A&P Has anyone played with a 100-400 L lens?

Discussion in 'Lifestyle' started by Reverend, Jun 30, 2006.

  1. Reverend

    Reverend OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2002
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    I'm sort of infatuated with this lens, but I don't know anyone who has had any "real world" shooting experience with it.

    If you've used it, let me know what kind of photography you used it for, and what your impressions were.

    Thanks,
    Reverend Al
     
  2. Jonny Chimpo

    Jonny Chimpo OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    64,810
    Likes Received:
    384
    Location:
    The sweaty asshole of the universe
    I've used it. It's bulky and soft. Get a 400 f/5.6L.

    What do you need it for?
     
  3. Reverend

    Reverend OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2002
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    Taking pictures. Duh. :p

    I don't really know. I currently have the 75-300, which came with my camera, and its complete and utter garbage. I want something where I can be at the top of the stands at the drag strip (we have huge stands at the strip in StL), zoom in and snap away, rather than have to be up front with all the drunk hoosiers spilling beer all over themselves.

    I also like the range for when I'm out doing nature shots and stuff.

    I love my prime lenses, but I hate the lack of versatility -- makes for a very heavy camera bag.

    I wish I could afford the 70-200 2.8L IS lens.
     
  4. Jonny Chimpo

    Jonny Chimpo OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2003
    Messages:
    64,810
    Likes Received:
    384
    Location:
    The sweaty asshole of the universe
    Get the 300 F4 IS and a 1.4 TC.
     
  5. McFly

    McFly New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Palmer, WA
    The 70-200 2.8L IS works great from the top row at the drag strip. I have used it just for that several times. I can fill the frame up with the whole car there. I am amazed every time I use that lens.
     
  6. Reverend

    Reverend OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2002
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    Thanks, now I'm considering an even MORE expensive lens. :doh:
     
  7. CornUponCob

    CornUponCob New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2001
    Messages:
    15,319
    Likes Received:
    0
    100-400 is pretty much a daytime lens.

    It's at an effective price point because overall it's that spectacular.

    If you need a big zoom range during the day I could see it's purpose. Maybe if you were shooting track / strip stuff during the day it would be the lens from you. Be prepared to bump up the ISO to stop action (should you so choose to) however.
     
  8. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    the IQ on the 100 400 is great but the push/pull feature is annoying for some (see 48). if you're shooting cars, the 70-200 f/2.8L non IS is within the same price range and will fit your needs. It doesn't have the same reach but unless you're shooting at a huge race track or jailbait on the soccer field, 200mm is more than enough, especially on a 1.6x body. if you check fredmiranda.com you will find some threads about this lens with sample shots and feedback.
     
  9. Reverend

    Reverend OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2002
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    Ok, after your reviews & opinions, I'm now looking at the 70-200 2.8L. I'll probably pull the trigger on my purchase tonight. The only question is whether or not IS is worth the $500 price difference?

    I do plan to eventually pick up the 1.4x TC for the telephoto lens as well.


    *waits for McFLy's answer*
     
  10. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    I photograph SCCA Solo II autocross so the mode 2 IS is worth it for me but other than that, I rarely use the IS since I carry my tripod around. I don't have kids or little bastards to shoot in school plays and other indoor events with poor lighting so I haven't really used the IS all that much. Plus, if I needed a fast indoor lens, I'd buy the 135 f/2.0L.
     
  11. McFly

    McFly New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Palmer, WA
    I would HIGHLY advise you try to look and handle these lenses in person. The 70-200 F2.8L IS is pretty heavy. Again it depends on what you are taking pictures of. The 70-200 F4 is a lot less expensive and will do the job for most applications. You have to weigh if the extra $$$ for additional stop is worth it.

    If you do a lot of hand held shots the IS is life saving in my opinion. It is awesome technology and worth every penny. If you plan on using a tripod all the time you don't need the IS go for the F2.8 or F4 non IS and a 1.4x TC and you are in business!

    I just got the 1.4x TC and haven't really used it much yet but it seems to work fine so far.

    Any of these three lenses are awesome. I really wanted the IS so I had to get the F2.8. If the F4 was IS, everyone would buy it!

    EDIT: Make sure you read up on the reviews of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L USM at a site like FM
    http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=14&sort=7&thecat=27
     
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2006
  12. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    the weight of the 2.8 IS isn't as bad as people make it out to be. After a few hours, you get use to it.
     
  13. Reverend

    Reverend OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2002
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    Thanks for all the help, guys. I really appreciate it.

    After all the talk on all the boards, reading countless reviews, going and playing with all of them on my camera, I finally made a decision. I decided that I might not need the IS for every scenario, but it would be nice to have it for those occassions I wish for it. Is it worth the extra ~$600? Maybe having it will force me to justify it by getting into more different kinds of photography, like indoor sports or low-light wildlife or something. I bought the 2.8L IS lens. I also ended up with a 24-70 2.8L .... How'd that happen? Oh well, I'm sure the wife will understand....

    The box says 2.8L IS on it, but the NON-IS version was in the box when I got home. I called them, and it looks like I'll have to schlep my stupid ass back up there on Wednesday to correct the error. Easy enough mistake to correct, but what a PITA.

    Reverend Al
     
  14. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    For indoor sports, 90% of your shots will be action shots which will require ~ 1/400 shutter or faster to stop the action, so IS will not be effective since it's main purpose is to counteract hand/shutter shake. I spent the extra money since I figured that I would keep the lens for a few years so it might come in handy every now and then but is it worth the extra $600? It all depends how big your wallet is :x:
     
  15. Reverend

    Reverend OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2002
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    $600 is a lot of money.... but better is better, right? :)
     
  16. Mr_Penut

    Mr_Penut Elitist Member OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    Messages:
    30,697
    Likes Received:
    18
    Location:
    kanadia
    you win at throwing money at your problems :bowdown:
     
  17. Reverend

    Reverend OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2002
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    lol -- I never claimed to be any master photog. I'm just an enthusiast. I work hard for my money, and feel that I deserve to spoil myself occassionally with some really fun toys. :)
     
  18. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    That's how the rest of us justify spending $1k + on lens :bigthumb:
     
  19. McFly

    McFly New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    83
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Palmer, WA
    I feel exactly the same way:cool:. Congrats on the lenses! wow. Awesome choice, you won't be disappointed. Post your impressions and some pictures when you get a chance to use them.
     
  20. Nobu

    Nobu New Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2006
    Messages:
    146
    Likes Received:
    0
    SO you can afford a 100-400IS, but not the 70-200IS? :ugh:
     
  21. Reverend

    Reverend OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2002
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    Typical OT hater. Not to split hairs, but if you actually read the thread, you'll see that a.) the 70-200 IS is about $400 more expensive than the 100-400, and b.) I bought the 70-200 IS and the 24-70 f/2.8L. So money isn't really an issue.

    McFly, I'll be sure to post up some really crappy photos taken with some really nice glass ASAP. :)
     
  22. SpiderOnTheFloor

    SpiderOnTheFloor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    11,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    where in stl are you? we should meet up and trade lenses for a few hours :x:
     
  23. Reverend

    Reverend OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2002
    Messages:
    967
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    I live in St. Peters, work in Chesterfield. You need to check out www.missouriphoto.net -- we have occassional field trips and meets and stuff.
     
  24. SpiderOnTheFloor

    SpiderOnTheFloor New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    11,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    o cool. I'll check out that site. I go to Wash U so I live around that area. My two roommates are also into photography
     
  25. Derrict

    Derrict No, I am not Amish OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,484
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Amish Country, PA
    ^^
     

Share This Page