Why is the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS so cheap?

Euan

Euan

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,585
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi not that i think that £1000 odd is cheap!! but for an L lens with the range it has and IS why is it the price it is? I appreciate its not a fixed aperture etc.

Whats the general opinion on this one?
 
it's quite an old basic design & it's popular so it's (relatively) cheap to manufacture, stock etc.
Having said that the Nikon 80-400mm VR & Sony's new 70-400mm G SSM are also priced in the same general area so perhaps it's what they feel the market will bear ...
 
I was wondering if it was sharp or not, had realized it wasn't very fast. Thanks
 
+1 to what Ian says, mines very sharp
 
Ultimately, the 100-400 is quite basic in design. It's not constant aperture and isn't parfocal....both would represent an increase in manufacturing costs. Added to this is the positioning of the IS sensors and correction motors in a less than ideal frontal postion...less robust but easier to produce and it becomes a very saleable lens built to a budget.

Bob
 
by that I mean comparatively. F4.5 is not fast by modern zoom standards, nor is 5.6 at 400mm, and for the cost of a 2x TC a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS will easily match the sharpness on a 100-400. The point Im trying to make is the fact that most sport 'togs (myself included) wont bother with one as we'd prefer to carry a TC with our 70-200's than another Kilo of lens. Im into motorsport and personally Id have a 300mm f/2.8 and have the weight than carry a lens that offers me such a limited functionality.
Personal preferance. Didnt mean to offend.
 
ThePitwall said:
... and for the cost of a 2x TC a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS will easily match the sharpness on a 100-400.....
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of the 100-400 but it's not that bad. I would class the 70-200 IS with a 2x as emergency use only.

Bob
 
No offence taken, Just have to be careful with generic sweeping statements, there are lots of people say they arent sharp but i doubt they have actually spent the time to learn how to use it. I havent tested my 70-200 f2.8 IS with a 2x against the 100-400 but with the degredation the 2x gives id be surprised if it matched it to be honest. (Will have to make a note and test that at my first opportunity though :)) I will admit, a 300 2.8 will run rings round it though :)

The biggest downside to the 100-400 is, it isnt constant aperture, and isnt particularly fast, as has been mentioned before, it does give a lot of useful range and spent almost a year on my 20D as my walkabout lens, its an almost perfect Zoo lens. I have since bought much more expensive glass and now my walkabout (ok Hobbleabout) is a 600 F4 IS but i still cant bring myself to sell the 100-400, it may go soon but i just cant bring myself to do it just yet !

Just as an example this is 20D and 100-400, need to find the original and find the exif though.

0520-145231-01.jpg


Another example, this is at 400mm though, and a faster subject.

Lewis1.jpg
 
ThePitwall said:
and for the cost of a 2x TC a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS will easily match the sharpness on a 100-400.
Click to expand...
Actually, it won't even come close.
(Had both lenses, the 100-400 was sharper at F5.6 than the 70-200 + 2x Canon TC.
And AF was quicker.
 
I had one for a while but walking the circuits, I got fed up with carrying it. As I had a TC an a 70-200 and the intention for a 300 f/2.8 I gave it back. On my 1 series I couldnt see any difference that would benefit carrying it in sharpness or AF speed. Didnt meant to make sweeping statements. Apologies for any offence caused.
 
ThePitwall said:
As I had a TC an a 70-200 and the intention for a 300 f/2.8 I gave it back.
Click to expand...
don't think that anyone will disagree that a 300/2.8 perhaps with a 1.4x TC is preferrable in terms of IQ but it's also considerably dearer (& less flexible).
Personally as an amateur I can't justify £3000 for a lens but I can £1000.
 
The 100-400 does lose a bit of sharpness right at the 400mm end. Work at 350-375 and it should be fine especially stopped down to f8. However the 400mm F5.6 prime is annoyingly sharp, but doesn't have the flexibility of the zoom and no IS. ( in the £1,000 f4 model)
 
Its an ok lens and can produce good results, but you'll need good light. I can hand hold it in daylight at 400mm and get sharp results if the TV (shutter speed) is set to about 640 or so. I guess its popularity comes from its versatility - 100mm - 400mm is a lot for a single zoom to do well.

I've got a 300mm f/4 and that's much sharper. And lighter and nicer to use.
 
If all this is true, how come Sigma can make a 120-400mm f4.5-5.6, with UD glass and IS for under £500. It's not quite a sharp as the Canon 100-400, but it's not far off and also half the price and a much more modern design. Don't get me wrong, if I had £1000 I'd have bought the Canon lens, but I do think it's a tad overpriced.
 
The 100-400L is a cracking lens, and great value for money. All my wildlife shots were taken with it prior to getting the 500L, and it doesn't lack for sharpness at all.

Converters aren't ideally used behind any zoom lens. Having said that, the 70-200 2.8L IS takes a 1.4X TC better than most. Image degradation using the lens with a 2X TC is patently obvious and is just best avoided.

