Canon 100-400L Review

[PixelRabbit]

Thanks C, Mike and Derrel

C, it's the upper body toning that puts it over the edge amiright!?

Mike, definitely, I was a little scared about getting used to the push pull but now it's great! As for the weight, I can see the need for a tri or monopod for someone that doesn't use this on a regular basis to help support it.

Derrel, thanks! I'm thrilled with the lens and I'm looking forward to a long loving relationship with it lol

 

[Tiller]

Did you compare it against the sigma 150-500? What made you decide in favor of the Canon?

 

[PixelRabbit]

Hey Tiller I did, here is my post and a link to the whole thread.
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/canon/323121-canon-100-400l.html

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.