Best Alternative to Canon 100-400mm L IS

Chinmaya Sn,

I'm not sure why you put the question.

I own the 100-400 L USM IS and love it.

Nothing compaires with this one, except for combo's.

And I prefer 1 instead of combo's, 'cause changing lenses is always a risk (time, dirt, accidents), brings more weight and will cost more.

IMO adding 1.4 converters is not increasing quality and speed and even AF might become problematic.

However, Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 + 1.4 TC would be my alternative if I had to get an alternative.

if you are thinking Nikon and you have a lot of money then the 200-400 f4 VR is the lens to get.

[[There are rumors of an updated 100-400 being redesigned. It is so slow, but it is actually pretty sharp for such a long

ranged zoom. From what I've read and heard, strictly specualation, it will be faster auto focusing and F4 instead of F5.6.]]

 

As good as an f/4 version sounds, that would translate into a much larger and much more expensive lens. (Nikon's 200-

400 f/4 sells for over $5,000.) There may well be room for that in the lineup, but I hope they'd still keep the 5.6 version

around for those wanting a lighter lens or lacking the huge budget.

I'm pretty happy with my 100-400mm.

 

It's the lens to carry when you can't use a tripod in places like Galapagos:

 

http://www.brentreid.exposuremanager.com/g/nature

 

Darn good for outdoor sports, too, when you want to move around and not be tethered to a 400/2.8.

Sigmas new 120-400 os afs is a great lens works fine hand held, i just picked one up for my D300 $809.00

I have used the 100-400 and although it is not the lens for me (I hate push/pull zooms) I think it gets too much criticism. As others say, for it's price and versatility it is a brilliant lens. If you can live with push/pull zooming them get one.

This is a good average lens. It is not a low light, fast moving, point and click lens. In good daylight, this lens just rocks! Very sharp, wonderfully contrasty. Canon 100-400mm L IS a very versatile lens. You can use this lens for just about anything, it's not as sharp as prime lenses, but it comes very close.

I also own the 100-400. I took it and the 70-200 f/4L on a trip to Zambia. I probably shot 95% of my photos with the 100-400. Everything from handheld in good light to 3200 ASA on long exposures resting (with a beanbag screwed on the lens) on the side rail of the Range Rover at night. Loved it. It is an incredible lens in my opinion.

For the full focal length range I think it is the best choice.

 

That said... Because of my personal shooting style and the impact it has on budgetary concerns, I have three lenses covering that range. I use my 100/2.8 USM Macro for most situations in which I need a 100mm lens. My 100-300/5.6L gets *occasional* use when I occasionally need something in that range. My 400/5.6L takes up the long end of that range. The 100 and 400 get pretty frequent use, but for various reasons I generally don't fine myself reaching for the 100-300. Part of that is the lens itself, which is slow and slow focusing, but most of it is just me.

There is no comparable alternative to the EF 100-400 L IS, and I'm considering picking one up myself. What reservations do you have about it? If it's just the cost, I'd save your pennies.

The correct answer to your question is to have a variety of lenses. Usually the 300f4 and 1.4 extender.

With so many people asking about how good the lens was I did a post:

 

http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00LiDj

 

I still have the 100-400 and have enjoyed playing around with it, Its a fantastic lens. However I feel that in low light conditions it really isnt the right lens. Regretfully here you need a 400 f2.8L lens and that requires lots of money. Sigma's 120-300 f2.8 is still a very viable alternative with a sigma 1.4 extender.

 

To all those people who dont get the point of a push/pull zoom, allow me to explain.

Being human the vast majority of us only have two hands. With a moving subject you need to simultaneously be able to hold the camera and take the picture with hand 1, Zoom with hand 2, and if you are using an extender of are overriding the focus you will need to be doing this as well.

 

Try using a 2x extender on the 70-200 f2.8 with anything other than a 1D (or EOS 3) camera and taking a picture of a subject approaching you when you have to zoom and focus at the same time, you will realise why twist zooms are a crap system, and why a Pushpull zoom enabling you to zoom and focus with one hand is a great thing

or

you are one of those lucky people with three arms and hands

 

 

Cheers G

The best alternative to a Canon 100-400mm L IS is a used Canon 100-400mm L IS! I paid about $900 for mine on eBay, and at that price I feel it has no equal!

Wonderful images Brent.

I wouldn't necesssarily want all my zooms to be push-pull types.

