Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
Rating:  -
I purchased, and have since returned this lens. It is built well, and seemed to work well also. I found the images too soft, with little to no fine detail. Such as for birds or trees. The leaves would seem to just be a leaf, but without detail. I was unhappy with the softness with nature photos also. I had some doves in the backyard, and shot many photos, only to see they were o.k. images, but way too soft, especially for the close distance. I tried many aperatures, and focal lengths. Sure, at 400mm zoom, it gets worse. I personally think this was a bad lens, and will try another. Amazon should pack a little better, as this len's box was inside a bigger box with hardly anything to keep it from being knocked around during shipment. Come on amazon, too cheap to pack better than that?
Rating:  -
I've had this lens for about half a year now, and really appreciate having a good quality lens for this focal range. I use it mainly for birds.
I'm not going to go into the features - you can read that in the product description - but concentrate on my experience using it.
The locking ring is a little irritating. You need to hold on to the focusing ring before twisting the locking ring.
Push / pull takes a little getting used to, but not too bad. And it is actually very nice when shooting birds in flight. Zoom out, find bird, then zoom in.
If you're looking at this lens, you're probably also considering the 300mm f/4L and 400mm f/5.6L. I chose a zoom, sacrificing some IQ (according to some reviews) for convenience. The 400mm f/5.6 is tempting, but costs only $200 less and lacks IS. The 300mm f/4L with a 1.4x TC may make more sense for some, but I found that the ability to zoom makes acquiring the subject much easier. Sharpness is still very good even with 1.4x TC, though you will lose the ability to auto focus without a 1 series body.
If you're hand holding the lens, rotate the tripod foot to the top (or remove it altogether). It makes supporting the lens much easier.
It appears to be more susceptible to flare when shooting bright light sources (e.g. sunset, the moon) than some of my other lenses.
Anyway, if you want an L lens in this focal range, you just need to choose between this and the other 2 I mentioned above. If you want something less expensive, but with a shorter focal range, take a look at the 70-300mm IS (NOT the 75-300mm).
Rating: -
I made several upgrades to my camera equipment this summer and this was one of my best purchases. I waffled between this and the 400 prime but in the end decided I wanted the zoom capabilities. The photos I've taken with this are simply stunning. I shoot mainly wildlife and landscape photography and this lens delivers every single time.
Make no mistake, this is a BIG lens and it's fairly heavy. But, don't let that deter you in the last. I have lugged this around on all day hikes and for the picture quality I wouldn't think of not taking it. The auto focus is near silent. The Image Stabilization is incredible. At max zoom the photo's come out very sharp with no blur. It took me a few hours to get used to the push/pull zoom but I've found it's so much easier to hit just the target you want this way.
The only real downside I can think of is that it's a f4.5-5.6 lens, which isn't necessarily great for low light. But, I've taken a number of low light shots and frankly have been quite impressed.
This is not an inexpensive lens, but as many have said, you get exactly what you pay for. I wholeheartedly recommend this lens to anyone looking to upgrade to a top quality zoom lens. You will not be disappointed. Below are a few shots I made right after receiving the lens.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3019/2867499590_f3c590f9a9.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3269/2825840175_fda696cfa5.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3105/2827703146_0bbd820336.jpg
Rating:  -
When I bought my Canon 5D, I could afford only one lens, so I started with the 24-105 L series IS unit. Last December, I treated myself to the 100-400 L IS unit. Naturally, the shorter focal length is handier for most things I shoot (people, scenics, architecture and so forth), but I really wanted to try a longer lens.
For a long while, I waffled between the 70-200 F2.8 IS and the 100-400. Speed, obviously, is a major drawback of the 100-400 at 4.5-5.6, but the 5D is so noiseless at EI 400, that shooting outdoors with the longer lens is never a problem. I am satisfied that I would not be as happy with the shorter lens married to a 2X extender.
Telephoto photography, it turns out, is much different than working with shorter lenses, I've found. Since December, I've shot animals and birds, GP motorcycles at Indianapolis and recently, an air show. In general, I've found it much more difficult than other kinds of photography because the subjects (often moving) are much harder to find and keep framed up than closer, non-moving subjects. Also, the atmospheric effects, like fog or haze are amplified making some images look like they were shot in an opium den.
The IS feature definitely helps handheld shots, but when subjects move as fast as stunt planes and 150 MPH motorcycles, it is very easy to end up with blurred images (unless you want to stop the props on the planes and the spokes on the bikes). I tried mounting the rig on a monopod, but it caused more problems than it solved.
Anyway, back to the lens. It is a brick, and weighs nearly as much. I can't complain about image quality, especially with the full frame sensor of the 5D. I have discovered that, if I'm going to do sports photography, I'd prefer an even longer lens, though. I plan to try the 2X extender, but on this lens, the extra glass may make it unacceptably slow. Of course, with smaller(Canon)sensors, this lens would enjoy 1.6 magnification.
Another finge benefit is that, even at Indy, the "white" lens commands respect from the majority of the rest of the pack (unless they're endowed with even larger white lenses), even if it's not deserved. Evidently, this lens can make you look like you know what you're doing whether you do or not.
At the airshow, I found it challenging to adjust the focal length with this lens (push-pull) as the airplanes would be alternately very close (50 yards) and then a 1/2 mile or more away in a matter of moments. Trying to keep the aircraft in sight and zoom at the same time actually requires more grasping apendages than I was born with. I was alternating shooting with a Sony EX1 XDCAM with a power zoom. Even with that feature, it was still hard to find, frame and follow the stunt planes.
Similarly, if you are trying to fill the frame with a 150 MPH bike as it blows by, some advance planning is required, especially if you want it to be in focus at the time you pull the trigger.
Other than size and weight, I have no real beefs with the lens, although I could react to moving objects better with a conventional zoom ring. Also, I would really like it to reach a little further, say - 600mm. Then, I would have a better reach for wildlife that is often just too small to render a really good image for enlargement. It would still have to be a zoom, however, as I truly appreciate the flexibility of a variable focal length lens. Well, and of course, it could cost less!
Overall, I feel like this is a seriously professional piece of gear that will serve certain aspects of my photographic needs for a long time.
Rating:  -
It's that heavy. I was able to borrow this lens from work, I thought it would be great to test drive an L lens to see how the other half lives.
MY ADVICE: Go to your local camera shop, get your hands on some lenses and talk with the people there. They are in the business because they love photography, not just to sell you something expensive ;) Bring your camera and take some pictures so you can look at them when you get back home and compare this and one that's 1/2 the price and weight.
I'm not bashing this lens, I just felt compelled to write an honest review and give an honest grade.
Pro:
There's no doubt it takes great outdoor pictures.
400mm gets you up close across the field for sports pics.
Con:
Cost - it didn't take significantly better pictures (at 200mm) than the 200mm zoom I have.
Weight - too heavy to hold all game long.
Aperture - must have decent light for shooting sports (unless you specifically want the blur to show motion) and you can't get that f2.0, shallow depth of field.
So if this is on your "short list", I would also include the Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Lens for Canon EOS SLR Cameras
|
