100-400?

[RobDickinson]

Tried out a few lenses yesterday. Looking for a good long tele for general landscapes and sports (surfing etc). I have an elderly 75-300 POS which sucks for AF and just isn't really sharp anywhere anyhow. Will be used on a 350D for now.


Had a play with a sigma 100-300f4, 50-500 , canon 100-400L. Didn't get to play with the 120-300f2.8 sigma but IMO I think it'll be too heavy for any amount of handholding.

Sigmas were built nice,100-300 : I'm sure it'd be sharper for most if not all pics over the canon and faster (constant f4).

But the canon seemed snappier for AF, had the extra reach which I'm sure I want and IS, I can hand hold it and its very quick to zoom (push/pull). Downside is its relatively slow, but does fit 77mm filters. Typically I think a usable f5.6 will be enough, will want 1/300th or so to freeze action.

QC and long term reliability issues are worries for the canon tho.

Sigma are coming out with a 150-500 OS, f6.3 at the long end ( mostly due to filter size I think) HSM, mebe worth waiting for reviews?


BTW sigma have made an arbitrary decision to only moniker lenses with 'EX' now if there constant aperture. so this (the 50-500 replacement) no longer gains 'EX'.

[leightonjames]

Is that canon 100-400 L the one from the luxury range? If so how much do lenses like these cost and what would be the suitability for a 400D?

Cheers

[RobDickinson]

Yep 'L' is for luxury. Usualy some special elements, solid/metal construction, weathersealed etc.

I guess that one would be around £1k in the UK? Def suitable to the 400D but depends what you want.

[leightonjames]

RobDickinson said:

Yep 'L' is for luxury. Usualy some special elements, solid/metal construction, weathersealed etc.

I guess that one would be around £1k in the UK? Def suitable to the 400D but depends what you want.

Jeez, 1k now thats a lot! Would the results on a 400D with that lens be fairly similar to say a 40 D or would there be a world of difference?

cheers

[RobDickinson]

leightonjames said:

Jeez, 1k now thats a lot! Would the results on a 400D with that lens be fairly similar to say a 40 D or would there be a world of difference?

cheers

40D will give slightly better pics than the 400D but you wouldnt notice I dont think.

Cheapest 'L' to look at is the 70-200f4L, spectacular lens for the price, about £400 new I think.

[leightonjames]

RobDickinson said:

leightonjames said:

Jeez, 1k now thats a lot! Would the results on a 400D with that lens be fairly similar to say a 40 D or would there be a world of difference?

cheers

40D will give slightly better pics than the 400D but you wouldnt notice I dont think.

Cheapest 'L' to look at is the 70-200f4L, spectacular lens for the price, about £400 new I think.

Ok, thanks for your advice and info rob

[bashful]

I paid just over 1000 Canadian dollars for my 100-400L - that's about 500 quid - and it's worth every penny. Mine is distinctly secondhand - it looks like it's been used to beat something to death - and I have no worries about build or reliability.

[RobDickinson]

£800 here : http://www.onestop-digital.com/catalog/product_inf...

Which is usualy ken on price.

[Ordinary Bloke]

RobDickinson said:

leightonjames said:

Jeez, 1k now thats a lot! Would the results on a 400D with that lens be fairly similar to say a 40 D or would there be a world of difference?

cheers

40D will give slightly better pics than the 400D but you wouldnt notice I dont think.

Cheapest 'L' to look at is the 70-200f4L, spectacular lens for the price, about £400 new I think.

Come on Rob, what kind of an answer is that? I think he's comparing a 400D with standard lens to a 40D with a £1K lens (correct me if I'm worng).

James, the lens is much more relevant than the camera. You won't see a difference between the performance of the 40D or 400D unless you're enlarging beyond A3, even then you'd be lucky to spot anything.

But the difference between a £1K lens and the piece of sh** plastic thing you get with a 400D is quite visible at A3.

Edited by Ordinary Bloke on Thursday 13th March 23:23

[RobDickinson]

No , he wants to know if the results with that lens would be much different between the 2 cameras.

Answer = not realy.

Apart from the 40D's faster fps, 14bit raw and better AF/Metering etc, the actual image if exposed correctly wont be noticably different.

[hawkaye]

I have a 350D and 40D, and used both with my 100-400 in very similar conditions, and there's not a huge difference in picture quality.

[RobDickinson]

Seems people either love or hate the 100-400.

Anyone use it for sport or aircraft etc?

[Ian_H]

RobDickinson said:

Seems people either love or hate the 100-400.

Anyone use it for sport or aircraft etc?