 

However, the 100-400 has a relatively large telephoto magnification range and a twist zoom would be impractical. Being able to change focal length rapidly without losing a stable grip on the lens is one big advantage of the push-pull type.

 

While an f/4 version (100-400 or 200-400) would be an amazing lens, I don't think I would want to either pay for it or carry it around! (While we're dreaming, what about a 100-400 f/4 DO IS? I might carry that, but who would buy me one?)

The Sigma 100-300 f/4 works for me, with a 1.4 attached to it, I have 140-420 at constant f/5.6

Depends on the camera (Full frame or APS-C) and what you shoot. I shoot a lot of ski racing so I tried a friends 100-400 but was disappointed. The lens is slow to focus (especially when tracking) and does not give very fast shutter speeds. I was also not very impressed by it's edge of frame performance. Thus I bought the 70-200 F2.8 (non-IS to save money) and 1.4x and 2x convertors. the 2x convertor is not worth the money as it is a poor performer but the 1.4x is good on the 70-200. I think that indoor sports may also be a problem as i have a son who plays ice hockey and find F2.8 to be marginal as I can't get better than 1/125 of a second. In general for ice hockey I use an old canon FD with a 85mm F1.2 or 135mm F2 for this purpose (although I miss AF). i still shoot film and will only move to Digital when I get a 5D Mark II later this year. I suspect that the APS-C will help the edge performance (we have a Digital rebel that produces OK pictures with a very poor lens that is unacceptable on my 1Vs). Having an ability to work above 400ISO will also help the digital case (this is one of the reasons I am getting the new 5D). A friend of mine has the 1D Mark IIN and he has both the 100-400 and 70-200 and a rarely see him use the 100-400. I would also be careful of non-Canon lenses if you plan to keep the camera. they are not as compatible as the Canon lenses - for example my Sigma 14mm EOS lens will not work on digital cameras but works on all film EOS cameras whereas Cannon lenses of the same (pre-digital) vintage will work on all EOS cameras. The lens physically fits the Digital camera but the camera will not function.

Is the push pull zoom a problem when you have the lens mounted on a tripod?

No problem with the push/pull on a tripod. Some undue criticism to the push/pull if you ask me. I love it. It is easy to acquire wildlife then zoom in and get the shot while keeping them in the frame the whole time. Very easy to master.

Thanks Dan, I actually put my hands on a 100-400 today and now I understand how it works and how it mounts on a tripod. Actually, I think the push/pull system is great. That 100-400 is now residing on my 5D.

Congratulations man. I am sure you will enjoy that lens. When you look at the versatility and focal range of that lens, I consider it a true value. Below are some images from mine. Many are heavily cropped but still fairly sharp. The wildlife images were from Alaska in May. On a boat bobbing around in the ocean and hand held. I would have never got these shots without the 100-400. Keep in mind that I am a beginner with poor post processing skills:) But these images will give you an idea of what the 100-400 will do.

 

Alaska wildlife

 

 

Birds

 

 

Full moon (click all sizes and open full screen image)

 

 

Sailboats on Nantucket

 

I love my 100-400. It's an outstanding lens.

This summer, out on my friend's boat, it was wonderful for whales. He had a 300 IS and had to use two cameras to capture wider shots, but I could just zoom. The push-pull hate, I just don't get it.

<p>

<center><img src="http://abandoned-alaska.com/coppermine/albums/05-29-2008-orcas/normal_IMG_6703.jpg">

<p>

<img src="http://abandoned-alaska.com/coppermine/albums/05-29-2008-orcas/normal_IMG_6712.jpg"></center>

Nice shots Lance.

"However, the 100-400 has a relatively large telephoto magnification range and a twist zoom would be impractical"

 

Someone needs to tell Sigma (maker of a 50-500mm and a 80-400mm OS), Nikon (80-400mm VR) and Tokina (80-400mm) that - they all have twist zooms.

"Someone needs to tell Sigma (maker of a 50-500mm and a 80-400mm OS), Nikon (80-400mm VR) and Tokina (80-400mm)

that - they all have twist zooms."

 

Fair enough. I haven't used any of these for comparison. The Canon shifts a lot of glass a long way when it

zooms, and to do this with a twist would require either a fairly large angle of rotation, or a lot of torque.

Maybe the other lenses have a different (?newer, ? ?better) design.