Canon 100-400 L Ergonomics, ie...push-pull question

I have never had a lens that uses the push-pull zoom and would like

to hear from users of this lens, especially those who own the twist

type zooms and the push-pull. Is it confusing switching from one type

to another? I also read about the push-pull sucking in dust. I can't

imagine Canon making an "L" lens that would draw in dust.

My question really concerns the 100-400L since I am considering one

and will have to order it sight unseen.

The 100-400 does hoover in dust but that's not the worst of it or why I sold mine. The lens grows to twice its closed length at the 400mm end, and the manual focus ring moves out front too so I had to extend my arm to keep on it, and I found it poorly balanced as a result. Also the zoom stiffness control ring in practical use has two positions: too loose and too tight, and is a two-handed affair to adjust. I now use the 70-200/2.8IS with a 2x-II...it AF's faster, and is just as sharp and contrasty, plus when I don't need 400mm I have a killer sharp 70-200/2.8IS.

Before AF, I preferred push-pull so not to confuse focus and zoom controls. However, it's a matter of personal taste, what you're used to and how often you use it. With AF, I now prefer twist zooms, but push-pull is faster to zoom. I don't find switching between different zoom mechanisms (or cameras) confusing but my wife does. You'll have to decide for yourself as one man's convenience is another's hell.

I used to have a 100-400L. Though it was a superb lens in many ways, I sold it. I didn't have much of a problem with the setup being unbalanced when zoomed out, but it did suck in a lot of dust. However, my main concern was weight and I traded down for a 200/2.8L which is a stunner.

Dear Mike,

 

I bought my 100-400 before the 70-200 IS model came out. I use the 100-400 on my 1V and I find that the balance is OK for me. I have never used the 70-200 so I cannot comment on its balance. I have found that the push/pull is very speedy when shooting fast moving objects. It does take some getting used to though, I usually leave a small amount of tension on the tighten ring.

 

The 100-400 is a great lens, I have used it successfully with a canon 1.4X converted fully racked out to 540mm at 1/125 sec (F8) handheld on a fence. An this setting I was able to get publication quality images.

 

As for dust, I have not yet seen any accumulate inside my lens. It has travelled on at least one long trip per month for the last two years that I have owned it. Almost all zooms will suck air into them as they expand, this one draws its air from the camera body like most. The 70-200 IS model is reportedly sealed very well.

 

One thing that I would like to say is that depending upon what you shoot, 100mm is fairly long for a starting point. I am currently considering adding either a 35-350L or a 70-200L IS as an addition to my kit.

 

I would not part with the 100-400 as I use it a lot for Birds, Animals, Airshows etc. If you do not require any focal lengths beyond 400mm then the 70-200L IS with 2X is the way to go, however, only the 100-400 can reach beyond 400mm with a converter.

 

Good luck and let us know your decision!

 

Andy

Ditto what Jay said. I will add that in addition to the zoom lock ring being either too tight or too loose, in my sample it was not consistent throughout the zoom range. In other words, as I zoomed form 100 out to 400 the zoom would sometimes "bind" at about 300mm and I had to loosen the lock even further to get out to 400. A real poor design and a real PITA overall for me. I MUCH prefer the 70-200 IS plus 2xII as an option. Also FWIW regarding dust-sucking, you can actually hear the lens "suuuuccccckkkk" as you zoom out. But as always, YMMV...

 

Cheers,

Dear Mike,

 

I also agree with Jay. I had a 100-400 which I got largely because I saw the Nikon guys using the 80-400 for catwalk photography. When I had it mounted on a monopod I was able to zoom relatively easily between 100 and 300 mm, but I had to take my hand off the monopod to zoom out to 400 mm which seriously affected the handling. When shooting athletics I found that the lens was very end-heavy at 400.

 

Andrew has a very valid point about using it for birds, animals and airshows as the lens does give tremendous flexibility but I think it is better if you preselct the focal length of the zoom and use the lens at that setting rather than rapid changing which is more likely to occur on the catwalk and at sporting events.

 

In the end I was convincing myself that it wasn't as sharp as some of my other lenses but then I was comparing it to my 300 f2.8 and 500 f4 so maybe I wasn't being fair !!

 

Good luck with your decision.

 

Ian

IMO this is a fantastic lens. It's very sharp and it focusses very quickly. I had a Sigma 135-400 previously, which was sharp enough, but did not focus particularly quickly and was quite nosiy. The Canon just feel a much higher quality lens. The IS means that I can use it without a monopod.

 

I use it mostly for sports photography, in particular for motor sports. I have no problem with the push - pull control for zooming.