I've done side by side tripod mounted tests with both these lenses, and the truth of the matter is that as soon as you stick a converter behind the 70-200, the 100-400 out-performs it in every respect. Your max aperture of f2.8 becomes f4 straight away due to the converter, and I found that I needed to stop down 2 stops to f8 before sharpness equalled that of the 100-400 wide open, so the 100-400 ends up being both sharper and faster.

Probably if Canon stuck another 500 quid on the price, this lens would get the respect it deserves. ;)
 
pxl8 said:
Am I the only one thinking ewww? :gag:

:D
Click to expand...

LOL. Well it's past the water shed I suppose, and it is intriguing just how many people we're talking about here? :eek:
 
Thanks for all the info, it does seem to be very good value for money. Another lens added to my long list of things to play with and maybe buy!
 
My 100-400 is my favorite lens, absolutely love it, and to my eye the images are ace.
 
Hi

I took this at the British Grand Prix last year using my 100-400

The exif shows 400mm, 1/800 at f5.6. (IS in mode 2). I think it's pretty sharp bearing in mind the speed and distance from the subject (not to mention my camera shake :'().

IMG_0830.jpg
 
I think thats really sharp! im being swayed more and more towards getting one of these i could have done with the extra range this morning, never mind the IS!
 
i want this lennssssssss wish i could afford it :(
 
Mine's so sharp I have to be careful not to cut myself on it :D

Ostrich%20III.jpg


Seriously, as already mentioned, used properly you really can't get better quality for the money imho :). I've always been more than happy with the results from mine although I can't deny an ever increasing craving for a 500mm f4 :nuts: :help:
 
Just look at what you get for the money! No wonder it's popular, and used ones hold their value.

I'm really looking forward to the time when I can look at my pictures with it and say that my hand-holding and focus technique is so good that I've reached the limit of the lens' sharpness. Roll on that day!

Nikon make a sharper lens, and it's faster too. The 200-400mm f/4 VR. Only problem is it's massive, over double the weight, and costs £4k. Apart from that, loads better ;)

Oh and BTW, the 100-400mm L is now over £1,200, thanks to the exchange rate I guess.

Richard.
 
ThePitwall said:
Its not very fast and its not very sharp.
Click to expand...

ThePitwall said:
by that I mean comparatively. F4.5 is not fast by modern zoom standards, nor is 5.6 at 400mm, and for the cost of a 2x TC a 70-200mm f/2.8 IS will easily match the sharpness on a 100-400. The point Im trying to make is the fact that most sport 'togs (myself included) wont bother with one as we'd prefer to carry a TC with our 70-200's than another Kilo of lens. Im into motorsport and personally Id have a 300mm f/2.8 and have the weight than carry a lens that offers me such a limited functionality.
Personal preferance. Didnt mean to offend.
Click to expand...

Canon Bob said:
I'm no fan of the 100-400 but it's not that bad. I would class the 70-200 IS with a 2x as emergency use only.

Bob
Click to expand...


I bought a second hand one from the ads on here and have been really pleased with it.

Yes canon could do with replacing this lens and a 2.8, non push/pull version would be brilliant but really you just have to use it within it's limits.
It's very strange how quickly you get used to push pull again

I've a 1.4 tc but really you need to manually focus with it, so I rarely bother. I have had some great moon shot with this combo though.

I find for sport it's brilliant - I use mine regularly for motorsport, rugby/football matches and have just started shooting a few birds with it.

A few very recent examples at 400mm & 360mm

1/125s f/5.6 at 360.0mm iso800
108016257.jpg


1/200s f/5.6 at 400.0mm iso800
108016254.jpg


1/400s f/5.6 at 400.0mm iso800
108016249.jpg
 
Byker28i said:
Yes canon could do with replacing this lens and a 2.8, non push/pull version would be brilliant but really you just have to use it within it's limits.
It's very strange how quickly you get used to push pull again
Click to expand...

It's not gonna happen. The Canon 400mm 2.8L prime costs 6.5K and weighs a ton. You really wouldn't want a zoom version unless it came with it's own wheels and chassis. :D

I actually prefer the push/pull zoom - nice and intuitive - no forgetting which way to turn the zoom ring.
 
Another vote in favour of the 100-400 here. It's probably my most used lens. It seems pretty sharp to me, and have had other people comment about it's sharpness too.

So out of all the people who have replied to this thread, nobody is unhappy with the sharpness of this lens?
 
I have just bought the 300f2.8 lens but would not give up my 100-400 for anything.It is sharp and easier to hand hold even for me who is small. I find it a easier walkabout lens.Will put some of my pics on later which I think am very sharp i m a newbie on here by the way so hi to everyone. by the way is that CT who was at marquis Drive and gave me a go on his 500f4 cause he was a real help to me when I asked his advice on the 300f2.8
 
kaz10 said:
by the way is that CT who was at marquis Drive and gave me a go on his 500f4 cause he was a real help to me when I asked his advice on the 300f2.8
Click to expand...

:wave: Yo short arse! :D

Glad you joined Kaz - and congrats on the 300mm 2.8 :thumbs:
 
It's a cracking lens, and given the right light, pin sharp. At the moment it's my main lens and rarely off the camera.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top