Any advice re: Canon 100-400mm f/4 lens?

[ldavidson]

<p>I have planning to buy a Zoom Telephoto lens for my 7D for some time. After doing research on line I decided to buy the Canon 100-400 f/4.5 - 5.6 L IS. I was at my photo club meeting last night talking to some friends about this. Two photographers, who are much more accomplished and knowledgeable than I, said they had bought this lens and sold it because it did not focus clearly at maximum focal length. One said that the person he had sold it to was now trying to sell it.</p>

<p>Once again I come here for advice. Does anyone here own this lens? Have you been happy or disappointed? Is there an alternative lens in the $2000. range that you would recommend over this one?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance for your thoughts and advice.<br />Linda</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>That lens is a good lens. If you know people who have had probems with it then the lens was either faulty or they didn't know what they were doing. As far as long range zoom telephotos go, there is no other option in Canon's line up unless you're happy with a 300mm maximum.</p>

<p>The only thing that may put you off the lens is the push/pull zoom. Personally I hate it but many people like it.</p>

<p>I chose the 300mm f4L IS plus the 1.4x extender instead of the 100-400. The total price was the same but I get better image quality and slightly more reach than the 100-400. Obviously I don't have the flexibility of a zoom lens but I can live with it.</p>

[brett_w.]

<p>The Canon 100-400 is one of the better telephoto zooms, it's sharp and focuses clearly at 400mm,<br>

lots of reviews, e.g.<br>

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_100-400_sigma_120-400_150-500_50-500.htm<br>

Perhaps your friends had bad copies</p>

<p> </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>Be careful who you listen to. I tested one not long ago and found it to be excellent. Sharp at 400mm with no focus issues (See <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_100_400_l_is_review.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_100_400_l_is_review.html</a>). I was impressed by it.</p>

<p>There are image samples here - <a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_100_400_l_is_review2.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/ef_100_400_l_is_review2.html</a></p>

<p>However I did test one many years ago (when it first came out) and that one wasn't quite as sharp as the more recent one. Not sure if that's an effect of random smapling or if Canon have learned from exerience and perhaps slightly tweaked the optics or improved their quality control over the years.</p>

<p>There's nothing intrinsically wrong with the 100-400. That's not to say there aren't some out there that may not be as good as some others, but that's true of pretty much any lens. If it's the lens you really want, just be sure to buy it from somewhere (or someone) that offers a good return policy and if you're not happy with it, return it.</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>I have one and love mine. I don't mind the push pull zoom and after shooting with it for a day or two, I was very comfortable with it. Your other alternative is to buy the 400 5.6L prime. I have used it as well but not enough to comment on it. I do know it does not have the IS function. How about this; before you go spending 2k on a lens, rent it for 3 days? At the end I went with the zoom and I'm glad I did. Mine is very sharp as long as your not trying to shoot something a half a mile away and then expect it to be tack sharp. The picture I took was from an airshow last year. I had the 100-400 attached to my then 7D (sold the 7D already) The insert cutout is from the front plane where the back seater was taken a pic of me! Final answer, get the lens! v/r Buffdr</p><div></div>

[ncarnick]

<p>I had an early copy so you can discount my experience if you wish. (I do caution though that you need to buy from a retailer who will let you return it if you don't like your copy). Here is my opinion of the one I sold:<br>

1) The push-pull is only an issue in that it may have led to dust getting in my copy. I had mine cleaned by Canon twice over the time I had it. (Then got rid of it after the 2nd cleaning).<br>

2) I thought the lens was really great from 100-320 or so. Then I thought it was pretty lame in terms of sharpness at 400. I don't think this is a big deal though because it really was great at the length range I normally shot in.<br>

3) I need to get something long but am waiting for a new design in the 100-400. I probably shouldn't hold my breath here though as I don't know that Canon has any significant competition in this area. As much as I complain about sharpness from 320?-400 it seems other long zooms have far worse problems. <br>

While I'm missing having the reach, I also want to point out that the 70-200 F4 IS is an amazing lens. I have no complaints with it and find it to be a great travel lens. (light, sharp). <br>

