Canon 100-400L IS

[PixelRabbit]

Ok I know I promised that the last thread about a macro lens would be THE last thread in my quest for a new lens, alas I was wrong

So I have a cheque for $936 burning a hole in my pocket now (I was only waiting for the cheque in the mail up till now but it arrived yesterday! woot! lol) and while I THOUGHT I had narrowed down what I wanted to a macro lens along came a Canon 100-400mm L IS USM. It is listed for $1200 but it looks like if I choose to go this way I can get it for $1000, it is local so I will obv be going and testing the lens etc before the final purchase.

I have researched this lens and it lands near top of almost all lists for best wildlife lens for my Canon, reviews seem ok to good/great on it.

I suppose the biggest thing that makes me consider this lens over the macro is I can get a very nice macro lens in the $500ish price range and "fake it" cheap (reverse tubes etc) but I can't fake a wildlife lens cheap and convincingly unless I go with longer fixed focal lengths. It will be easier to gather the funds next time to get the macro @ $500 than it would to get the wildlife lens @$1000+ and I'm already there.

I love love love shooting with my 18-200, I like the versatility of it, I like being able to transition quickly if I see a critter going by.... but .... almost every single day I wish I had more reach. I have a pond and a river on the property and I can't get to the other side of either of them and barely to the center of the pond where the action happens with my 18-200 with any kind of IQ.
I think I would feel limited and frustrated by a fixed focal length for this application.

So does anyone have any experience and thoughts on this lens specifically? Thoughts in general other than I'm a pain in the butt and just need to pick a freakin' lens??
Thanks in advance~!~

 

[Robin_Usagani]

It is a push pull lens. I had it for a few months ( bought cheap sold high ). It is a slow lens. You kinda need to make sure the bird you are shooting is in the sun or you have to use a high ISO.

 

[PixelRabbit]

Thanks Robin, my 18-200 3.5-5.6 isn't the quickest bunny in the bunch but I have learned the ins and outs of it, do you think the 100-400 would act similarly to what I currently use?

 

[jaomul]

Having only tried this lens briefly on a friends 5d mark ii, it seems to be great (actual owners will give the plus and minus points). the push pull is unusual but I reckon you get used to that in very little time. However I did use a sigma 50-500mm lens for a while and if you could get over the weight it is really great for everything from a close up dog to a bird in the distance. The one i used had no IS but the newer one does. It may not be what you are looking for but it does cover way more range and may save changing lenses as much

Sigma 50-500/4.5-6.3 OS HSM Review - Bob Atkins Photography

 

[PixelRabbit]

Thanks Jaomul, I checked the link out, it was nice to see the 100-400 referenced as comparable.
I'm finding that choosing what lens is right for you is all about little details, what tradeoffs you make with what lens and what one suits you the best, this is quite the process!!

 

[jaomul]

I agree. i wanted either the EF100-400 IS L or that siggy with OS. Money didn't allow so i settled for the tamron 70-300 vc. Whatever lens you use those extension tubes are great for macro fake set up. Enjoy whichever you get

Example of said tammy with and without tubes

bee by jaomul, on Flickr


Eagle2 by jaomul, on Flickr

 

[PixelRabbit]

Nice shots Jaomul and thanks regardless of whether I go this way or macro I'm beyond excited and can't wait to get my hands on it!!

 

[Steve5D]

The 100-400mm is one lens that I wish I owned...

 

[PixelRabbit]

The 100-400mm is one lens that I wish I owned...

Care to elaborate on that Sir?

 

[CanonJim]

I've had this lens for about 3 years - once you get used to the trombone effect, it's a class act. It's in the bag of nearly every pro Canon wildlife shooter. It's not designed for low light shooting but in decent daylight it's fine, and the IS does add a stop or two. Out past 300mm though, it really benefits from a tripod, because of the weight.

