CANON 100-400MM IS LENS

pandabighead

pandabighead

Suspended / Banned
Messages
291
Edit My Images
Yes
need a good tele photo and thinking of getting this from kerso. would anyone recommend? at the moment i have a 17-40 f4 LUSM, 50mm f1.8, and a 100mm f2.8 usm macro, so looking for something with a good reach.
thanks, pbh.
 
I have recently bought one of them from Kerso :D tbh I haven't used it anything like enough yet to feel qualified to give an opion based on personal experience, although initial findings say it's a fantastic lens:) . However, I bought it based largely on the opinions of people on here who have one - no one seems to have a bad word to say about it! I took some shots with it in London yesterday so once I get them off my card I will hopefully post them up ;)
 
I too have just brought one from Kerso, as in last week and sorry to say not been anywhere to use it as yet.

Even set up a bird table so i could shoot something.......but alas no blooming birds :bonk:

So sorry not much help.
 
There is a thread on here that I think was actually started about the 70-200 with 1.4 or 2x converter that kind of evolved into a thread with lots of people posting phenomenal photos taken with the 100-400. It convinced me to go out and buy one! Maybe someone can remember it and link to it :shrug:
 
:thumbs: that's the one! :clap:
 
I can heartiliy recommend it - have a look around my photoblog (link should be in my signature, most if not all of the animal shots have been done using the 100-400L :)
 
ok, sold to the man at back with the ever shrinking bank balance.
thanks, pbh
 
:lol: welcome to the in deep debt club :D
 
You don't say what it would be used for.
It's a very flexible lens with good contrast.
If you will be using the full range of the lens I would recommend it.
If your preference is wildlife ( birds in particular ) I would suggest a prime.
The 400mm f5.6 is a sharper lens than the zoom.
I often use a 300mm f4 with a 1.4 TC, giving 420mm.
With the TC this lens is still sharper than the zoom at 400.
The 300mm has, like the 100-400, IS.

That said I wouldn't give up the flexibility of my 100-400.

I know you would just like to hear all the positives and not introduce alternatives but you're spending a fair bit of money and it's worth taking the time and getting it right.
 
thanks garnock, it is a hefty wedge to be laying out so i want to weigh up all the options. think i need a general zoom before i go into a specilaist lens like a prime at this length would seem to be.
er, does anyone have kersos e-mail?
ta again everyone.
pbh
 
pandabighead said:
thanks garnock, it is a hefty wedge to be laying out so i want to weigh up all the options. think i need a general zoom before i go into a specilaist lens like a prime at this length would seem to be.
er, does anyone have kersos e-mail?
ta again everyone.
pbh
Click to expand...

Here you are.
kerso1123@msn.com
 
Its an excellent lens.

As already said, if you are going to use it at the long end most of the time,
consider a prime.

If you do decide to buy the 100-400, be aware that quite a few people have
had the image stabilizer fail (including me).
I'm 99.9% sure this is down to the push pull on the lens.
Now I'm not suggesting using the lens to zoom is the cause of the problem,
but what can happen is, when you have your lens set to 100'ish mm then
you decide to chimp, the lens slides open to its full length.
When the lens gets to its limit it tends to slam with a thump to a stop.
I believe this breaks the mounting on the IS module inside the lens
(I have no evidence to prove this).

The lens does come with a tensioning ring, so my advice to everyone who is
thinking of buying this lens, or who already has it, is to make sure you use it.
If you have a small amount of tension there, its enough to stop the lens
sliding open on its own, which should reduce the chances of it failing.

Its still a cracking lens, every camera bag should have one. ;)
 
Matt said:
If you do decide to buy the 100-400, be aware that quite a few people have had the image stabilizer fail (including me).

Its still a cracking lens, every camera bag should have one. ;)
Click to expand...

I had one, just sold it recently, I had to replace the IS unit and it's £140 after your first year warranty.

I hate the pull/push mechanism, some argue that you get dirt pushed around but I never really noticed it.

It's slow for sports but better for Wildlife. Works better in good light! There is talk that there are some that are sharp and some not so. If you get one, it might be worth seeking advice from a Canon service centre and get it calibrated as soon as (I never got charged with a new lens).

HTH,
Carl.
 
Matt said:
If you do decide to buy the 100-400, be aware that quite a few people have had the image stabilizer fail (including me).
I'm 99.9% sure this is down to the push pull on the lens.
Click to expand...
I have also had the IS unit fail in my 100-400, it's costs around £200 to repair at Canon CPS.

When it failed I did a search on the Canon Forums and there were also a large number of people who had IS failures on the Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS lens. It must be related to a problem with that generation of IS.
 
just want to echo what others have said about this lens. from my experience i have found its great for wildlife and not to bad for sports either. i have had some great shots from it sports wise, epecially motorsports and football. I agree it does work a little better with good light but again isnt that bad in low light. if your after a top quality zoom lens then i think this is it. cant fault it at all and definately worth its L tag :thumbs:
 
I thought about selling mine last year and took it out to the horses, changed my mind very quickly, just so versatile

ML1W4627.jpg
 
Spooky this thread should appear - just toying with getting one myself.

It seems like such a good lens! :D

Two questions tho':

Firstly I had a bigma and found this to be too heavy at times, what's the weight like on the 100-400mm?

Secondly, is it possible to use Hand held?

Many thanks,

Matt
 
Robert - thanks for that, there's some very nice shots there, and I'm suitably impressed with them being handheld!!!