There is a Sigma 120-400 which seems to have issues with sharpness fully open and lens creep but also seems to do well in its sweet spot. I haven't tried it though.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>Don't forget the 70-300mm IS L or the recently announced 200-400mm L, both of these are, I suspect, much better performers than the 100-400mm. The 200-400 f4 will be $$$$</p>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>both of these are, I suspect, much better performers than the 100-400mm</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's helpful - "advice" based purely on something you've conjured up in your imagination, including a comparison with a lens that doesn't yet even exist...</p>

<p>Linda, assuming a normally functioning example, the 100-400mm is an amazing lens at any focal length.</p>

<p>I've used one constantly since 2006, have posted numerous examples from it (very recently too - have a look at a recent thread about the 7D as a birding camera) and remain as happy about it now as I was the day I bought it. I won't be parted from mine.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Linda:</p>

<p>Lots of sharp, fantastic photos have been taken with the 100-400. It's capable of greatness.</p>

<p>I decided to get the 70-300L, instead. It's slightly lighter weight, has newer IS, and focuses very quickly.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[david_wu6]

<p>I have had it for 3 years and been very happy. There is no alternative in terms of price and performance. Never had AF problem for shooting BIF and air show.</p>

[mbkissel]

<p>Linda, it's an excellent lens. One of my very favorites. There are several animal and flower shots in my gallery taken with that lens.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>Perhaps those lenses were not working correctly but the fact remains that many choose the 300/4 L and 1.4x over the 100-400 zoom. I am concerned that the zoom will not deliver the image quality that you are used to. Do you have another zoom into the 200mm range that could operate side by side with a 300mm prime?</p>

[mendel_leisk]

<p>I've read somewhere this len's sharpness falls off slightly beyond 300mm, and thought it might have been here:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-100-400mm-f-4.5-5.6-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a></p>

<p>But I'm not seeing it. Anyway, an interesting, mostly positive review of the lens, worth a read.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>I wrote a review on it:<br>

slidescanning123.com/canon-lens-reviews/</p>

[ldavidson]

<p>Thank you all so much for your advice. I appreciate it.</p>

<p>Jamie, the 300 mm f4L IS with the 1.4X extender is one of the suggestions my friend gave me. I am so glad to hear that this works well for you. This is something I am going to consider. Thanks!</p>

<p>Brett, thank you. You have a good point. Maybe they had bad or older models. I will have to ask.</p>

<p>Bob, thanks. Good advice.</p>

<p>Buffdr, unfortunately I live out in the boonies. I would have to travel for hours on treacherous mountain highways to reach a city and I am a senior. I don’t make long trips like that on my own anymore. I do go with my husband or son sometimes, but then returning it would be a problem. But, it’s a good idea. I should check into it see if I could mail it. Nice, crisp, clean shots. Thanks for including them.</p>

<p>Norman, it is interesting that you had the same complaints as my friends. I have to assume they had the older version too. One of my friends also mentioned the awaited 100-400 or the 200 -400mm L – I will have to do some more research. Thanks for commenting.</p>

<p>Robin, thanks. I am going to look at the 70- 300 mm L IS. I suspect the new 200-400 will be out of my league.</p>

<p>Keith, I am definitely going to check out your thread. I have heard conflicting comments about the 100-400 being used for birding. Thanks.</p>

<p>Eric, thanks, I am going to look at that lens.</p>

<p>David, thanks.</p>

<p>Mark, thank you. I am going to look.</p>

<p>John, I only have one lens now. It is the Canon 24 – 70 L 2.8. It has been amazing. I got rid of my old cheap lenses after using this one. I thought the 100-400 would be the best choice for a second lens.</p>

<p>Mendel, thanks. That is what I have been told. I am going to read this review.</p>

<p>J. Harrington, I will read this too. Thanks so much.<br />Best wishes,<br />Linda</p>

[pjmeade]

<p>Although I didn't initially like the lens it was for other reasons. However, I've been using it for some time now with the 7D.<br>

