Experience with EF-100-400 IS 4.5-5.6

LivingLarge

Anyone???... I really think this lens would be great for most of my wildlife shots and can still use it for portraits. The only other choice would be 70-200 2.8 IS but I don't think I would get the reach I want.

Is this glass capable of sharp images? How cumbersome is the push-pull manual focus? Are there any quirks or weird things to know?

Any info at all.
Thanks:dunno

ChatKat

Wonderful - for wildlife
This is a great lens - the lens - for wildlife. The push pull is known for dust issues.

I am mostly a people photographer but I bought this to share with a friend who went on Safari and she took it (and paid for 1/2 - cheaper for her than a rental and a good deal for me). i;'ve used it for a few things but for portraits - no.

For me, the 70-200 2.8 is a 1st choice portrait lens, as well as the 135 2.0 or the 50 (or 85) 1.2. For zooms the 24-70 or 24-105 are great for portraits. The 70-200 doesn't have enough reach for wildlife.

LivingLarge wrote:

Anyone???... I really think this lens would be great for most of my wildlife shots and can still use it for portraits. The only other choice would be 70-200 2.8 IS but I don't think I would get the reach I want.

Is this glass capable of sharp images? How cumbersome is the push-pull manual focus? Are there any quirks or weird things to know?

Any info at all.
Thanks

Vanquiz

I love my 100-400, I sold mine once, since I thought it was too heavy for me, but apparently I regret it so much, I bought another one. I get used to it after some times, I reckon that I hold it better after a while.

Apart for wildlife, I love this lens, for it's capability to shoot candid portrait, I found the DOF is great for outdoor portrait.

But, for low light situation, you cant expect much from this lens. Push Pull system feel awkward for the first time, but once I get used to it, I like it, it faster and easier for me.

These some samples portrait taken with 100-400.

David_S85

Would a 70-200 2.8 and a 1.4x TC be another option to get near the reach you desire? Additionally, the speed would be faster.

Tee Why

I think it would work well for a wildlife lens that you can occasionally use for tight head shots and such.

I'm personally not a fan of the "dust pumper." It's got an old push/pull design that requires another ring to control the tension on the push/pull grip. I prefer a more conventional zoom ring you twist. The IS is an old design as well but beats not having one.

Having said that, I think the optics are good and if you get the zoom, you will get used to the handling/ergonomics of the lens soon enough and it shouldn't get in the way of you taking photos. There are also some third party lenses that are similar that you may want to consider as well like the Sigma 80-400OS, Tamron 200-500, and Sigma 50-500mm. Sigma also introduced 120-400 and 150-500mm with OS (their version of IS) but I'm not sure they are optically as good as the old pumper.

However, if you are looking for a Canon supertelephoto zoom, this is the only option you have.
IMO, the 70-200mm f2.8L IS has better optics and would make for a nicer portrait lens but is not long enough for wildlife. I've a buddy that occasionally uses a 2x TC with it for zoos and it suits his needs fine b/c he doesn't do a lot of wildlife shooting to make buying a $1300 lens for occasional use.

If you are thinking mostly portraits and occasional wildlife, then the 70-200 with a TC makes more sense, if you are thinking mostly wildlife and occasional portrait, then the 100-400 makes more sense to me.

pyry

ChatKat wrote:

This is a great lens - the lens - for wildlife. The push pull is known for dust issues.

I've had mine for three years and I've given the rear element a blower cleaning about twice. No real dust issues there.

The lens is great, mine is usable wide open and end to end, but the long end does sharpen up some at f/8.

GSPeP

Great lens.

Here are some of the first pictures I took with it: http://gspep.smugmug.com/gallery/3539503_KaG6t
With some comparisons between 100 and 400 mm. (All pictures were taken handheld)

LivingLarge

Delayed response. Had to step away

ChatKat wrote:

This is a great lens - the lens - for wildlife. The push pull is known for dust issues.

I am mostly a people photographer but I bought this to share with a friend who went on Safari and she took it (and paid for 1/2 - cheaper for her than a rental and a good deal for me). i;'ve used it for a few things but for portraits - no.

For me, the 70-200 2.8 is a 1st choice portrait lens, as well as the 135 2.0 or the 50 (or 85) 1.2. For zooms the 24-70 or 24-105 are great for portraits. The 70-200 doesn't have enough reach for wildlife.

Thank you ChatKat for the great insight.

Vanquiz wrote:

I love my 100-400, I sold mine once, since I thought it was too heavy for me, but apparently I regret it so much, I bought another one. I get used to it after some times, I reckon that I hold it better after a while.

Apart for wildlife, I love this lens, for it's capability to shoot candid portrait, I found the DOF is great for outdoor portrait.

But, for low light situation, you cant expect much from this lens. Push Pull system feel awkward for the first time, but once I get used to it, I like it, it faster and easier for me.

Vanquiz, those are some GREAT shots, exactly the kind I am looing to create. Great OOF backgrounds with a dreamy appearence.

Tee Why wrote:

I think it would work well for a wildlife lens that you can occasionally use for tight head shots.......It's got an old push/pull design that requires another ring to control the tension on the push/pull grip...... The IS is an old design as well but beats not having one. "Is the IS really bad???"

.....a buddy that occasionally uses a 2x TC with it for zoos and it suits his needs fine b/c he doesn't do a lot of wildlife shooting to make buying a $1300 lens for occasional use.

If you are thinking mostly portraits and occasional wildlife, then the 70-200 with a TC makes more sense, if you are thinking mostly wildlife and occasional portrait, then the 100-400 makes more sense to me.

Tee Why, this info is really informative. I think you hit the nail on the head with what each lens can do and should be used for. Since I plan on a fair amount of each type of shot, looks like I need to convince the wifey that I need (not want! ) both lenes.

pyry wrote:

I've had mine for three years and I've given the rear element a blower cleaning about twice. No real dust issues there.

The lens is great, mine is usable wide open and end to end, but the long end does sharpen up some at f/8.

Pyry, thanks for all your comments here and in my previous posts/questions. You have relieved some of my concerns here about this lens. Thanks.:D

kdog

I love my 100-400 and would like to offer a counterpoint to some of the opinions expressed above.

1) Regarding Push/Pull and dust: In my opinion, there is virtually no relation to dust problems on the 100-400 and the push/pull design. Lenses that change length are vented to the outside. They have to be, otherwise they'd be pulling a vacuum and wouldn't extend. When you suck in outside air, you suck in dust. The extreme length changes in the 100-400 necessitates large volumes of air to be exchanged, regardless of the method used to extend and contract the lens. In my experience, the 100-400 isn't bad at all for dust, and not nearly as bad as other lenses. The newer 17-55mm is ridiculously bad for dust control. I've only had mine for a few months and it has way more dust in it than does my 100-400 which I've used steadily since I bought it in 2005. I believe the reason that the 100-400 isn't as bad as some lenses is because the vent is filtered (from my observation in attempting to trace out how the vent works).

2) Regarding the usability of the Push/Pull design, I personally like it and think it's a necessity on this lens. Traditional zoom rings work great on a small lens, because basically you're holding the camera body, and turning the zoom ring. With a huge lens like the 100-400, you're holding the lens more so than the camera body. The way you shoot this lens is to cradle it by the bottom of the lens and pin your elbow to your chest. You then extend your elbow to extend the lens. A twist-style zoom would require you to rotate your hand from that cradle position and greatly affect the stability of the lens while you zoom. You'd be far more likely to lose your target while twisting such a big lens. I think Canon had their thinking caps on when they designed this.

3) Variable quality of copies of this lens. From following a couple years of discussions on dpreview.com, it seems there were early bad copies of this lens. However, I've not heard anybody in the past two years or so who's received a bad copy. I think it's clear that Canon has fixed the early quality problems with this lens.

4) 100-400 versus 70-200+TC for wildlife: While it's generally accepted that the 70-200 has better optics in the 100-200 range, this is NOT true when you add the TC1.4X. There have been numerous comparos done with exactly those combinations, and the 100-400 wins by a significant margin over the 70-200 with a TC 1.4X. And you're still not at 400mm. The TC2.0X is worse.

5) "Old Style IS". While there may be newer generations of IS from Canon, I find the IS on this lens to be more than adequate. In fact, I would call it amazing. I regularly shoot way below the generally recommended minimum shutterspeed of 1/focal-length and it just plain works.

Here are some very slow shutterspeed shots from the Bronx Zoo.

160mm @ 1/60s, ISO 800


120mm @ 1/50s, ISO 800


Works great for portraits:


I also like to use the 100-400 for taking hi-def panos. Here's one of Lake Mead. Click on the pano to see it in full-size (which I recommend).

Click for full size image


Whew, that was a lot of typing. Oh, did I mention I love my 100-400? It's really an amazingly versatile lens.

Cheers,
-joel

Ric Grupe

kdog wrote:

I love my 100-400 It's really an amazingly versatile lens.

I think...sometimes...people are looking for something to complain about...and...since nothing is perfect...they find it.

I can get in flight shots with this lens that I can't get with any other.

Pittspilot

kdog wrote:

I love my 100-400 and would like to offer a counterpoint to some of the opinions expressed above.

Whew, that was a lot of typing. Oh, did I mention I love my 100-400? It's really an amazingly versatile lens.

