Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS Reviews?

Patrick Wieland

Patrick Wieland

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2011
Messages
497
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Orlando,FL
Hey guys I am looking at getting a 300-400mm focal length and been looking at the 100-400mm from canon. I have the 70-200mm 2.8L IS II and its awesome super sharp. I use the 1.4x extender when I need a little more length.

I would like to get something a longer then the 70-200 though for more options. I shoot mostly Action Sports where a lot of times I am limited to how close I can get to the action. Usually shoot in very bright sun conditions.

Anyone have this lens? Give me some feedback for shooting at 4k with it? Any other options people would suggest?

I can not afford a cinema zoom at this time and I really can't afford the weight of it as I usually am required to hike miles with gear.
 
Both the Canon 100-400 and the Nikon 80-400 tend to get mixed reviews, and seem to be the victim of iffy quality control. Some people love their copy and other people complain about sharpness, so it seems like a viable option if you get to try it out beforehand and make sure you're getting a "good copy."

Avoid the Nikon 70-300 VR - the IQ is mediocre through most of the range and garbage on the long end. It has very ugly bokeh, too. I sold mine and don't regret it one bit.

I haven't had a chance to try one out, but most reviewers are pretty pleased with the Sigma 120-300/2.8 and the sample images I've seen look great. It is 6lbs and $3000 though, which may or may not be an issue for you.
 
Hey Patrick,

I have got a Sigma 200-500 2.8 that is super sharp. It also has an extender that takes it t0 400-1000 at 5.6. I don't think you would want to hike with it though.
 

Attachments

  • Sigma Zoom.jpg
    Sigma Zoom.jpg
    92.5 KB · Views: 0
Hi! I don't use this lens anymore because I found it soft and slow. This was my experience on DSRs. So on getting the Scarlet I never even considered using it. Your mileage may differ however.
 
I know that this is more of an expensive option, but I use a 400mm f4 DO and a 70-200 f2.8 IS II. Optically much better in my opinion, even when the 70-200 is combined with a 1.4 III extender. If you are using a tripod and have a smaller budget then I would prefer to use the 400 5.6 prime, and either another shorter prime, or the 70-200, instead of the 100-400. This is of course optically speaking. If you really need to have that zoom range, with the option of not changing the lens, and you can cope with lower optical quality, then I guess it is an option.
 
Thanks guys I had the 300mm 4.0L IS before and its a great lens.

I wondered about the 400mm but it doesn't have IS. Although I use a tripod a lot of my shooting is fast pans and such. I've seen a huge difference in IS vs Non-IS as IS really helps keeping the image stable when zoomed far in.
 
Hey Patrick

really depends what you want use it for and where the footage is going.

some of the footage in my clip here was shot on the canon 100-400mm with the 1.4 extender on it....around the 100mm range the lens is ok...at the longer end of the lens the footage deteriorates quite considerably in quality as you can see:


you loose a lot of sharpness and detail, its got horrible moire problems with intricate textures, there is this really annoying blueish hued edge fringing which was a deal breaker for me and never used it again. Gotta agree with Sam too, the autofocus is quite sluggish (can only speak for that on a stills DSLR, never tried the AF on the Epic)

If you can make it work $$ wise and also logistically, work with fixed focal length lenses whenever possible. the difference in visual quality is worth it :)
 
I don't like the Canon 100-400. I end up either using the 70-300 DO (with it's funky contrast and bokeh) or the 500mm instead.

Graeme
 
Sam Taylor said:
I know that this is more of an expensive option, but I use a 400mm f4 DO and a 70-200 f2.8 IS II. Optically much better in my opinion, even when the 70-200 is combined with a 1.4 III extender. If you are using a tripod and have a smaller budget then I would prefer to use the 400 5.6 prime, and either another shorter prime, or the 70-200, instead of the 100-400. This is of course optically speaking. If you really need to have that zoom range, with the option of not changing the lens, and you can cope with lower optical quality, then I guess it is an option.
Click to expand...

I had the lens but sold it, it was not performing. I would agree to look at either the 400m or the 300m ($1-2k lenses). A 2x on your 70-200m is an option too. I'm not sure what I want a 400mm or the sigma 300mm 2.8. I've also been looking at the 400 F4 DO
 
I have both the the 70-200 f2.8 and the Canon 100-400.
For the money, the 100-400 is an exceptional lens, not in the same league as the 70-200, but very nice.

The key is making sure you get a later copy of the 100-400. The early ones were soft, and although mine isnt as sharp as the 70-200, at 400mm wide open it performs very nicely.

But as Graeme mentions, the bokeh is on the harsh side. Overall I am very satisfied with my copy, and at around $1200-$1500, its a bargain.
 

Attachments

  • LS6C9913-Edit.jpg
    LS6C9913-Edit.jpg
    98.3 KB · Views: 0
I used the Canon 400 5.6. Optically the quality is simply perfect. It's extremely sharp.
No optical stabilizer of course means tripod for movie recording. On the bonus side it's cheap and also quite light weight.
Another variant is the 70-200 2.8 with extenders, maybe even a 2x extender. From what I understand this lens is sharper than the 100-400 even with a 2x extender.

In the digital picture you can compare them and the quality seems similar. When used without extenders the 70-200 is about as sharp as it gets.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=1

I have not use cine lenses (yet) so cannot compare.
Hope that helps
/Andreas
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
I picked up Gibby's 150-600 Canon 5.6 with PL mount and love it for action sports. Lightweight and compact for a 150-600 zoom with very good IQ, though not as clean as a L series prime.

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...
I have this one too, and it's nice, but I think it's a bit larger and more expensive than what Stefano was looking for. The contrast isn't quite as punchy as contemporary zooms/primes and it needs a bit of sharpening if you're mastering to 4K, but having that kind of zoom range is a life-saver for framing wildlife/sports shots. The bokeh is nicer than most zooms as well.
 

Attachments

  • hummingbird1.jpg
    hummingbird1.jpg
    31.5 KB · Views: 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top