canon lens

[jerryh]

I'm in the process of buying a new lens for my 20D and would like to get some feed back on the 100-400 4.5-5.6L IS and 300mm 4.0L IS.

Will the push pull zoom on the 100-400 cause excessive dust build up on digital sensor to the point of being a real problem ?

Because of this would the 300MM be a better idea even though the zoom range is not as great. I like to shoot sports photography as a hobby so the longer the zoom range the better but I don't want to spend all my time cleaning a sensor or sending the camera to repair shop to be cleaned.

Any advice on this would be greatly appreciated

 

[HoboSyke]

How does dust enter the camera through the lens?

There is glass between the sensor and lens at the rear of the lens?

Im considering getting this lens as well (100-400 IS USM).

 

[thebeginning]

The push-pull mechanism of the 100-400 actually is known for 'sucking' dust into the lens and/or camera body. This is only a real problem if you are in dusty situations often, thuogh. If you were shooting sports outdoors it wouldn't be as much of a problem, really. Unless it was pollen season

There are a few benefits of the longer range of the 100-400, but there are also some disadvantages. It has a smaller max aperture than the 300 prime, is significantly softer, and (i believe) heavier. Zooms can be good for sports, but it obviously isn't a huge factor since just about every pro sports photographer only shoots primes. If it were my choice I'd go with the 300mm f4L IS. It's a terrific lens, and has faster autofocus than the zoom from what i've seen. You could always get a 1.4x teleconverter to boost its range if you felt you really needed to.

 

[Rob]

I have the 100-400 and I love it. As far as dust goes... and I'm sitting here whooshing it... it can't possibly inject dust into the camera. The rear element would have to be loose for that to happen. I can see how you really wouldn't want to whoosh it in a dusty environment, but... as a walk around, I don't think it'd be a problem.

It's soft, but you can hand hold it at remarkable speeds (like 1/30th at 100mm) and I pretty much shoot with it as my "normal" lens - cos I like the look it gives for people.

Rob

 

[hallbilly]

:hail: for my first real lens... it is remarkable. And because of this, I cannot notice how soft the pictures are, because they look significantly better than what my quantaray 70-300 would take lol...

I have been taking pictures the last few days and it was extremely dusty, not like being at a dirt bike race, but a mild sand storm. I dont find the sucking action of the lens to be a problem yet:thumbup:

 

[spiky_simon]

I read that most people tend to shoot at the extreme ends of their zoom range only (I know I tend to). So in that case you are really comparing a 300mm against a 400mm, with the 300mm wbeing reportedly a much better lens optically. Unless you really need that extra 100, or the flexibility of being able to get back to 100mm, I'd definitely plump for the 300mm.