Here are a couple from it. The Heron was literally the second or third shot I ever took with it, I stuck it on my XTi the day I got it and went outside to the river in our back yard. The juvie bald eagle and the adult catching dinner were handheld. One of the secrets of using this (or any long tele lens) for BIF is to set your camera to servo focus (AI Servo on a Canon), center focus spot ONLY, and continuous shooting. You're bound to get one or two keepers out of a dozen or so.

 

[Overread]

400mm f5.6 L - the best image quality you can get in this price bracket for new bar none. This is the best option if you want reach and where zoom or a shorter focal length is simply not a concern. It might not have IS, but with wildlife you'll need 1/400sec or faster at the least anyway unless your panning and a monopod is a cheap and quick fix to the lack of IS and a tripod is even better for fixed shooting positions.

300mm f4 IS L (+1.4TC) - with a 1.4TC you can get up to 420mm f5.6 with IS. A touch down from the 400mm, but still very usable image quality and a very good prime lens. It's good for giving you a bit more variation with your setup and allowing for a great 300mm and a good 420mm with a TC

100-400mm IS L - this might be bottom of the 3, but its image quality is still very usable. You might find that you lose a stop when shooting as you try to lower the aperture by one so that you retain an extra edge of image quality. That said its a very powerful zoom lens and gives you the bonus of being able to use a variety of focal lengths and not just the single focal length that the primes offer.

Sigma also makes a good 50-500mm and 150-500mm lens options in various forms, the newest of which which are in the same price bracket are easily able to stand up to the 100-400mm. Note that the Sigma options are generally closer to 450mm over most regular used focusing distances (focal length is measured at focus set to infinity - focusing closer can cause many lenses to reduce their effective focal length). 50mm is not much, esp at long focal lengths so you won't miss too much, but it does have the option of a little extra reach.


All of the above options are great choices and often personal preference comes to the fore as well as your requirements. If you want better you have to go up a big price jump (even for the second hand market).

 

[JacaRanda]

I purchased one for JacaRanda_wifey for Christmas and rarely is anything else used on her T3I. (BTW she/we also have the 100L macro) Occasionally I use the 100-400L on my 60D and have no complaints other than we still want/wish we could have something longer. Auto focus does not work on it when the 1.4 TC is connected. That being said, the shots we have gotten when there is plenty of light are more than acceptable to us.

I have suggested to my wife that she comments to perhaps give some added info or perspective for you.

Almost all of our shots with it have been handheld and that has not been an issue either. I guess we can call ourselves birders at this point. I don't think you will be disappointed with it if that is the route you go.

We are joined at the hip so the flickr page is a mix of both of our shots; more than likely any shots listing the 100-400L were taken by my lovely wifey!

 

[ducatiman1967]

I was in the same boat, wanting more reach than my 70-200. But in the end my wife and I decided to go with the 400 f5.6 prime as it's sharper wide open and we'd always want to be at the long end of a zoom.

 

[PixelRabbit]

I've had this lens for about 3 years - once you get used to the trombone effect, it's a class act. It's in the bag of nearly every pro Canon wildlife shooter. It's not designed for low light shooting but in decent daylight it's fine, and the IS does add a stop or two. Out past 300mm though, it really benefits from a tripod, because of the weight.

Here are a couple from it. The Heron was literally the second or third shot I ever took with it, I stuck it on my XTi the day I got it and went outside to the river in our back yard. The juvie bald eagle and the adult catching dinner were handheld. One of the secrets of using this (or any long tele lens) for BIF is to set your camera to servo focus (AI Servo on a Canon), center focus spot ONLY, and continuous shooting. You're bound to get one or two keepers out of a dozen or so.

Thanks so much for your thoughts and the sample shots Jim.
Ah you have a river close by also so you can relate! The river is off our front deck and there is always someone flying by! My 18-200 was great to learn on, but I definitely need more reach now, here are some shots I've taken with it around here.
















And this one I just love the moment caught

400mm f5.6 L - the best image quality you can get in this price bracket for new bar none. This is the best option if you want reach and where zoom or a shorter focal length is simply not a concern. It might not have IS, but with wildlife you'll need 1/400sec or faster at the least anyway unless your panning and a monopod is a cheap and quick fix to the lack of IS and a tripod is even better for fixed shooting positions.

300mm f4 IS L (+1.4TC) - with a 1.4TC you can get up to 420mm f5.6 with IS. A touch down from the 400mm, but still very usable image quality and a very good prime lens. It's good for giving you a bit more variation with your setup and allowing for a great 300mm and a good 420mm with a TC

100-400mm IS L - this might be bottom of the 3, but its image quality is still very usable. You might find that you lose a stop when shooting as you try to lower the aperture by one so that you retain an extra edge of image quality. That said its a very powerful zoom lens and gives you the bonus of being able to use a variety of focal lengths and not just the single focal length that the primes offer.

Sigma also makes a good 50-500mm and 150-500mm lens options in various forms, the newest of which which are in the same price bracket are easily able to stand up to the 100-400mm. Note that the Sigma options are generally closer to 450mm over most regular used focusing distances (focal length is measured at focus set to infinity - focusing closer can cause many lenses to reduce their effective focal length). 50mm is not much, esp at long focal lengths so you won't miss too much, but it does have the option of a little extra reach.


All of the above options are great choices and often personal preference comes to the fore as well as your requirements. If you want better you have to go up a big price jump (even for the second hand market).

Thanks so much Over, I researched everything and this is what I figured out.

I definitely want a zoom, I want the versatility that comes with it, I love using my 18-200 and I know I would feel limited a fixed focal length so the 400mm and 300mm are out.

The Sigmas have a lot of charm and are very tempting, where they fall short is weight most of all, they are both about 4lbs vs. 3lb for the 100-400 (which is already 2+x's the weight of my 18-200). I will be hand holding probably 90% of the time, again like with the fixed focal length I feel limited when I'm on a tripod unless I'm doing something specific. As a "sometimes" lens I would be sold.

I purchased one for JacaRanda_wifey for Christmas and rarely is anything else used on her T3I. (BTW she/we also have the 100L macro) Occasionally I use the 100-400L on my 60D and have no complaints other than we still want/wish we could have something longer. Auto focus does not work on it when the 1.4 TC is connected. That being said, the shots we have gotten when there is plenty of light are more than acceptable to us.

I have suggested to my wife that she comments to perhaps give some added info or perspective for you.

Almost all of our shots with it have been handheld and that has not been an issue either. I guess we can call ourselves birders at this point. I don't think you will be disappointed with it if that is the route you go.

We are joined at the hip so the flickr page is a mix of both of our shots; more than likely any shots listing the 100-400L were taken by my lovely wifey!

Thanks so much JacaRanda! I checked out the flickr page, nice examples
Don't we always want a little more focal length?? lol I'm pretty sure I'll be super happy with around 400mm for quite a while but eventually I'm sure I will yearn for more!!
From what everyone is saying about the light and this lens it sounds like it is going to act very much like my 18-200 but actually better at around 200mm where mine obviously falls short.

I was in the same boat, wanting more reach than my 70-200. But in the end my wife and I decided to go with the 400 f5.6 prime as it's sharper wide open and we'd always want to be at the long end of a zoom.

Thanks for your thoughts Ducatiman I will certainly consider a prime in the future to round out the edges of my gear but with this being my first lens purchase I have a whole lot in the middle to improve on before I get there

 

[Overread]

Sounds like the 100-400mm is warming to you!
The only other similar option that I can suggest is a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII (not the original version nor the Sigma) - that with a 2*TC is:

a bit heavier than a 100-400mm
more expensive than a 100-400mm
Sharper through the 70-200mm range (actually its outstanding over that range)
Just as good as the 100-400mm over that range with hte 2*TC - note that the 100-400mm retains the edge just, but its very slight and after editing you won't be able to tell them apart.

I only suggest that as I know that 70-200mm are a popular grouping of focal lengths for many and for some it proves to be a good inbetween option - good enough with the TC to get you to 400mm and a good enough lens on its own that if you ever upgrade to something better for the longer ranges it will still be of use .