Canon 100-400mm F4.0-5.6L IS USM

Seniorshot

Seniorshot

Messages
495
Name
Roger
Edit My Images
No
This may have been covered before so apologies if it has.

I am contemplating purchasing the Canon 100-400mm F4.0-5.6L IS USM lens. I already have the 24-105mm L lens and this new lens would fit nicely in extending that focal length range right up to 400mm.

However, I read on this forum all the rave reviews about the 70-200mm F4.0L IS lens and was wondering if I would be making a wrong decision in buying the 100-400mm. There does seem to be fewer rave reviews for the 100-400mm. The lens is to fit on a EOS 5D Mk3. I currently have a Canon 70-300mm IS NON L lens which I now wish to upgrade.

I take a pretty wide range of subjects (including some weddings) so having the focal length range right up to 400mm makes some sense to me, but perhaps I can be persuaded to change my mind by someone in the know?

I look forward to hearing the various arguments:)
 
Hi there,
I have the 100-400mm and love the lens on a crop and full frame camera. I think its more leaning to a wildlife lens then weddings. Most of the guys use the 70-200mm (f2.8 and f4.0) for weddings and portraits. I also had the 70-200 f4.0 IS and its a great lens and much lighter than the 70-200mm f2.8 with IS. I bought it for wildlife and sold it again a month later as it was way to short for my crop factor camera I had then. The constant f4.0 on the 70-200mm is also nice where the 100-400mm is f5.6 at the 400mm range.

So it all comes down to how much money you want to spend and what you going to use it for and if you going to like to carry a heavy lens around.

What I have been doing when buying a new lens is I would rent it for a week and give it a good test. I have been using this company and they have been super quick and really easy to deal with.

http://www.lensesforhire.co.uk

Let me know how you get on...

LLS
 
The 100-400 IS is a perfectly decent lens which until recently, tended to stay firmly put on my other half's 550D. However, she rarely uses it at anything other than full zoom and she has now discovered that the 400 F5.6L prime is (optically) a better option for wildlife shots (although it doesn't have the IS). I've used the 100-400 a couple of times on my 5DII but I have to admit I didn't like the push/pull action on it.

If you really need the 400mm aspect, perhaps consider going for a fixed prime and get the 70-200 F4 as well. I an ideal world, I'd go for the 70-200 F2.8 version as it's a stormer of a lens, but it isn't cheap. I have the 70-200 F2.8 IS II, but very rarely use it because I tend to be chasing distant subjects. I'm guessing it's significantly better for weddings than the F4 though.

I think you need to be certain of your reason for specifically wanting the reach of the 100-400, as anything closer will be bettered by other L-lenses. Don't get me wrong though - it's not a bad piece of kit. Just a jack of all and master of none I feel. By contrast, my wife is suggesting it's the most versatile lens she uses. Despite now using the fixed 400, she says that she wouldn't give up her 100-400. :|

Feel free to make further enquiries here if this doesn't answer you question.:thumbs:
 
I was recently trying to decide between this lens and the 70-300L, i chose the 300 as its got a much newer IS system and Ive even known people sell their 70-200's (which have an incredible reputation) for the 70-300. It depends how much you need that extra reach as the 300 seems much sharper and may even be sharper with a 100mm crop from it.

Heres a link to the thread that i started asking about it anyway,
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=412730&page=2

Hope Ive helped, Ben
 
Ben6 said:
I was recently trying to decide between this lens and the 70-300L, i chose the 300 as its got a much newer IS system and Ive even known people sell their 70-200's (which have an incredible reputation) for the 70-300. It depends how much you need that extra reach as the 300 seems much sharper and may even be sharper with a 100mm crop from it.

Heres a link to the thread that i started asking about it anyway,
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=412730&page=2

Hope Ive helped, Ben
Click to expand...

Yes, you should really get to try a 70-300L before deciding. Reading between the lines, it might be what you're looking for.

Not sure why you're not seeing rave reviews for the 100-400L, there are plenty about. It's been doing the business for many years now, and is still the best choice if you want a quality, versatile all-rounder up to 400. It holds it's value very well, which kind of says it all really.

70-200L 4 IS is a great lens, really nice to use. 70-200L 2.8 Mk2 is fabulous, and takes a 2x extender well if you need the reach. But it's a heavy lump and pricey.

