Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L - Do people not rate it?
Discussion
People can be frequently observed on here extolling the virtues of the 70-200 L lenses, but the 100-400 never seems to get a mention. Is there a reason for this?
I currently have a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, and given the quality of images it gives me, I certainly couldn't begin to justify the extra cost of the Canon f/2.8, but there have been occasions where I've found it to be too short for the shot I really want.
So, for pretty much exactly the same price as the Canon f/2.8 L IS, the 100-400mm gives me twice the reach, still has the IS, but trades that extra reach for 2 stops less on the maximum aperture. This in theory makes it a very attractive proposition - always assuming I can get a grand or so together for it - but it just seems to be the forgotten lens! Is there a reason for this? Also, how would it compare to a Sigma 50-500?
I currently have a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, and given the quality of images it gives me, I certainly couldn't begin to justify the extra cost of the Canon f/2.8, but there have been occasions where I've found it to be too short for the shot I really want.
So, for pretty much exactly the same price as the Canon f/2.8 L IS, the 100-400mm gives me twice the reach, still has the IS, but trades that extra reach for 2 stops less on the maximum aperture. This in theory makes it a very attractive proposition - always assuming I can get a grand or so together for it - but it just seems to be the forgotten lens! Is there a reason for this? Also, how would it compare to a Sigma 50-500?
I recently was very much considering the Canon 100-400mm L and it has some great reviews. In the end I stumped up for the cheaper option of the sigma 120-400mm which is around £400-500 cheaper. If money was no object I'd have liked the Canon but I just could not justify that at the minute. From all the reviews that i read about the canon it is a cracker of a lens.
I am extremely pleased with the Sigma. It is a super lens and I would recommend it to anyone.
I am extremely pleased with the Sigma. It is a super lens and I would recommend it to anyone.
Razor sharp. I'm rarely far enough from anything to use it but I use it at the drag strip and make sure I set up at least one shot on a car shoot with it as I love the effect it gives. got the 100-400 here also. Cracking lens, works much better on a monopod.
Only minor problem I had with it was recently whilst shooting in the desert during a sandstorm the push / pull action would tend to collect some sand and grate - a blow with the puffer soon cleared that out.
For a while I did consider selling it to buy the 70-200 and a convertor but decided against it.
Only minor problem I had with it was recently whilst shooting in the desert during a sandstorm the push / pull action would tend to collect some sand and grate - a blow with the puffer soon cleared that out.
For a while I did consider selling it to buy the 70-200 and a convertor but decided against it.
An alternative is you could always go for a lens extender. I've just picked up a Kenko MC 2x unit for my Tamron 70-200 f2.8 (Nikon body). It does hunt on focusing (if you contemplate this route take your camera body and lens to a shop and try out your set up with the extender in place), but as I tend to manually focus it's not an issue for me.
With the 2x I lose 2 stops (1.4x is 1 stop). Cost me £130 from SRS Microsystems but you can get it cheaper from else where (they're my local 'real' camera shop).
With the 2x I lose 2 stops (1.4x is 1 stop). Cost me £130 from SRS Microsystems but you can get it cheaper from else where (they're my local 'real' camera shop).
Edited by dapprman on Friday 8th May 15:11
I had one for a while but it was too long for most applications especially on a digital body. In the end I replaced it with a 70-200 f2.8l and a 1.4x extender. I feel this gives me extra flexibility and sharper images as a result of having a larger aperture. I guess it comes down to personal preference but I don't miss the 100-400
I have the Sigma 2x converter. Not the most impressive bit of kit. The Canon one from images I've seen is better.
General (and we argued over) view is a Canon 70-200 F2.8 + Canon 2x converter is about the same as a 100-400mm at 400mm.
I'd imagine that the 100-400 would walk all over the Sigma 70-200 + 2x combo.
As for the aperture question. Basically multiply the converter zoom by the standard lens aperture. So a 200mm @ F2.8 with a 2x converter would be F5.6.
General (and we argued over) view is a Canon 70-200 F2.8 + Canon 2x converter is about the same as a 100-400mm at 400mm.
I'd imagine that the 100-400 would walk all over the Sigma 70-200 + 2x combo.
As for the aperture question. Basically multiply the converter zoom by the standard lens aperture. So a 200mm @ F2.8 with a 2x converter would be F5.6.
ThatPhilBrettGuy said:
I have the Sigma 2x converter. Not the most impressive bit of kit. The Canon one from images I've seen is better.
General (and we argued over) view is a Canon 70-200 F2.8 + Canon 2x converter is about the same as a 100-400mm at 400mm.
I'd imagine that the 100-400 would walk all over the Sigma 70-200 + 2x combo.
As for the aperture question. Basically multiply the converter zoom by the standard lens aperture. So a 200mm @ F2.8 with a 2x converter would be F5.6.
General (and we argued over) view is a Canon 70-200 F2.8 + Canon 2x converter is about the same as a 100-400mm at 400mm.
I'd imagine that the 100-400 would walk all over the Sigma 70-200 + 2x combo.
