Canon 100 400mm IS USM

[DannyLewis]

I picked up a Canon 100 400mm IS USM about 5 months ago and have used it from time to time, I have arthritis in my hands and it isnt getting better so I would like some input on a lens that is some what equal and lighter. (uses would be some wildlife and sports) Any IDea's? I might swap it out for a powered telescope then I can shoot astro and not have to lug a 5 lbs lens around. I could just leave it set up in the back of the house and take it out when needed. THank you for your time.
(wildlife being bobcats deer birds wife)

 

[Overread]

Sadly good long glass is heavy glass. You won't get the same performance lighter in a zoom and some other zoom options of similar standards might even be a little heavier.

A 400mm f5.6 L and a 300mm f4 IS L are other options you could consider, but you're only losing around 150g or so over what you have now. A little difference but not all that much.

What you might find helps is using a monopod to take the weight of the lens whilst you shoot, granted this adds a little to your carrying weight, but it gives you the gain of letting the pod take the weight of the whole setup when you come to shooting.

 

[DannyLewis]

I have been considering a mono but will have to wait until after Christmas, THe kid took all my spending money again. I figure good glass is going to be a burden. I enjoy shooting astro also and am limited with the 400. But I do like that way it performs for sports and wildlife. Thank You and enjoy your Christmas.

 

[DannyLewis]

Are the 400 and the 300 your refering to fixed? If so is that not another even larger chunk of money to put out?

 

[Overread]

I know very little specifically about astro photography; but the 100-400mm should have more than enough focal length to do good astro photography, What you need is additional support items to unlock the potential and to enable you to get the shots.

Have a peek at this thread if you don't believe me You don't need a telescope - Canon Digital Photography Forums granted its a long thread but it shows some very impressive results with various lenses.

 

[Overread]

The 400 and 300mm I mention are around the rough same price bracket as the 100-400mm. There are much bigger and much heavier prime lenses on the market, they offer superior AF and image quality but will be significant gains in weight.

 

[DannyLewis]

Thanks for this link, I love the night sky and have studied it for ages, just never had a good telescope and camera at the same time. I like the telescopes now as I dont have to refer to a star chart and they track so I can shoot 45 mintes with an open shutter and not get trails.
I will check the link now thank you

I know very little specifically about astro photography; but the 100-400mm should have more than enough focal length to do good astro photography, What you need is additional support items to unlock the potential and to enable you to get the shots.

Have a peek at this thread if you don't believe me You don't need a telescope - Canon Digital Photography Forums granted its a long thread but it shows some very impressive results with various lenses.

 

[DannyLewis]

I like the astro trac but another hundred and I can get a 2000mm telescope with 14,000 locations in the night sky (go to capabilities) thanks always

 

[STIC]

...

 

[DannyLewis]

WHen I say astrophotography I am not reffering to the moon and a few stars I am speaking of andromeda galaxy and other deep space nebulae and the things where the 400 can not go even with the 2X I have one but it is a vivatar and loses about 4 stops which isnt very impressive...I want to go deep space. I do have a 1000mm lens with the 2X it does okay at 2000, but the FOV isnt enough to suit me and it doesnt track so I get trails after a minute or so with the shutter open.....

 

[curtyoungblood]

I just want to chime in and second Overread's suggestions for wildlife and sports. I'd suggest going to monopod route first, to see if it helps.

 

[jaomul]

There is a sigma 120-400 lens which i believe to be a bit lighter and cheaper but there isn't much in it. If you could drop to a 70-300 mm lens there are a load that are much lighter, a tamron 70-300vc comes to mind. You could add a 1.4 teleconverter when you need extra length but would lose autofocus with the converter added.

 

[DannyLewis]

I have a 75 300 and a 55 250 a 500 I am very fond of the L series canon put out sigma is ok but you lose quality and alot of th m need to be worked on as soon as you get them, they are a big hit and miss. Never had a tamron though.....

 

[Overread]

The thing is if you drop down to a lighter lens it will typically mean lower grade glass - and in a zoom lens going for long focal lengths that means you will notice the drop in quality.

Sigma make some good lenses and some of their 150-500mm/50-500mm lenses can stand very well against the 100-400mm - but you won't gain much in weight saving. The only other combo I know that delivers similar results is a 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII +2*TC - however that actually weighs more than the 100-400mm.

Primes will save you a small bit of weight without the loss of quality (indeed you'll generally gain in quality); but I think the monopod would be the ideal approach. You might also find some of the different strap systems of help when you're walking. Black Rapid shoulder based straps or the Cotton Carrier chest strap could be suitable alternatives to spreading the weight out without using a neck strap

 

[Big Mike]

I was working at my local Photography Expo and walked over to the Canon booth...mostly to play with the 1Dx. But while there, the guy suggested I pick up their 400mm F4 DO IS. It's a rather large lens, but because of the DO design, it was really light. I think he said it was lighter than the 70-200mm F2.8 L IS.

Canon Telephoto EF 400mm f/4.0 DO (Diffractive Optics) 7034A002
Of course, it is $6000 :er: