View Full Version : EF100-400F4.5-5.6L IS USM
I am considering taking the plunge and getting myself my first bit of L glass,already been in touch with Kerso. Would be using lens mostly for the zoo's and wildlife photography. I have read that dust can be a problem with the push pull models, has anybody experienced this problem.
Also, would love to hear any comments about this lens, good or bad .
Thankyou Steve.
Lens is awful, dust everywhere ;)
Joke by the way ! lol
This was taken with my 100-400, theres loads more in my gallery if you follow the link below ! Pretty much every pic but a very limited few were taken with that lens.
http://www.cookster.co.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/0827-141001-01.jpg
Cant fault it, never had a problem with dust ingestion unless im stupid and change lens in the field in which case it doesnt matter what lens it is.
I use some Push / Pull lenses and dust ingestion should only really be a problem if you're shooting in extensively dusty environments.
That said, the 100-400L is a favourite of safari 'togs - and it copes just fine.
If you are going for motorsport then you might find this lens too slow. It's not regarded as the fastest focusing/tracking beastie.
On the otherhand it is as said a great wildlife option.
If you are going for motorsport then you might find this lens too slow. It's not regarded as the fastest focusing/tracking beastie.
On the otherhand it is as said a great wildlife option.
Not always true, but is very dependant on the light
http://www.cookster.co.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/0919-160241-01-01.jpg
The 100-400L is a superb lens and I would buy one again given the choice :)
Dust isn't a problem; the end chamber is sealed. If you twist the zoom ring on any lens and put your hand over the back you'll feel air movement.
Few examples
http://www.ph-digitalphotography-motorsports.com/images/wildlife/brown-duck-3.jpg
http://www.ph-digitalphotography-motorsports.com/images/sports/bmw-m3-csl.jpg
http://www.ph-digitalphotography-motorsports.com/images/sports/karting-2.jpg
http://www.ph-digitalphotography-motorsports.com/images/wildlife/robin.jpg
Dark Star
27-01-2007, 13:51
These are such stunning shots!!! I feel my wallet weakening!!
:agree: .. must ... not ... touch ... CreditCard... must not...
Fantastic lens.... don't hesitate.. you'd be very unlucky to get a bad copy. Wildlife togs such as Andy Rouse swear by the flexibility of this lens when their monster primes are just too long.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/500/Missing_feathers.jpg
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/500/Thoughtful.jpg
All the example shots are stunning . You could all be sale's reps for canon!!:lol: Made my mind up, but spending that type of money, always nice to have second opinion. Who better to ask than those with hands on experience.
PLEASE POST ME SOME MORE EXAMPLE SHOTS, I NEVER GET TIRED OF LOOKING AT GREAT PHOTOS.
Thankyou for comments Steve
PLEASE POST ME SOME MORE EXAMPLE SHOTS, I NEVER GET TIRED OF LOOKING AT GREAT PHOTOS.
http://www.cookster.co.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/0810-152558-01.jpg
http://www.cookster.co.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/0810-152437-01.jpg
http://www.cookster.co.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/0520-145231-01.jpg
There ya go a few more, all handheld too ¬ :)
Nice one Ian!
Heheheh i got loads i love that lens ! :) Although not enough to marry it obviously ! lol
Thanks for starting this thread Steve. I've been considering one of those beasts m'self :love: Now I've seen the shots in this thread I don't think I'm in any doubt :thumbs: KEEERRRRSSSOOOOOOOO............:wave:
http://www.cookster.co.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/0720-132349-01.jpg
http://www.cookster.co.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/0720-163440-01.jpg
Slightly too fast on the shutter on this :(
http://www.cookster.co.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/0417-153305-02-01.jpg
Ian, you're work is just stunning :notworthy:
http://petemc.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/CRW_6258.jpg
http://petemc.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/CRW_5819.jpg
http://petemc.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/CRW_2748.jpg
http://petemc.net/gallery/events/CRW_8120-01.jpg
http://petemc.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/11/IMG_1661-01.jpg
I don't use mine much but when I do I love the flexability of it and the quality of the image.