Cheers,
-joel

I'm with Joel wholeheartedly :-)) And some of us are old enough to remember when all zooms were "pushme pullyou"

I have an older copy I guess (I'm thinking three years?), here are some shots from it:

http://photos.brearleyphoto.com/photos/198706590_WLppa-M.jpg

http://photos.brearleyphoto.com/photos/392289499_rPs3y-M.jpg

http://photos.brearleyphoto.com/photos/249159718_tuH2p-M.jpg

Gotta love that lens!

Cheers

Pindy

Great thread—been wondering about this too. I kind of hate the range of the 70-200. It's never long enough for what I want and the f/2.8 is rarely fast enough in the indoor settings I bought it for. If ISO 1600 and f/2.8 is just adequate (5D), how much different is ISO 6400 (5D mark II) and f/5.6? Literally the equivalent, no?

Similar performance with twice the reach, seems like. Then again ISO 6400 @ f/2.8 is highly adequate. I hate photography.

Tee Why

Pindy wrote:

Great thread—been wondering about this too. I kind of hate the range of the 70-200. It's never long enough for what I want and the f/2.8 is rarely fast enough in the indoor settings I bought it for. If ISO 1600 and f/2.8 is just adequate (5D), how much different is ISO 6400 (5D mark II) and f/5.6? Literally the equivalent, no?

Similar performance with twice the reach, seems like. Then again ISO 6400 @ f/2.8 is highly adequate. I hate photography.

ISO 1600 at f2.8 and ISO 6400 at f5.6 at the same focal length in the same light should give you identical shutter speeds.

I would suspect that the 5D at ISO 1600 would probably have less noise than the 5DMII at ISO 6400, although I haven't seen any good tests/comparisons online. The f2.8 shot should also have a shallower depth of field as well.

Pittspilot

Tee Why wrote:

ISO 1600 at f2.8 and ISO 6400 at f5.6 at the same focal length in the same light should give you identical shutter speeds.

I would suspect that the 5D at ISO 1600 would probably have less noise than the 5DMII at ISO 6400, although I haven't seen any good tests/comparisons online. The f2.8 shot should also have a shallower depth of field as well.

...and don't forget that at the longer focal length, you will want a higher shutter speed....

Pittspilot

Pindy wrote:

Great thread—been wondering about this too. I kind of hate the range of the 70-200. It's never long enough for what I want and the f/2.8 is rarely fast enough in the indoor settings I bought it for. If ISO 1600 and f/2.8 is just adequate (5D), how much different is ISO 6400 (5D mark II) and f/5.6? Literally the equivalent, no?

Similar performance with twice the reach, seems like. Then again ISO 6400 @ f/2.8 is highly adequate. I hate photography.

The other option is to use the 70-200 with the 1.4 converter. You still get autofocus (BTW, that's the one thing I wish were different about the 100-400) and the reach is 40% better.

Pindy

Pittspilot wrote:

...a dn don't forget that at the longer focal length, you will want a higher shutter speed....

BLAST!

Pittspilot

Pindy wrote:

BLAST!

Here to help......

c-line

3 years ago, I bought the 100-400. Found it to be sharp at f7.1-f8 -- not good enough for me. Took it back the next day and got the 70-200 f2.8 and the 1.4 TC. Glad I did.

Maestro

I love mine and echo Joel's thoughts!

gumpaholic

Question about the 100-400 lens......
I am going to San Diego Wild Animal Park tomorrow and am renting this lens from my camera shop in town (because I DO NOT have that kind of dough to buy one ). My question is, what setting should I use on the camera to get the best shots? I will NOT take my tripod so it will be handheld. I have the Canon XSI BTW. Any help or suggestions would be ! Thanks alot!

Pindy

High shutter speeds!

kdog

Pindy wrote:

High shutter speeds!

Why? The IS on the 100-400 works almost unbelievably well in my experience. Here are some zoo shots of mine to prove the point.

120mm @ 1/50s (yes, 1/50th of a second)


160mm @ 1/60s


400mm @ 1/100s


I've almost never been disappointed in how well the IS on this lens works. It's almost magical.

To the OP's question....

1) The lens is indeed the least-sharp wide-open. However, please be sure to exercise it that way. I've found it quite good wide open and I'd be interested in hearing your results. Tt is a bit sharper stopped down, but not dramatically so.

2) Bear in mind the DOF is extremely thin at long focal lengths when you're wide open. Most zoo animals are large, and so this is an argument for shooting at smaller apertures like F9 or F10 so that you get the entire beast in focus.

3) Make sure the IS is switched on, and Mode 1 selected.

4) Watch your focus limiter. If it's set to the longer setting, you might wonder why the dang thing isn't focusing. It won't focus on near objects at all at the long setting. On the close setting, it'll focus down to something like 6'. Of course, distant objects will acquire focus more quickly on the long setting.

Have fun, and I'm sure you will. This lens is a blast at the zoo.

-joel

gumpaholic

kdog wrote:

I've almost never been disappointed in how well the IS on this lens works. It's almost magical.

To the OP's question....

1) The lens is indeed the least-sharp wide-open. However, please be sure to exercise it that way. I've found it quite good wide open and I'd be interested in hearing your results. Tt is a bit sharper stopped down, but not dramatically so.

2) Bear in mind the DOF is extremely thin at long focal lengths when you're wide open. Most zoo animals are large, and so this is an argument for shooting at smaller apertures like F9 or F10 so that you get the entire beast in focus.

3) Make sure the IS is switched on, and Mode 1 selected.

4) Watch your focus limiter. If it's set to the longer setting, you might wonder why the dang thing isn't focusing. It won't focus on near objects at all at the long setting. On the close setting, it'll focus down to something like 6'. Of course, distant objects will acquire focus more quickly on the long setting.

Have fun, and I'm sure you will. This lens is a blast at the zoo.

-joel

Thanks for the info Joel! I hope I remember all of that stuff ! Should I have my ISO on a certain setting of should I just set it on automatic. Also, I think it will be partly cloudy tomorrow so will that be an issue too? Thanks again and I love your pics! You did a fanastic job on them !

Nikolai

I'm with F-stop (i.e. K-dog:-)) on it. 100-400 is a great (relatively) inexpensive and very versatile outdoor lens. I love mine.

gumpaholic

Nikolai wrote:

I'm with F-stop (i.e. K-dog:-)) on it. 100-400 is a great (relatively) inexpensive and very versatile outdoor lens. I love mine.

Thanks to you too, Nikolai! What is your opinion on the ISO? Should I set it on AUTO or a certain iSO? I'm gonna have a blast with it! My camera shop is letting me rent it for $40 ! If it does as good as you all say, I'll be renting it ALOT!

Nikolai

gumpaholic wrote:

Thanks to you too, Nikolai! What is your opinion on the ISO? Should I set it on AUTO or a certain iSO? I'm gonna have a blast with it! My camera shop is letting me rent it for $40 ! If it does as good as you all say, I'll be renting it ALOT!

It really depends on the shooting scenario. While I did use AutoISO a few times, I'm usually trying to keep it a lowest manual value possible and simply watch the shutter speed.

kdog

gumpaholic wrote:

Thanks for the info Joel! I hope I remember all of that stuff ! Should I have my ISO on a certain setting of should I just set it on automatic. Also, I think it will be partly cloudy tomorrow so will that be an issue too? Thanks again and I love your pics! You did a fanastic job on them !

Cloudy is good! "Nature's Softbox", they say. Nikolai (aka Aperture) is right (as always ) that you in general always want to use the lowest ISO you can get away with and still have a decent shutter speed. Keep in mind though that zoos typically have very bad lighting for photography. All three of those shots were ISO 800. And even then, I'm shooting wide-open or close to it, and still ended up with very low shutterspeeds. Honestly, I've never tried auto-ISO. I can't imagine what it would pick in that situation -- ISO 3200? At any rate, even though you're shooting outdoors, I'd still plan on either ISO400 or ISO800.

Cheers,
-joel

gumpaholic

kdog wrote:

Cloudy is good! "Nature's Softbox", they say. Nikolai (aka Aperture) is right (as always ) that you in general always want to use the lowest ISO you can get away with and still have a decent shutter speed. Keep in mind though that zoos typically have very bad lighting for photography. All three of those shots were ISO 800. And even then, I'm shooting wide-open or close to it, and still ended up with very low shutterspeeds. Honestly, I've never tried auto-ISO. I can't imagine what it would pick in that situation -- ISO 3200? At any rate, even though you're shooting outdoors, I'd still plan on either ISO400 or ISO800.

Cheers,
-joel

Thanks guys! I think i'll try ISO 400 for now and see what happens. I also went to Bolsa Chica Wetlands for a few mintues (about 20 minutes before sunest) and took a couple of shots with that lens. I had the Aperture at 8 or 10. Here are the results. Let me know what you think!

1.


2.


3.


4. And finally, A Flock Of Seagulls ! (I didn't run so far away though!)

kdog

Very nice. Was that using auto-iso? They're all at ISO800 or 640. That first one is nice and sharp, and it was shot at 1/250s, at 400mm. That's the IS working for you there.

gumpaholic

kdog wrote:

Very nice. Was that using auto-iso? They're all at ISO800 or 640. That first one is nice and sharp, and it was shot at 1/250s, at 400mm. That's the IS working for you there.

Yes, they were all on auto ISO (just trying it out.). I REALLY like the lens so far. I WILL be renting it ALOT more often!