As for the aperture question. Basically multiply the converter zoom by the standard lens aperture. So a 200mm @ F2.8 with a 2x converter would be F5.6.
Be VERY careful on the choice of teleconverter with the sigma. I have one of the latest Sigma 70-200mm F2.8 EX HSM MkII's and it hunts like a crazy thing (rarely locks focus tbh) with my Kenro PRO 300 2x and old tamron 1.4x TC's. I think you may need to go for the sigma specific TC for it to work properly. This is on Nikon BTW, but I assume it's the same. Both TC's were fine on my old Nikon 80-200 F2.8. I keep meaning to sell these two and get a matched sigma, just never gotten round to it.
Apparently to the Kenko site, the Pro range of extenders are for prime lenses, not zooms. Having said that my Tamron huts with it as well.
If you're not going the Canon extender, then consider the Kenko - it's close to half the cost of the Sigma one from what I remember. Looks cheap, but seems to work well enough.
If you're not going the Canon extender, then consider the Kenko - it's close to half the cost of the Sigma one from what I remember. Looks cheap, but seems to work well enough.
dapprman said:
If you're not going the Canon extender, then consider the Kenko - it's close to half the cost of the Sigma one from what I remember. Looks cheap, but seems to work well enough.
Not too bad actually - but the plastic caps that come with the Nikon version are a total and utter waste of time!ThatPhilBrettGuy said:
General (and we argued over) view is a Canon 70-200 F2.8 + Canon 2x converter is about the same as a 100-400mm at 400mm.
Noes, Luminous landscapes had a great test showing the 100-400L as the better choice for 400mm by a fair way, every other comparison seems to be similar too.100-400 has more variance than the 70-200's tho.
I'd love one but dont have the cash so went for a sigma 70-200f2.8 and 2.0tc.
I have a 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 EF
I have to say that it is a very good lens. O also have the 70-200mm f2.8 as well.
I use both in my roll as a professional press photographer.
The only down side to the 100-400mm is that in the winter when you don't have as much light it can struggle a little. But as a whole I have been very pleased with it. (I should also point out that I also have a 300mm f2.8 and a 500mm f4) but that are often to big to keep thing discrete.
I have to say that it is a very good lens. O also have the 70-200mm f2.8 as well.
I use both in my roll as a professional press photographer.
The only down side to the 100-400mm is that in the winter when you don't have as much light it can struggle a little. But as a whole I have been very pleased with it. (I should also point out that I also have a 300mm f2.8 and a 500mm f4) but that are often to big to keep thing discrete.
Had a play with a friends one on a 40D at the Bournemouth Air Fair last year, was very impressed and if I get into doing air shows or the like (at the moment I don't think I shoot much that needs more reach than my 70-200) I'd definitely consider getting one.
As my 70-200 is only the F4, I think I'd sooner buy the longer lens as well; although I was very impressed with my dad's 70-300IS when I borrowed it for the air fair. Slightly slow AF was the only problem I had with it.
As my 70-200 is only the F4, I think I'd sooner buy the longer lens as well; although I was very impressed with my dad's 70-300IS when I borrowed it for the air fair. Slightly slow AF was the only problem I had with it.
I have both the 70-200f2.8 IS and 100-400. They are both stunning lenses, sharp as a really sharp thing, heavy buggars mind you when carrying the two around all day at track events 
Got the 100-400 first, and really do like it a lot. Use it for everything from candid street shots to photographing the moon!
Got the 100-400 first, and really do like it a lot. Use it for everything from candid street shots to photographing the moon!
OK, I use Nikon but the principles are the same anyway. Can't see a mention of the usage of the lens but let me warn you that adding a 2X converter will slow down the autofocus substantially unless it is a bright day. I only use the Nikon 1.4X which loses one stop (f2.8 to 3.5 for example) but the 2X will reduce from 2.8 to 5.6 - a vast difference. Secondly many people buy long lenses for sport and here I have found the 2X about as useful as a chocolate teapot. As I've posted elsewhere, the 200/400 f4 is about in focus when the car comes around for the second time if the 2X is used. Same with the 70/200. With the high 12mp I prefer to use the 1.4X and crop in post processing. I can still print up to A3+ with no problems usually.
The lenses themselves; Nikon make an 80/400 and I tried it before committing to the 200/400 and am glad I did. No complaints on the quality of the lens, just the focusing speed.
In brief, try out a teleconverter for the usage you intend. It might not be all it is cracked up to be. I've sold my 2X and retained the 1.7X and 1.4X but if the truth be told I might just as well sell the 1.7X for all the use it gets. Just my take on the situation.
The lenses themselves; Nikon make an 80/400 and I tried it before committing to the 200/400 and am glad I did. No complaints on the quality of the lens, just the focusing speed.
In brief, try out a teleconverter for the usage you intend. It might not be all it is cracked up to be. I've sold my 2X and retained the 1.7X and 1.4X but if the truth be told I might just as well sell the 1.7X for all the use it gets. Just my take on the situation.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff