option wherever you are.

[DubFan]

You could always look at the 70-200 f4 L. Much cheaper than the f2.8 and still L glass. It's also smaller and lighter than the 100-400 L.

My brother borrowed a 100-400 L, it was huge. He carried it around London for a day and got a sore shoulder. It's much less versatile than the 70-200, which can be used for lots of different types of shot (it's even good for portraits). The 100-400 L is more limited by it's focal length and it's weight.

Here's a hot my bro took on the 100-400 L, with a Canon 40D.


I would suggest only going for the 100-400 L if you shoot so much wildlife than you can justify having a lens for just one purpose.

I have a 70-210 f4, and can get great shots at f4. You don't *need* f2.8 (although it's rather nice if you can afford it).
This was at 210mm f4.

berry cold by AlistairBeavis, on Flickr

[Andy76]

I think the 70 200 f2.8 is probably beyond my means for the time being.

I had been reasonably settled on the 100 400 as I felt it struck a fair balance all round but I am now wondering if I really need the reach. Time for some more research I guess.

[DubFan]

I think the 70 200 f2.8 is probably beyond my means for the time being.

I had been reasonably settled on the 100 400 as I felt it struck a fair balance all round but I am now wondering if I really need the reach. Time for some more research I guess.

If that's the case, perhaps you should hire a 100-400 for a weekend to try, then hire the 70-200 to see if it really is too short.
A £50 hire charge is probably worth it if you're going to spend £500-1000 on a lens.