Is the 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 IS lens ritght for me?

[alex_dannenbaum]

<p>I currently own an EF 70-200mm F/4. I am interested in purchasing a longer lens for sports and wildlife photography. The lens that most interests me is the EF 100-400mm F4.5-5.6. Most of the sport shots I take are kite surfing. I shoot a lot on windy days from the beach. This means that my equipment can be exposed to a blowing sand. (My tripod accumulates a fair amount of grit, and requires period cleaning.) <br>

I have been told that the push-pull telephoto is vulnerable to dust, etc. Should I consider other lenses or are my fears unfounded? Are there other lenses, you would recommend to use under these conditions? Has there been any talk of Canon upgrading this lens with a weather sealed version?</p>

<p> </p>

[steven_f1]

<p>The 100-400 is no more vulnerable to dust than any other lens. There are some people that think the push pull design will pull in dust from the air and make dust a very big problem. As a result a lot of people call it a dust pump. It is even called that on wikipedia. However I don't know of anyone that owns it that calls it that. It would appear to me that only people that don't own it call it a dust pump. </p>

<p>I purchased my lens a couple of years ago just for wildlife. My sensor seams to be a little cleaner with this lens on. My camera is an older model that does not have a self cleaning sensor. The 100 to 400 focal length makes it very versatile, it has good bokeh, and in my opinion is quite sharp. Some people don't like the push pull design and instead would prefer the twist design, but I am getting use to it. The only thing that might be a problem for sports is that it doesn't have a very big aperture so you might have problems getting a fast enough shutter speed for sports in low light. For mid day use outside that shouldn't be a problem.</p>

[santa1]

<p>Kite surfing photog with a 400mm? Well...maybe...if they are abnormally close but frankly I think it's too short unless they are getting really close in as compared to any kite surfing I've ever seen. I have the lens and its design does lend itself to being somewhat more susceptible to dust than a non push pull but in normal use it's not a problem. For your use I wouldn't venture a guess. I'd take a shot with the 200mm and then figure out exactly what the same shot with a 400 would look like. You can probably find a reference somewhere on the net that would tell you precisely what part of your 200mm crop a 400 would be and you could get a good idea if that was adequate. It's a great lens for outdoor sports on small fields. It's too short for most wildlife but as always, it completely depends on your particular use. All in all it's a versatile lens. I use it more often than I do my 400 prime. </p>

[elliot1]

<p>I use my 100-400mm at the beach to photograph surfers all the time. On exceptionally windy days, I wrap the lens with a plastic bag or a t-shirt.</p>

<p>Many here comment that the push/pull design is undesirable. I happen to prefer it for sports shooting. You can zoom in and out much faster with this design than with other lenses.</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>I have the 100-400L and really like the push pull. I'm glad I have it....<br>

However.... seriously consider the 400 5.6 (assumining you aren't going to take the leap into the 5K+ lenses)<br>

Most of my shooting with the 100-400 is at the long end. <br>

Here is a much refered to comparison.<br>

<a href="http://www.ejphoto.com/400mm_shoot_out_page.htm">http://www.ejphoto.com/400mm_shoot_out_page.htm</a><br>

I'm ready to get a 400 5.6 to by some time before I jump into the 500mm+ range and subsequent big bucks.</p>

[mark_t5]

<p>isn't there a rumor that a new 100-400 is coming out? if your purchase is not pressing, maybe you can afford to wait a bit to see if the rumor pans out? :)</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>The 100-400 is no more vulnerable to dust than any other lens.</cite>

 

<p>Well, perhaps when compared to other lenses without dust- and water-resistant sealing. Many of Canon's L lenses have such sealing; the 100-400 does not, and compared to the sealed ones, it <em>is</em> more vulnerable.</p>

 

<cite>isn't there a rumor that a new 100-400 is coming out?</cite>

 

<p>That rumour has been around for years, and I think its origin is folks looking at this older lens, without some of the features of more recent lenses (like the sealing, newer versions of IS, and the circular diaphragm), and wishing out loud that Canon update it. I've been wrong before, but I wouldn't hold your breath for this.</p>

[nathangardner]

<p>how about a 400mm f/5.6 or a 300mm f/4 and a 1.4x converter.</p>

[alex_dannenbaum]

<p>Thank you for all your comments. <br>

In summary, it seems like the majority feel the 100-400 "dust pump" is much maligned, though there is still some doubt that it is as dust secure as other L lenses. It can be made more secure (and water I assume) by wrapping plastic around it in bad conditions. (Which makes me feel a little better). There is also doubt that a 400mm may still be too short for kite surfing. That may be true, but where I live, there is a fair amount of activity close to shore. (The water is fairly shallow in the bay, and I believe with a pair of waders I can get a good bit closer to the heat of the action). Besides, a lot ot the kite surfers, when they see a long lens will gladly move in closer and show off, doing some nice arobatics and sometimes request a copy. I have been able to get some good images with at the 200mm range, so it can only get better. <br>

There is good reason to consider a prime vs zoom. The link that Richard offers spells that out loud and clear. However, kite surfers move around so much, that I feel a zoom is almost a necessity. <br>

In summary, I think I will go with the 100-400 for now. If over time, I find myself riding the high end of zoom range, and feel secure, that a zoom is fairly unnecessary, then I will follow one of Nathan's suggestions.<br>

Thanx all. </p>

<p> </p>

[lancemcvay]

<p>I've used the 100-400 in coastal Alaska often out on the ocean or beach and in all kinds of blowing wind storms, extreme cold weather, rain, and whatnot for five years now. No more dust gets to my sensor than with any other lens. with it on the camera over the course of several days without removal out in the woods camping and using it frequently, it never added any dust to the sensor. Changing lenses is where I get dust. The more I go back and forth, the more dust I see.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>I wrote a short <a href="http://www.slidescanning123.com/canon-lens-reviews/index.shtml">Canon 100-400 Lens review</a> .</p>