70-300L is still quite new and hasn't built up a real following yet, but it will. Those that have one really love it. I've used one a bit and quite agree :)
 
The 70-200 F4 is a superb portrait lens ... its outstanding for that.

The 100-400 on a crop sensor is prefect for wildlife and for "cowardly" street portraiture ... i have used the 100-400 as a portrait lens in a formal portrait session but the 70-200 results are much better.
 
Thanks everyone for your replies.
It's very interesting to read different opinions and it has thrown another option into the melting pot the 70-300mm L which might suit my requirements better.
I'll do a bit more research and let you know what I decide. ;)
 
In my opinion, based upon usage with a 7D crop:-

*100-400L is a very good lens offering great length and good IQ. Mine was a little bit soft above 350mm, plus was a little awkward and very noticeable when lugging around. I think the high pixel density of modern DSLR's is beginning to highlight this lens age, especially towards the soft long end. The IS is also a little prehistoric by modern standards.
*70-200 F/4L IS was a lens I loved. Super sharp wide open and throughout the range, built like a tank and relatively compact, very good IS.
*70-300L replaced BOTH of the above lenses for me. Combines the IQ of 70-200 with some of the range of the 100-400. If you really are debating which lens to get out of the 70-200 and 100-400, the 70-300 is really for you.

70-300L all the way.
 
Do agree that the 100-400 is not perfect but for me theres no other options
mine is sharp at 400mm but do need to use 6.3 rather than 5.6 which is a shame
I use the 200 to 400mm range a lot and would find the 70-300 too short:)
it just depends what you shoot do you need to go to 400mm?
 
I guess the real question for the OP is how often does he currently find his 70-300 USM too short, and whether an extra 100mm is really needed? If he really needs the length, ther 100-400L is the obvious choice. If he wants good range and great IQ, get the 70-300L. If however he wants portability, great IQ and a constant F/4 (can be very useful), get the 70-200L.

For Weddings (the example given by OP) I think the 70-200 may be best due to it's constant and reasonably fast aperture. However for a do everything lens lens you will not beat the 70-300. I found the 100-400 very useful for shooting animals, Zoo's, and the occasional football game, but it was generally too much of a hassle to carry around. 300-400mm seems very long for weddings, even on FF.

I would personally exclude the 100-400 and go with the 70-200 or 70-300 for a multi-use lens.
 
Last edited:
Good post this, i also have the 70-200mm f4 IS and its really nice but i liked it better on the crop camera with the FF camera's it is hard to reach very far,

The thing that always puts me off the 100-400mm is the fact they have leather seals on the focus barrel and can suck dust in i would love one not for that.

The main rival i think is the Sigma 150-500mm but is not a great add on with the 24-105 more so for weddings
 
Just thought I'd follow up on this thread. Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread to help me make the decision.
I eventually plumped for the 70 -300mm F4.0/5.6L IS lens. This is a direct replacement for my Canon 70-300 Non L lens.

I think it gives a very useful zoom range. The only downside is that this particular lens will not accept the Canon extenders, but that's something I'll have to live with.

I post something on here using the lens later.

Incidentally, I bought the new lens from Panamoz.com which I learned about from other posts on this site. I have to say I was very impressed. The price is probably unbeatable - especially if you choose to pay by bank transfer, and additional as a member of this forum - P&P is also free.
The service was fast and efficient I will definitely use again.
 
Last edited:
I've had my 100-400L for just over a year now and it never ceases to amaze me!

I mainly use it for cricket & rugby but have also used it in wildlife parks.

Yes a prime 400mm will give you better IQ and be faster but that comes at a price and loss of flexibility.
 
Hi Roger, will be interested to see some of the pics you get with the 70-300 L. I had a 100-400 and a Sigma 150-500 OS and after lots of testing on my bodies the Sigma came out on top. It's great for wildlife/birds and aviation and I got mine from Panamoz too. I got a new Sigma ringflash off them today, as I keep blowing up the cheaper ones, and I'll be using them all the time from now on.
 
modchild said:
Hi Roger, will be interested to see some of the pics you get with the 70-300 L. I had a 100-400 and a Sigma 150-500 OS and after lots of testing on my bodies the Sigma came out on top. It's great for wildlife/birds and aviation and I got mine from Panamoz too. I got a new Sigma ringflash off them today, as I keep blowing up the cheaper ones, and I'll be using them all the time from now on.
Click to expand...

I'll second this would love to see some samples!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top