You might also like to consider the Sigma 120-300 2.8. Not as handholdable, nor does it have IS but it is 2.8 and works well with 1.4tc (and even 2x TC).
I dont have any wildlife shots to show you ***, sorry.
Ian, you're work is just stunning :notworthy:
Thanks :) im all :embarrassed::embarrassed: now !
Last one ! lol
http://www.cookster.co.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/0527-160740-01-01.jpg
Thats a serious dance that birdy is doing there! :lol:
The 100-400 is a great lens the push/pull zoom feels a bit strange at first, but once you get used to it it's fine.
Survived a harsh week in the Mara with dust everywhere
Highly recomended :thumbs:
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j2/lyndon1965/IMG_8822.jpg
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j2/lyndon1965/Masai%20Mara%202006/IMG_8599.jpg
Dark Star
27-01-2007, 17:17
Arrgh these are soooo good!!!!
Mind you, the skill is in who is holding the camera not whats attached to it!!!!
Still I can feel a purchase so close...!
rpstewart
27-01-2007, 21:19
If you are going for motorsport then you might find this lens too slow. It's not regarded as the fastest focusing/tracking beastie.
Seems OK to me ;)
http://www.rpstewart.co.uk/coppermine/albums/Waterborne/100_6898.jpg
Heres a couple of real old pics from 2005 ! :) both with 100-400 Handheld again !
http://www.cookster.co.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/spitfires.jpg
http://www.cookster.co.uk/gallery/albums/userpics/10002/bald_eagle1.jpg
Oh for goodness sake will you guys stop it now! I'm now seriously soncisering one of these alongside the 70-200f2.8! How does it compare weight-wise - anyone know?
Oh for goodness sake will you guys stop it now! I'm now seriously soncisering one of these alongside the 70-200f2.8! How does it compare weight-wise - anyone know?
70-200 2.8 Non IS is 1310g
70-200 2.8 IS is 1470g
100-400 is 1380g
Hmmmm....cheers Ian! Must be said that the flipping 70-200 feels every last gram of that weight too - not sure how I'm going to get on through my first speedway meeting with it! I shallhave to consider looking at the idea of adding the 100-400 to my kit at some stage I think - by the time I add a 2x TC to the weight loadings on the 70-200 to get to the 400mm it'll be significantly lighter and no loss of light either.
I shall have to consider looking at the idea of adding the 100-400 to my kit at some stage I think - by the time I add a 2x TC to the weight loadings on the 70-200 to get to the 400mm it'll be significantly lighter and no loss of light either.
It will be a big cost compared to using the 70-200 + 2xTC and the quality is still as good.
This pic was taken using 70-200 f2.8 L IS + 2xTC
http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i150/mho1010/100_1146.jpg
Shot Details
Canon 1Ds
Canon 70-200 f2.8 L IS + 2xTC
1/640 second
f 5.6
ISO 100
That's really interesting Mho01. I have been contemplating either the 70-200 f2.8 IS + 2x converter or the 100-400 but was lead to believe that the 2x converter gave very soft results. I REALLY don't want to spend that kind of money and get disappointing results. I read a comparison here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml) which pretty much convinced me that the 100-400 was the way to go, but now I've just seen the pic you've posted above I'm in a quandry again! I don't suppose you've got any more taken with that lens and converter that you fancy posting have you?
Matt Charlton
28-01-2007, 16:17
Arrgh these are soooo good!!!!
Mind you, the skill is in who is holding the camera not whats attached to it!!!!
I'm just extremely lucky then ;)
http://www.mattcharlton.co.uk/photoblog/images/20061115210252_orang2.jpg
http://www.mattcharlton.co.uk/photoblog/images/20060924155824_birdyl.jpg
http://www.mattcharlton.co.uk/photoblog/images/20061109191534_orangagain.jpg
If this is a display of what the lens can do, you've only gone and given me a greater lens dilemma ! Cheers for that :)
That's really interesting Mho01. I have been contemplating either the 70-200 f2.8 IS + 2x converter or the 100-400 but was lead to believe that the 2x converter gave very soft results. I REALLY don't want to spend that kind of money and get disappointing results. I read a comparison here (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/400v400.shtml) which pretty much convinced me that the 100-400 was the way to go, but now I've just seen the pic you've posted above I'm in a quandry again! I don't suppose you've got any more taken with that lens and converter that you fancy posting have you?