I have one but very rarely use it these days, not because I don't like it but because I have other lenses that I prefer to use. A couple of weeks ago when I was covering the Malcolm Wilson rally in Cumbria I actually found it in the back of the car (God knows how long it's been there) so decided to blow the dust of it and give it a go, still happy with the results from it.

[350Wedge]

RobDickinson said:

Seems people either love or hate the 100-400.

Anyone use it for sport or aircraft etc?

I use one almost all of the time.... Had my 100-400L for a good three years now and the build and reliability have been second to none. It goes to every event i go to and performs beautifully. You will get a few specs of dust inside but that's down to the push pull design. Has no effect on picture quality though.

I find it light enough to carry all day without any problems, even on a 1 series body. I would take it any day over a Sigma or other make. Have nothing against Sigma, really good lenses but i much prefer the canon. If nothing else the Canon's focussing leaves the Sigma's standing in terms of speed and noise. Speed is essential for fast moving sujects so by that point alone i'd choose canon. Obviously quality optics are a factor too but any L series lens is going to give stunning quality if used properly.

Here are some examples...

Edited by 350Wedge on Friday 14th March 10:42

[MonkeyHanger]

It's a nice lens but i sold mine after it sat unused since last summer. The 120-300 suits my needs better, focusses faster and i'd rather have f4 @ 400m with a 1.4x TC than f5.6. Plus i can stick a 2x TC on the Sigma and still get good shots with working AF.

If we get a decent summer this year and i visit a few airshows i'll probably pick a 100-400 up and sell it when summer is over. In fact the only time i actually "needed" IS was at the 1 air show i went to last year..prop blur ya know

[Ordinary Bloke]

RobDickinson said:

No , he wants to know if the results with that lens would be much different between the 2 cameras.

Answer = not realy.

Apart from the 40D's faster fps, 14bit raw and better AF/Metering etc, the actual image if exposed correctly wont be noticably different.

Whoops, yes you're right, I misread his question. Alcohol may have played a small part in my error

[Goldeeno]

Ive got a 100-400L, great lens. I got it on the cash back scheme. To behonest, its a great bit of kit. I always wish it was a 100-500 or a 50-300, but thats life. For the range the lens covers i love it. I shoot mainly automotive racing if i can and wildlife.. and its great. The IS is good, i havent really played with the lens settings, but im very happy with the results. If your planning on carrying on photography where a 100-400mm range would suit, and your happy to stick with canon.. go for it, you'll love it.

Other lenses to consider though...
Sigma 100-300mm
Sigma 50-500mm
They are about £200 cheeper, and still great.

Go with what you can afford.

Edited by Goldeeno on Saturday 15th March 18:29

[leightonjames]

Ordinary Bloke said:

RobDickinson said:

leightonjames said:

Jeez, 1k now thats a lot! Would the results on a 400D with that lens be fairly similar to say a 40 D or would there be a world of difference?

cheers

40D will give slightly better pics than the 400D but you wouldnt notice I dont think.

Cheapest 'L' to look at is the 70-200f4L, spectacular lens for the price, about £400 new I think.

Come on Rob, what kind of an answer is that? I think he's comparing a 400D with standard lens to a 40D with a £1K lens (correct me if I'm worng).

James, the lens is much more relevant than the camera. You won't see a difference between the performance of the 40D or 400D unless you're enlarging beyond A3, even then you'd be lucky to spot anything.

But the difference between a £1K lens and the piece of sh** plastic thing you get with a 400D is quite visible at A3.

Edited by Ordinary Bloke on Thursday 13th March 23:23

Nope i meant the 1k lens on both cameras and the names leighton

[Ordinary Bloke]

leightonjames said:

Ordinary Bloke said:

RobDickinson said:

leightonjames said:

Jeez, 1k now thats a lot! Would the results on a 400D with that lens be fairly similar to say a 40 D or would there be a world of difference?

cheers

40D will give slightly better pics than the 400D but you wouldnt notice I dont think.

Cheapest 'L' to look at is the 70-200f4L, spectacular lens for the price, about £400 new I think.

Come on Rob, what kind of an answer is that? I think he's comparing a 400D with standard lens to a 40D with a £1K lens (correct me if I'm worng).

James, the lens is much more relevant than the camera. You won't see a difference between the performance of the 40D or 400D unless you're enlarging beyond A3, even then you'd be lucky to spot anything.

But the difference between a £1K lens and the piece of sh** plastic thing you get with a 400D is quite visible at A3.

Nope i meant the 1k lens on both cameras and the names leighton

Hi Leighton...

[tertius]

Anyone seen any (real) reviews of the new Sigma 150-500?

I've borrowed the 100-400L and really didn't get on with the push-pull zoom, so the Sigma looks like an interesting (and longer) alternative.