Zoom lens advice: Canon EF 100-400mm L IS

[KODA]

Hi All,

I have a Canon 60D and my current zoom is the 55-250...I love this lens and is a really good value for money...takes decent pics as well.

I enjoy bird and wildlife photography and need something with more reach.

I am considering the Canon 100-400 but wont be anytime soon as I still need to save for it and (or) find a good used deal.

Is this a good lens or is there anything else I should be considering?

All advice is appreciated.

[camerasaurusrex]

There are three good options in canon L lense to get to 400mm at 10-20K.

The 100-400 zoom is very sharp, has IS, but the AF is quite slow (not good for birds in flight and fast things).

The 300mm f4L prime is also excellent, very sharp, it has IS and very good AF.... an winner for wildlife, with a 1.4x converter you get a f5.6 at 420mm which is useful for birding. A lot of birders use this combo.

Another excellent option is the 400mm f5.6 prime. No IS, no zoom, but sharp with brilliantly fast AF (much loved by birders).

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

I'd go for option 3 in your case.

Myself, I allready had the 70-200 f/2.8 L IS mkII so I just added the 2x mkIII and am quite impressed, although I think the 400mm f/5.6 (what I get to) will be faster on the AF by a long shot (and cheaper than my combo by about half!)

[Thndr_strck]

You could also look at the sigma 50-500mm OS lens, it is heavy tho

[LeonardF]

Another option is the Sigma 120-300 F/2.8. Have a look at the thread below

http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/forums...-ex-dg-apo-hsm

[squirrel]

You could also look at the sigma 50-500mm OS lens, it is heavy tho

Play with both the 100-400 and the 50-500 before you buy a 50-500. I did, and after spending almost 30sec waiting for the 50-500 to lock focus, I decided on the 100-400. By that time even the laziest buffalo may have moved off. The thing is that the 50-500 is actually f/6.3 at the long end, not the f/5.6 it reports to canon cameras. And there is a reason why Canon's consumer bodies disable the AF if it goes over 5.6 - there is simply not enough light coming in.

For the record - I love my 100-400. Hubby's 400 f/5.6 delivers awesome results, but I wouldn't want to be stuck in the bush with it, unless I have a 70-200 on a second body. Personally, I just want more flexibility. That's completely up to you, though...

We tested a 120-300 once, and was very impressed. Its a beautiful lens, but unfortunately it is significantly more expensive than the 100-400 - you pay for f2.8 I believe it will probably be well worth it if you can stretch your budget that far.

[Green Gorilla]

and after spending almost 30sec waiting for the 50-500 to lock focus, I decided on the 100-400. By that time even the laziest buffalo may have moved off. The thing is that the 50-500 is actually f/6.3 at the long end, not the f/5.6 it reports to canon cameras.

Also found this frustrating on the big Siggy. I find the 100-400 does the job in low light well enough even on faster moving subjects. The Sigma however does fall short when compared to the 100-400.

[camerasaurusrex]

The OP has a 55-250, so perhaps the 400mm prime would make the most sense, if he can deal with changing lenses all the time.

[KODA]

thanks for all the advice and tips...so definately leaning towards it at this stage...will have to try and find one in a local shop to play around with....do you think it will be replaced anytime soon?

[Ravilj]

I was in your position about a year ago having bought a kit lens set with a 450D a year before that. I used the 50-250mm for awhile and then wanted something longer. Ultimately went with the 100-400mm, I wish I could tell you were the 50-250mm is now. The 100-400mm remains embedded on the camera. Great lens, it is very sharp, gives you the flexibility and is reasonably well priced compared to the other offerings.

[camerasaurusrex]

....do you think it will be replaced anytime soon?

As far as I know, as soon as this version is replaced with a MkII version, the Mk1 version stops working as well Just kidding... nothing on the horizon as yet, but there is really not all that much room for improvement.... it is a relatively light, sharp prime that AF's brilliantly, what more do you want... perhaps IS or a closer minimum focus distance? Go F4 and you can double the weight.

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

Canon is replacing their whole lens line-up. I expect we will see the 400 f5.6 and 300 f/4 replaced in 2013 pr early 2014 with a mkII version (and if current replacements are anything to go by, at double the price)

[visagieh]

Koda

I am in KNP right now, and maybe its you, but someone asked me the same question yesterday. He got a awesome shot with kit lens.

For KNP you want versatility, but then you realize you are actually good with birds, etc. Kruger one would opt for a 100-400, or go then sigma. They have a few from 50-500 etc. Cost I would buy second-hand or rent first.

If you more into birds, the fixed 400 I hear is so good. Dont worry about IS/VR to much. Yep it helps in low light, if you have fast enough shutter/light not needed. I shoot 90% of the time on the 200-400 without VR. IS/VR have time delay to settle, its not a magic wand.

Good support, bean bag or whatever, switch the car OFF.

The last week have helped so many with basic issues like this.

If you go for the 100-400 secondhand, and decide to upgrade, you will not loose much. Buy a new sigma and $$$ down the drain.

Best to test and see what works for you. Action shots, these lenses are not reayly for that. Try a dog in the park. You will qiuckly see why one cost so much more.

Long term buy the best glass you can afford. You will same money.

Good luck

Hannes

[John Mullineux]

I don't know if I just got lucky, but the Sigma 50-500 I have is a gem. I got it specifically for the versatility as I take much of my pics in the KNP where you don't want to switch lenses often (convenience and dust) but want to take both an elephant next to the road and a LBJ over there. The AF is a little tardy in low light, but only when the light is really low (as in the sun has properly set already). The weight was a concern, but once you get used to how to carry it, it is really of little concern to me; I handhold many of my images including BIF shots and the weight does not distract me, well, not for a few hours anyway.

A friend of mine who shoots with the 70-200 2.8 is also impressed with the IQ of this lens. A different friend who uses the 100-400 prefers my Sigma, particularly for that extra little bit of reach.

I do like the zoom method of the 100-400 though.

Unless you want to go really hardcore and get a 400 2.8 or something serious for low light BIF, the 50-500 will cover all your wildlife and bird needs.

[markbooysen]

quick question on the 100-400mm AF mode .... I shoot mainly at far end of the 400mm reach and hence I have set my "focusing distance range selector switch" to 6.5m, and zoom to desired position and slightly tightened the adjustment ring to prevent creap ..
I focus and engage AF by depressing the shutter button half way .... normally I depress shutter button fully when taking the shot ... heard someone over the weekend saying that they basically do all my steps, but before depressing the shutter button totally down they "fine tune" the focus using the Focus ring even though in AF ...
If this is correct then I am missing that important step ...
thanks

[Forgiss - Sean Nel]

...If this is correct then I am missing that important step ...

erm... why are you asking? what leads you to this question?

[markbooysen]

just feel that my sharpness could be better (I am still getting used to the lense, been out 3 times with it) ... would like to "practice" the correct habits from the start ...

erm... why are you asking? what leads you to this question?

[markbooysen]

here is my 2nd time ever with my 100-400 ... at Intaka Island - refer post #16

http://www.outdoorphoto.co.za/forums...-Intaka-Island

[J-D]

Also look at the new Sigma 120-400 DG OS, it beats the Canon in a few areas according to the reviews. I've used it for a bit and was quite impressed, I was actually expecting to be disappointed, but it really did perform well and took very sharp photos.

[jab2]

The IS on the 100-400, being first gen, is not all that great. People blame most soft shots on the lens but its actually from trying to shoot handheld at too slow a shutter speed.