Best Alternative to Canon 100-400mm L IS

Considering the contrast, and sharpness of Canon 100-400mm L IS, which alternative lens/lens-combo would you buy?

That's a hard question. The combination of zoom-range, price, image-quality, stabilization, and size in the 100-400mm IS is nearly unique.

 

I'd consider the Sigma 150-500mm OS as very similar (although probably a bit lower IQ).

 

In the purely alternative range, a 70-200mm zoom combined with the 300mm f/5.6 and 400mm f/5.6 primes would be similar in range and aperture; the combo would be much larger and heavier. You would miss IS on the 300mm.

I am using this set up as a close alternative. A Canon 70-200mm F4 L is usm with a Canon 1.4x TC II teleconverter.

I use a Canon 40D camera with a crop factor of 1.6....so, figuring in the 1.6 crop factor and the 1.4 tc that brings me out to

448mm length. 70-200mm x 1.6=112-320mm then add 1.4x = a 156-448mm lens. Now you have a 156-448mm F/5.6

Still not quite as long as a 100-400 on a 1.3 crop camera that = 130-520mm or a 1.6 crop camera

A lot less expensive AND a lot lighter to carry around. I can see no difference in IQ myself.

This is not my "opinion", I have this set up and use it. Prints to 8x10 larget so far show me no loss of IQ.

For "birding" I don't even try to use a 500 or 600mm lens - I use a scope with T-2 adapter, etc... Digiscope set up which

is way way less expensive.

Best Wishes, Harold

Opps - my bad. There is no 300mm f/5.6. The one I was thinking of was the 300mm f/4 IS. It's the 400mm f/5.6 that doesn't have IS...

How about the Nikon 80-400mm?

 

Seriously though, I hate the 100-400 because I can't stand push/pull zooms. I went for the 70-200 f2.8 IS combined

with the 300mm f4 IS and a 1.4x teleconverter. I know it's an expensive way of avoiding the 100-400 but there's far

more speed, versatility and image quality this way. If I were to do it again I would choose the 70-200 f4 IS instead of

the f2.8.

Jamie Robertson, "How about the Nikon 80-400mm?"

 

One thing: "screw drive focusing".

 

If Nikon came out with an 80-400mm AF-S VR that would be killer! (IMHO)

Geoff, I was just joking my friend ;-)

 

Screw drive focusing.... eeeh, YUK!

Jamie Robertson, "Geoff, I was just joking my friend ;-) - Screw drive focusing.... eeeh, YUK!"

 

D'oh! I missed the "Seriously though" ...

 

Strangely enough, when I was in my short flirtation with Nikon gear, I considered getting the 80-400mm VR. Many

of my colleagues thought if would focus "fast enough", but there were enough dissenters that I opted for an

alternative... I was torn because I was having pretty good success with the screw-drive 80-200mm f/2.8...

 

OTOH, I know some Canophiles who have seriously considered getting a Nikon body just to have the 200-400mm f/4

AF-S VR...

Would I dare mentionning the Olympus 50-200/2.8-3.5 SWD? In the slrgear.com tests it wipes the floor with the Canon 100-

400.

"In the slrgear.com tests it wipes the floor with the Canon 100- 400."

 

Not from 201mm to 400mm, it doesn't.

 

Apples and oranges.

the sigma 80-400 OS has been getting get reviews...lots of folks like it and it's 500 cheaper than the canon...

the guy that said the 70-200 f4 with 1.4 was close because of the 1.6 on his camera fails to think that the 100-400 gets the same 1.6 and is then a 640 at 5.6....

"Not from 201mm to 400mm, it doesn't."

 

The Olympus 50-200mm on a 4/3 camera is equivalent in field of view to a 100-400mm on a 5D. And it does wipe the floor

with it all along the zoom range.

This may not answer the question. I wish Canon had the 200-400/4 comparable to the Nikon's.

In its absence, maybe the Nikkor 200-400/4 VR,

It seems you are skeptical of the 100-400. As mentioned above, it fills a gap in the lens line up that really has no equal. I would suggest you rent it. It is an amazing lens. I suspect many of the negative post you read about it are from people who don't even own it. As for the push/pull zoom, I love it. Very easy to acquire moving wildlife and such with it at 150 mm or so, then quickly zoom in to 350 mm or so and get the shot. So easy to catch a moving subject with this lens. If your interest in wildlife photography and you don't have $4,000+ to spend, the choice is pretty clear. I suspect if you rent one and give it a try, you may agree. An amazing lens. Below is a link to some images I took in Alaska in May. I got my first dslr about 11 months ago and consider myself a beginner. They were all taken hand held from a moving/bobbing boat in the ocean. Most are heavily cropped as well. When the link opens, click slideshow in the upper right.

 

I love my 100-400mm IS. It's on my camera almost all the time!

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.

 

This doesn't really answer your question but if you aren't in a rush maybe wait a few months and see if Canon announces something.

What's so bad about the 100-400? I have one, while I don't use it as a 'walk around lens' when I want teh reach it's had to beat. It's sharp and contrasty although it is a bit heavy.

 

Ed K.

Joseph, the 80-400 OS Sigma is apparently out of production. However, I find these lenses, which look promising:

 

Sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM

Sigma APO 120-400mm F4.5-5.6 DG OS HSM

 

Anyone know where I can find any good reviews of these lenses?

I don't own it yet, but it's the next lens on my "Must Have" list. I have read every post like this I have come across over the last 2 years, and after much comparison it always is the one that ends up back on the top of my list.

@ Sarah

 

If you do a Google search for that Sigma lens you will get a bunch of pro and amateur reviews. They mostly end with a summary that states the Sigma's Auto Focus is slower and the IQ less than the Canon 100-400.

Only one that comes to mind is the Sigma 120-300mm 2.8. I chose it over the 100-400L, its sharper and built like a tank,

not to mention its a 2.8. (the only complaint I hear about the 120-300 is its not as sharp as the Canon 300mm 2.8, but then

again its a zoom and its $1100 cheaper too). I use the 85L and the Sig 120-300 for all my shoots.

i screwed up - i meant the 120 - 400

thanks

JC

> Considering the contrast, and sharpness of Canon 100-400mm L IS, which alternative lens/lens-combo would you buy < (and to keep IS).

 

 

 

1. EF70 to 200F2.8L IS USM + EF 300F4L IS + x1.4MkII

 

or (more money)

 

2. EF70 to 200F2.8L IS USM + EF 300F2.8L IS + x1.4MkII

 

WW

A number of professional equestrian photographers use the 100-400 and get commercially viable results from them.

 

I've got that range covered with a 70-200, a 300/4 IS and a 1.4x. I'm very happy with the results I get and the kit has been built up over time, so the considerably greater expense wasn't all shelled out at one time. The 100-400 covers the range without the need for lens changes and weighes a lot less than the combination of lenses, especially if the 70-200 is the 2.8 IS.

 

I've tried out the 100-400 and was moderately pleased with the results, but I'm not wholly convinced I would want to buy one.

 

My 2p.

P

Another vote for this combination:

 

EF70 to 200F2.8L IS USM + EF 300F4L IS + x1.4MkII