Canon 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 L IS USM - or not - help please

I took the plunge on the 100-400 last year before going on safari. It was the best decision I made. A great lens which I am never far from. It is a bit weighty though so maybe bear that in mind.
 
Good choice

I got my 100-400 last night and used it for the first time today and boy am i impressed.

Spike
 
dinners said:
Thanks Pete.

Funny you mention it as I am going to look at the 100-300mm f4.
Click to expand...

I used to have a 50-500 and did'nt really like it that much sharpness wise. The auto-focus is not that good either compared to Canon.

I also had a 100-300f4 at the same time and it was sharper with a 1.4x converter attached than the 50-500. It was of course a lot sharper without the 1.4x.

I now have the 100-400 which is sharper than the 50-500 and with all the other mentioned advantages.

Btw, Sigma have just put 'OS' on the 50-500 so might be worth waiting to see if it's any good.
 
mick johnson said:
I used to have a 50-500 and did'nt really like it that much sharpness wise. The auto-focus is not that good either compared to Canon.

I also had a 100-300f4 at the same time and it was sharper with a 1.4x converter attached than the 50-500. It was of course a lot sharper without the 1.4x.

I now have the 100-400 which is sharper than the 50-500 and with all the other mentioned advantages.

Btw, Sigma have just put 'OS' on the 50-500 so might be worth waiting to see if it's any good.
Click to expand...

Does the 50-500 (F6.3) Auto focus at the long end, I thought the smallest aperture was F5.6 to get AF unless you had a 1 series body.
 
Got the Canon 100-400 and the Sigma 50 - 500, both awseome but if I had to have one it would be the Canon all the way, no doubts at all.
HTH
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top