Replacement for a 100-400?
- Thread starter jimybell
- Start date
purpleclouds
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 10,072
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I swapped mine for a 70 - 200 2.8 IS and a 2x extender.....a tiny drop in quality but not noticable unless pixel peeping, retains IS and is the same 400mm @ f5.6, it's a damn sight more expensive, but the 2.8 at the lower ranges is a God send for me 
turbotoes
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,155
- Name
- Tara
- Edit My Images
- No
How about the sigma 150-500mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM ? It seems to be getting good user reviews, I umed and ahhed between this and the 100-400 for quite awhile, In the end I went for the Canon because of the weight advantage over the "bigmos" Though if you need fast glass this might not be much use to you either.
Tobers
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 3,435
- Name
- Andy
- Edit My Images
- No
Canon have a gap in their range there dont they?
I had to decide on a long zoom and the 100-400 was an option. Instead I opted for a Sigma 100-300 f4. I couldn't stretch to my ideal 120-300 f2.8.
However, the 100-300 is great. Constant f4, nice and sharp, and not overly heavy (though it is substantial).
I use a Canon 1.4x extender to take it to a 420mm 5.6 and quality is still darned good.
A quick warning though - the first Sigma I got would not focus consistently. I returned it to Jessops and got a second version which is top notch. Buy from somewhere that you can take it back easily. I think I paid £640 from Jessops using some voucher code action and "collect in store".
I had to decide on a long zoom and the 100-400 was an option. Instead I opted for a Sigma 100-300 f4. I couldn't stretch to my ideal 120-300 f2.8.
However, the 100-300 is great. Constant f4, nice and sharp, and not overly heavy (though it is substantial).
I use a Canon 1.4x extender to take it to a 420mm 5.6 and quality is still darned good.
A quick warning though - the first Sigma I got would not focus consistently. I returned it to Jessops and got a second version which is top notch. Buy from somewhere that you can take it back easily. I think I paid £640 from Jessops using some voucher code action and "collect in store".
R
reddeathdrinker
Guest
A second vote for the Sigma 100-300mm f/4 here. But if you can stretch, the 120-300mm f/2.8 is even better (bigger, heavier, and just plain sexy!)
StewartR
Suspended / Banned
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If I were you I'd get another 100-400. There really is nothing around that can compare with it in terms of functionality, ergonomics, build quality and image quality.
As your other thread has shown, most people using this lens don't have particular problems with dust. I think you've just been unlucky.
As your other thread has shown, most people using this lens don't have particular problems with dust. I think you've just been unlucky.
- Messages
- 9,754
- Name
- Bob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It's probably worth noting that chance of seeing dust on a 5D sensor is 2.6x that of an APS-C sensor if all other factors are equal....which they're not.
The later crop bodies all have the filter cleaning system and sticky strip to catch and collect any debris....this will likely reduce the occurrence even further. Using a loop to compare the contents of the sticky strip on a body where the 100-400 has been used extensively to one which hasn't might give a better insight into the level of dust ingestion.
Another variable is the angle at which the lens is used. Shooting and tracking aircraft will inolve the sensor being towards the bottom of the chamber whilst the body will be horizontal for ground based wildlife and low-flying shots...it's bound to have an effect on the the point where any internally airborne dust is likely to settle
Bob
The later crop bodies all have the filter cleaning system and sticky strip to catch and collect any debris....this will likely reduce the occurrence even further. Using a loop to compare the contents of the sticky strip on a body where the 100-400 has been used extensively to one which hasn't might give a better insight into the level of dust ingestion.
Another variable is the angle at which the lens is used. Shooting and tracking aircraft will inolve the sensor being towards the bottom of the chamber whilst the body will be horizontal for ground based wildlife and low-flying shots...it's bound to have an effect on the the point where any internally airborne dust is likely to settle
Bob