Should I Get the Canon EF 100-400 L USM II

photoflyer · Feb 28, 2020

When others post similar threads I have found the responses informative so here is mine.

First, I travel a fair amount so I would buy the lens with miles through the airline catalog. While not free and a fairly poor value for the miles, it will not be a cash purchase. I have a lot of miles.

Second, I shoot everything from landscapes to sports inside and out to portraits, wildlife and everything in between. And, somethings on the same outing.

Third, I have a full frame and APS-C.

Fourth, I already have the 70-200 2.8 L, 300 f 4 L , 24-105 f 4 L and the 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters.

I like the 1.4 teleconverter but the performance of the 2x is not as good for, I think, obvious reasons.

My thinking is that I can get what is apparently a very sharp and versatile zoom for low cost and by doing so cover, on the full frame alone, cover a wide range of shots with just the 24-105 and the 100-400. In fact, if I had it last week while in South Africa, those thee items are all I would have taken.

What do you all think?

weepete · Feb 28, 2020

Get it, it's a superb lens, very sharp with a really useful focal length. The MFD on it alone makes it a great close up lens. It'll do a bit of everything and it'll do it well.

ac12 · Feb 28, 2020

Depending on the sport, the 24-105 + 70-200 + 100-400 will have most of the sports covered.
And wildlife seems to always want a LONG lens.
So, since it is a non-cash purchase, why not.

photoflyer · Mar 1, 2020

Ok, I think I will do it. I was just concerned that with the 70-200 2.8 there might be to much redundancy but I really think that with this lens on the full frame and the 24-105 I can cover 80 percent of what might present itself on a "walkabout". Low light being problematic. I don't like to be frivolous.

ac12 · Mar 1, 2020

photoflyer said:
Ok, I think I will do it. I was just concerned that with the 70-200 2.8 there might be to much redundancy but I really think that with this lens on the full frame and the 24-105 I can cover 80 percent of what might present itself on a "walkabout". Low light being problematic. I don't like to be frivolous.

I generally consider 2x the lower FL as where the next lens should be.
The 100-400 gives you that 2x over the 70-200.

The overlap between the three lenses simply gives you the ability to pick the best of the three lenses for any particular shoot.
I have some serious overlap on my lenses, but I reasoned out each lens (besides GAS), so they made sense to buy.
On another forum a guy replaced his 12-40 + 40-150 with a 12-100.
I have the 12-40 and 12-100, and just bought the 40-150.
Despite the overlap, the lenses perform very different in different sports/events.

For me, having more choices lets me pick the best (most appropriate) tool in the tool box.

Derrel · Mar 1, 2020

I would get it. For about 15 years I had the old Nikon 80 - 400 as well as a 70-200 F2 8 or an 80 to 200 F 2.8 AFS. I found the 80 to 400 very versatile on crop frame and on full frame. On crop frame the 80-400 has some real reach and on full frame it was a decent lens, but not spectacular. I expect the Canon 100-400 is better.

photoflyer · Mar 1, 2020

Ok. You all convinced me. I just ordered it. Unlike B&H it will take two weeks to get here. It's going to be a painful wait.

Derrel · Mar 1, 2020

One accessory that might be useful is a 12 to 25 mm extension tube. I think you might be able to get some pretty darn good close-up shots from 5 to 10 ft using pure focal length and the lens stabilization feature. I used to use the old 80-400 with a 12mm Kenko AF extension tube and it was extremely good on a crop frame. I made quite a few good pictures using the extension tube, which made it quite useful for outdoor close-up type photos. You could use either the 1.4x converter or the extension tube and your 300 mm prime lens in a similar way.

Winona · Mar 7, 2020

Let us know how you like it. Have fun!

photoflyer · Mar 11, 2020

Well, Christmas came early (or late?) and it arrived. It was late in the day and overcast. I went to a park where I see Osprey and Bald Eagles but they were absent. I did get these. I am really excited about this lens for outside sports and wildlife. The conditions were not ideal and the ISO on these was up to 3200 and the shutter as low as 1/500th but it was 6pm and cloudy.

Thanks everyone.