Have to say, the bigma would have been a good lens if it had IS/OS or whatever it's called! :)

Matt
 
ordered from kerso tonight. after all the good things i've read on here can't wait to get my grubby little mitts on it.
 
Sadlybrokeboy said:
Two questions tho':
Firstly I had a bigma and found this to be too heavy at times, what's the weight like on the 100-400mm?
Secondly, is it possible to use Hand held?
Click to expand...

The 100-400 weighs approx 1.3kg and I think the Bigma weighs 1.8kg. The 100-400 is very useable handheld - in fact, I only use mine heldheld :)
 
SDK^ - thanks for that!

Can someone help me out with one last point (I'm dithering can you tell?)?

Is it worth having the 100-400mm IS L over the 70-300mm IS....

I mean I understand about the L glass, and weather sealing.

But is it worth the double over the 70-300? In terms of image quality etc.?
 
Let me put this in very simple terms....


YES !!!​
 
lol - thanks for keeping it simple oldgit! ;)

I need that, beleive me! I've just hit the point of "Yes!" I want one...and then started dithering over the cost. It's the story of my life trust me! :bonk: :bonk:

And Garnock - I thought the 100-400L (and in fact most L glass) is weather sealed... :shrug:
 
Sadlybrokeboy said:
And Garnock - I thought the 100-400L (and in fact most L glass) is weather sealed... :shrug:
Click to expand...

By no means.
Some are weather resistant such as the 17-40L.
It has an o-ring where the lens meets the camera but Canon stress it must be fitted with a front element filter to achieve weather resistance.

The 100-400L is not weather resistant.
With the push/pull zoom I wouldn't let mine anywhere near rain, spray, dust, sand etc.
Sorry to disappoint.
 
I can confirm the 100-400L isn't weather resistant, although it's pretty academic unless you have a weather sealed body. Also as Garnock says, a front filter is advised for full protection anyway.

The 100-400L is simply the best all in one solution for wildlife photography at all but extreme ranges. Primes will give better image quality, but the convenience of a zoom can't really be beaten for tackling critters at the varying ranges you get 'em. A good example is a zoo outing where you really don't need to take any other lens - the 100-400 doesn't come off the camera.

Andy Rouse doesn't go anywhere without his 100-400L and pretty well all of his amazing wild tiger shots are taken with it. :shrug:
 
Thank you CT.

And do you think you can have a 100-400L and a 70-200 F4L in the same collection and get use from both? :)

Matt
 
Sadlybrokeboy said:
And do you think you can have a 100-400L and a 70-200 F4L in the same collection and get use from both? :)
Click to expand...
Definitely. There are times when 200mm just isn't enough and the 100mm is too long. I actually sold my 70-200 and bought the 100-400, but ended up getting the 70-200 again to complement it.
 
dod said:
Definitely. There are times when 200mm just isn't enough and the 100mm is too long. I actually sold my 70-200 and bought the 100-400, but ended up getting the 70-200 again to complement it.
Click to expand...

...so...I haven't made a mistake in getting the 70-200mm (+x2 converter) then? I hope the versatility of this combination is going to suit my needs!
 
Sadlybrokeboy said:
Thank you CT.

And do you think you can have a 100-400L and a 70-200 F4L in the same collection and get use from both? :)

Matt
Click to expand...

They wouldn't be my obvious choices as bed mates Matt. The 70-200 is a cracking lens both in quality and value, but it only gains 30mm at the short end over the 100-400L and the rest is overlap.

The 70-200 is marginally faster than the 100-400L but I think the 100-400L would still stay on your camera as the IS often makes the impossible shot possible, Coupled with it's huge zoom range it's just so flexible. All the Blue Tit and Long Tailed Tit shots in my Gallery were taken with the 100-400L along with many many others.

I personally wouldn't want too many zooms in my kit, so I'd be thinking about shorter primes at your short end and longer primes at the other end - finances permitting obviously. ;)
 
Thank you everyone for your comments - you've really given me alot to think about here! :)

Matt
 
CT said:
I personally wouldn't want too many zooms in my kit, so I'd be thinking about shorter primes at your short end and longer primes at the other end - finances permitting obviously. ;)
Click to expand...

Just as well we're not all the same ;) I'm really not that keen on the restrictions which primes impose on you and for a general shooter don't really see the need for them.(Had the infamous 50mm frequently, 28mm, 85mm, 100mm and always end up selling them on again, with the exception of the macro) Image quality from a decent zoom nowadays is pretty much indistinguishable from a decent prime, certainly for web and small prints anyway. Couldn't imagine being without the 70-200 or 100-400 now as they both get used for totally different purposes.

Persuaded you to dump that 500mm yet ;) :lol:
 
dod said:
Persuaded you to dump that 500mm yet ;) :lol:
Click to expand...

Nope! :D

Some fair points there Doddy. Image quality from zooms has come a long way in recent years, and a lot does depend on what your regular subject matter is anyway.
 
I can see both sides to this.

One thing that's made me think, is the actual practicalities of lugging around the 100-400 AND the 70-200....I'm beginning to veer towards saving myself the 500 quids and getting myself a 70-300 IS for now and seeing if I actually make use of the extra 100 mm (plus I have a 1.4x tc)....

The 70-300 won't take up too much more room in my bag and if I find it gets lots of use, then maybe I'll seriously consider the 100-400mm...but if I don't use it enough - then I've not shelled out close to a grand for it! :p

Matt
 
well mine is ordered and am just waiting on kerso to work his magic. really wanting it for a trip to berlin zoo in the summer so i can get some panda pics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top