How good is the 100-400L?

[pugnacious33]

I'm very impressed.

 

[wescobts]

WOW !! That is stunning, great job :thumbup: Nice cropping, and sharp.

 

[Laika]

Breathtaking capture! Excellent details.

 

[panthrcat]

want me to load a few bird images with that lens? I own it and absolutely love it!! great image you have there!!!

 

[pugnacious33]

 

[jtee]

The 100-400 is a good lens but has its issues and limits. I own one, its downside is that it is a light hog needs lots of light to be at its best. It also dosent do well at all at taking extenders (was not designed to). When shooting on grey days or overcast gloomy days the images look noisy and loss of detail, but when the suns out its a super lens and versatile also. Just my 2 cents from my experiences.

 

[jvw2941]

woow i love your second shot you posted. VERY sharp, great image

 

[icassell]

. It also dosent do well at all at taking extenders (was not designed to). .

Really? I thought it was supposed to work well with the Canon extenders. I keep thinking that one of these days I want to get the 100-400 or the 400 f/5.6 (since it is unlikely that I will be able to afford my dream, the 500mm f/4, in a nearby lifetime) and, if that is really the case, I would lean hard towards the prime.

 

[jtee]

. It also dosent do well at all at taking extenders (was not designed to). .

Really? I thought it was supposed to work well with the Canon extenders. I keep thinking that one of these days I want to get the 100-400 or the 400 f/5.6 (since it is unlikely that I will be able to afford my dream, the 500mm f/4, in a nearby lifetime) and, if that is really the case, I would lean hard towards the prime.

You would be happier with the prime lens .Primes always have better IQ than a zoom. The reason people like the 100-400 so much is its versatility but to be honest the image quality of say the 400 5.6 (same ballpark price of the 100-400) is better.

 

[icassell]

. It also dosent do well at all at taking extenders (was not designed to). .

Really? I thought it was supposed to work well with the Canon extenders. I keep thinking that one of these days I want to get the 100-400 or the 400 f/5.6 (since it is unlikely that I will be able to afford my dream, the 500mm f/4, in a nearby lifetime) and, if that is really the case, I would lean hard towards the prime.

You would be happier with the prime lens .Primes always have better IQ than a zoom. The reason people like the 100-400 so much is its versatility but to be honest the image quality of say the 400 5.6 (same ballpark price of the 100-400) is better.

I just wish Canon would put IS on it ...

 

[jtee]

Really? I thought it was supposed to work well with the Canon extenders. I keep thinking that one of these days I want to get the 100-400 or the 400 f/5.6 (since it is unlikely that I will be able to afford my dream, the 500mm f/4, in a nearby lifetime) and, if that is really the case, I would lean hard towards the prime.

You would be happier with the prime lens .Primes always have better IQ than a zoom. The reason people like the 100-400 so much is its versatility but to be honest the image quality of say the 400 5.6 (same ballpark price of the 100-400) is better.

I just wish Canon would put IS on it ...

Its quite light and I dont feel that it really needs it ,a few of my fellow aviation photogs love theirs and its a great lens for birding easy to carry around your neck and quite fast focusing. And the price cant be beat .