 

The 70-200 and 2x extender is not a route I'd take as I some times what a lens longer than 400mm, so I use the 100-400 with a 1.4x extender. On an EOS 3 you keep AF, albeit just the central focussing point.

 

15 - 20 years ago, before AF became so prevalent, having a one touch zoom was consdidered desirable as people wanted to zoom and focus without having to move for one ring to another. I believe that this makes the lens designer's job more difficult.

 

With the advent of AF, the need for one touch designs is less, as many people will never use manual focussing and only need to use the zoom control.

 

Simon

 

In black and white everyone's hero!

I have the 100-400 and really enjoy it. I've not encountered the problems others have mentioned, specifically the binding in the zoom. Mine is smooth from 100 to 400. I don't use manual focus (unless it's on a tripod) so moving the hand from the zoom to focus is not a problem for me. I also use a 28-135 which "twists" to zoom and I've not found the different operation of the lenses to be confusing. My only complaint about the 100-400 is its weight. I use mine for travel photography and really love the versitility, sharpness, and the IS.

I haven't used the 100-400 but I have used a push-pull zoom. The dust-sucking is not a characteristic of push-pull designs. If a lens changes length during zooming or focusing, it will draw in dust, be it push-pull or twist.

Mike - It looks like you already have a pretty good set of answers, but I figured I'd add one more. As with all Canon lenses, there are production variations. The 100-400L that I have does not have the sticking problem at 300mm ... it's smooth all the way out. Obviously, that's not the case with all of these lenses as people have pointed out here. I can also say that after extensive use, I have not had any problems with dust. Finally, I have to say that it's not a problem (at least for me) going back and forth between the two types of zoom lenses. I have both types and, while they are different, neither one is bad. I hope that helps.

As was mentioned by Brian Torio above, you have a number of answers, but I wanted to throw in my 2 cents as well. I own both the 100-400 and the 70-200 f/2.8L IS lenses. I mention this since these two keep getting compared all the time, and they use different methods to zoom the lens. I personally like the 100-400 for quicker reactions to fast moving/zooming situations, such as in the Blue Angels flying directly over your head...<br><br>

<center>

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/gallery/blue%20angels%20close%20up%20overhead%20(1993)_std.jpg">

<br>

Blue Angels 9/1/2002 at 120mm using Canon EF 100-400, 1/350 f/4.5<br><br>

</center>

Take my word for it, these planes move fast. I was moving very quickly between 400 and 100 and back again. I spent most of my time shooting at the longer focal lengths, but I quickly reacted by pulling the lens in. I have been happy with sharpness, contrast and color. Also, I have not had any problems with sucking dust. I think this is a great lens, and I would not hesitate in recommending it.<br><br>

For what its worth, I think the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is a fantastic lens. I use them differently though. I think they both have their place.

I just finished spending 3 months in Africa shooting with this lens. On my 28-105 zoom, I can head the dust scraping about inside when I zoom it around. With this lens, no dust problems. However, I will point out that I did treat this lens with a lot more care than I did the 28-105 zoom :)

 

I too had some concerns about the ergonomics of a push-pull zoom, but I got used to it very quickly. For wildlife photography, I have seldom had problems zooming in or out to adjust for a quick-changing situation. The hand that supports the lens simply moves out and zooms the lens back or forth, as needed.

 

At one point, I got charged by an elephant and ended up knocking over my tripod - the push pull was a little stiff for a day or two afterwards, but after 2 days of regular use, is back to normal without any sticking.

 

Vandit

I can adjoin for most part to those who did not find much problem using 100-400 push-pull mechanism.

 

One exception was macrophotography of bumble-bees: you first have to find the bee and that is nearly impossible at 400mm, so you zoom out to 100, locate the bee, center the lens and then zoom in. At this time either the bee sees huge pipe moving towards it and flies away or the whole zoom-focus cycle takes more time than a bee stays in place. Not that it was totally impossible, but it was exercise in frustration until I switched to 70-200/4 plus TC (plus D60 instead of film body).

 

Other than live macro, I do not think push-pull is much of an issue.

 

However, focusing with 100-400 can at times be SLOW (MUCH slower than 70-200/4), taking in extreme cases (and regularly in macro range) up to a couple seconds, perhaps due to amount of glass it has to move. I do not have 70-200/2.8, so not sure how it compares.

 

* * *

 

Another thing you might wish to be aware about, rather than finding it hard way, is that 100-400 has quantum leap in sharpness from 5.6 to 6.7, further improvement being incremental. So the key is to avoid shooting at 5.6.

Mike,

 

I found this link in another forum, it may answer the question for you.<BR><BR>

 

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml">http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml</a> <BR><BR>

 

Andy