Focus at all focal lengths is rapid and accurate, and the images I've had from the combination have been very sharp. I use the combination to shoot polo, not any easy subject to photograph and also for bird photography too.<br>

7D+100-400<br>

<a title="Smoke by Peter Meade, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4132/4962670169_93382a34b1.jpg" alt="Smoke" width="500" height="333" /></a></p>

[matthijs]

<p>Try to borrow or rent it before deciding.</p>

<p>(Some places let you rent lenses and give you the rent as a discount if you buy the lens. Not sure whether you can find one that does it for this lens though.)</p>

<p>All the best,</p>

<p>Matthijs.</p>

[perky_polwarth]

I have the 300 F4L, 100-400 and 400 F5.6. My 100-400 is recent and there is little difference between F5.6 and F8, the litmus test for 100-400s. Specific to my lenses, in order of sharpness at 400mm : 400 F5.6, 100-400 and 300 F4 + 1.4x. Nothing surprising here, its what you would expect. Unless you are into shooting dragonflies the 100-400 is more useful than the 300 F4 as an only telephoto lens.

[DickArnold]

I have one. Just a couple of points. Depth of field is not great at 400mm so focus is critical or you get fuzzy pictures. The lens, for me, is always better on a tripod at 400mm. I have some very sharp examples. I have no problems with dust. My blurry pictures from this lens, particularly at 400 mm are operator error. Bob I was surprised at how good your 1.4x TC images are. My 2x early version is abysmal. I may get a 1.4 as I use the lens on full frame as well as crop. A great lens as long as you have the light.

[johnolsen]

<p>I have had the lens for 4 years and have had excellent results with it. I shoot mostly wildlife and my shots are very sharp. Took it to Kenya last year and after 2 weeks in the dust I had no dust related problems. I would highly recommend it.</p>

<p> </p>

[DickArnold]

Airshow. 100-400 1/1000 f10 ISO 400 IS on handheld.<div></div>

[jim_j2]

<p>Linda,<br>

I've had my 100-400 for about 6 years now, and have been very happy with it.<br>

I'll post a couple of images from my 50D, 100-400 & 1.4X TC as they came out of the camera as a jpeg shot at 420mm, f/9.5 @ 1/2000s at ISO 400, and the second image is a crop from the first image. They have both been resized to show inline here.<br>

I think you'd be very happy with this lens IMHO.</p><div></div>

[jim_j2]

<p>About a 70% crop of the above image.</p><div></div>

[keith reeder]

<blockquote>

<p>Keith, I am definitely going to check out your thread. I have heard conflicting comments about the 100-400 being used for birding. Thanks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Linda, some examples to muse over - all 100-400mm and 7D, handheld at 400mm:<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/310111/turnstone_2a.jpg<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/270311/stonechat_1.jpg<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/bridlington/gannet_bempton_10.jpg<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/sanderling_boulmer_1.jpg<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/270311/pigeon_blyth_6.jpg<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/bridlington/knot_bridlington_3.jpg<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/101010/goldcrest_st_marys_12.jpg<br /> (1600 ISO, this one ^)<br /> http://www.capture-the-moment.co.uk/tp/tfu29/upload/270311/canada_goose_brandon_6_RT.jpg</p>

<p>Anyone who tries to tell you that the 100-400mm is anything less than <em>excellent </em>as a birding lens is talking out of his hat.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>I find that more often than not, the focusing and sharpness 'issues' people have with this lens can be attributed to improper use. I'm not saying some copies might be worse (that's always the case), but your average user doesn't understand that a lens with such a long throw - especially with one that ends at a super telephoto - has a LOT of movement in the focusing ring. Many people hammer on the shutter expecting it to focus as quickly as a 70-200, and the fact is that it can't; it has to move the glass farther.</p>

<p>If you're tracking a subject, and using the focus limiter where appropriate (the lens does have one, right? I forget now), you shouldn't have any more sharpness issues than with any other variable aperture zoom lens.</p>