I have lots somewhere on my drive i will try to get some out for you soon
This was also with the 70-200 & 2x TC - handheld, and in VERY poor light. I was deeply impressed with the results considering I'd been fully expecting to have disappointing results using the 2x.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g45/Photozone72/8768Squidge-01.jpg
ISO640. f6.3
My only real reason for considering a 100-400 is the weight issue - I have REAL problems handholding for any length of time with the 2x on board and I'm very aware that the other lens will give me similar results for substantially less weight. I guess what it comes down to it how easily I get used to the weight issue though. :shrug:
This was also with the 70-200 & 2x TC - handheld, and in VERY poor light. I was deeply impressed with the results considering I'd been fully expecting to have disappointing results using the 2x.
That's a superb shot considering the ISO and light conditions.
My only real reason for considering a 100-400 is the weight issue - I have REAL problems handholding for any length of time with the 2x on board and I'm very aware that the other lens will give me similar results for substantially less weight. I guess what it comes down to it how easily I get used to the weight issue though. :shrug:
That's a very good point you make. Unfortunately I haven't had a chance to hold either of these lenses but, judging from what you're saying, the 70-200 starts to get a bit weighty after a while. Considering I'm mainly going to be using the lens for motorsport, weight could be a real issue. Kinda sways me back to the 100-400 TBH :shrug:
If you can hang on for an opinion on how the weight works out until speedway starts again in march then I can let you know then how I get on with it through 2 hours of a meeting!
Thanks for your kind comments on the shot also - I was quite pleased considering a) the conditions and b) the fact that it was the first time I'd used the beastie!
If you can hang on for an opinion on how the weight works out until speedway starts again in march then I can let you know then how I get on with it through 2 hours of a meeting!
I'll try, March is a long way away though :eek: I don't know if I can be that patient :lol: Thanks for your help and advice Witch and sorry for hijacking your thread Pikeman :embarrassed:
I'll try, March is a long way away though :eek: I don't know if I can be that patient :lol: Thanks for your help and advice Witch and sorry for hijacking your thread Pikeman :embarrassed:
NO PROBLEM Grendel, my mind was made up after the first 5 replies, just sat back and enjoyed the brilliant photo's on this thread.
THANKS EVERYBODY.:thumbs: :) :)
just sat back and enjoyed the brilliant photo's on this thread.
THANKS EVERYBODY.:thumbs: :) :)
Here here! :thumbs:
I've consistently found that I get dust on the sensor after using the 100-400L.
Removing the dust is such an easy task that I don't even consider it and use the lens without hesitation.
My Santa Pod pictures were all with the 100-400
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=12306
CarlOgden
29-01-2007, 20:43
Witch,
If you're doing speedway in an evening, the 100-400 will not be that good as it does need good light. Go for a 1.4 TC with your 70-200...IMO..
To help you on long stints:-
http://www.maplin.co.uk/Module.aspx?ModuleNo=45693&criteria=camcorder%20support&doy=29m1
I've got one, cheap and cheerful !!!!
Carl.
I remember being impressed with those shots when you posted them originally Robert. I love the one showing the tyre distortion on the dragster! Another thumbs up for the 100-400 then :thumbs:
Witch,
If you're doing speedway in an evening, the 100-400 will not be that good as it does need good light. Go for a 1.4 TC with your 70-200...IMO..
Carl.
In Speedway 'Togs circles the 70-200f2.8 is known as THE lens - that was the whole reason for me wanting it! For work from the centre the 100-400 would have been too long at the short end (does that make as little sense as it did in my head?!) - the extra width from the 70mm really makes a difference. If I do end up with a 100-400 it'll be for taking out on long walks when I don't want the extra weight from the 70-200 and 2x (Which actually seems to weigh somewhere around as much as my car!), but still want the option of having the extra reach....
This winter's budget's well and truly blown now though so it wouldn't be for 12 months-ish! :lol:
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.