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

Euan said:
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?
Click to expand...

Old design, not nearly as sharp as the rest of the L range (excepting its 35-300 partner) and at f4.5-5.6 doesn't exactly push the boundries.

The 70-300 IS which actually is technically quite a bit better, but obviously not that 100mm longer.

A zoom which goes out to 400mm will always have a place in the sales chart though, despite all of the above, because people want 400mm zooms - even if long primes deliver better results.

Many are happy with them, because after this point you are into big primes and TC's to get any longer. Results will be better however...
 
so it is you I remember the short arse. Thanks for the advice you give me I also bought the manfrotto 393 and 1.4 convertor hubby nearly had heart attack at the cost but guess what he as done put it away till next week cause its for my birthday.Glad you am on cause I need some more advice on a tripod have only got the manfrotto 190 so need a stronger one which do you recommend reasonbly priced though so I can break it to him gently
 
kaz10 said:
so it is you I remember the short arse. Thanks for the advice you give me I also bought the manfrotto 393 and 1.4 convertor hubby nearly had heart attack at the cost but guess what he as done put it away till next week cause its for my birthday.Glad you am on cause I need some more advice on a tripod have only got the manfrotto 190 so need a stronger one which do you recommend reasonbly priced though so I can break it to him gently
Click to expand...

Kaz post in the equipment forum and ask for advice about the tripod - people get tetchy about us taking threads off topic. Or you can just PM me, but if you post in a thread it's helpful to others folks as well. ;)

I gotta tell you all though, that while I was talking to Kaz, her feller came over and said "Just tell me how much this conversation is gonna cost me". :lol:

Back on topic then... :coat:
 
:bonk:
CT said:
Kaz post in the equipment forum and ask for advice about the tripod - people get tetchy about us taking threads off topic. Or you can just PM me, but if you post in a thread it's helpful to others folks as well. ;)

I gotta tell you all though, that while I was talking to Kaz, her feller came over and said "Just tell me how much this conversation is gonna cost me". :lol:

Back on topic then... :coat:
Click to expand...
will do that about the tripod thanks.He s felt bad ever since he dreads me meeting all you photograghers.Thanks again speak to you soon
 
Trusty robin

robin_a.JPG


Long tail Tit

long_tail_tit_a.JPG


Coal Tit

coal_tit_11.JPG
 
I need to get saving i think and get me one of these lenses! I was out trying to take a few pics of birds today and felt very inferior with my 70-300 and everyone else i bumped into looked like they had a bazooka!!
 
Lovely pics Kaz :) Can you tell me how you took them? How you got close, camera settings etc.

If I'm being honest, they look a little flat and wonder if you might pump them up a fraction in post?

Richard.
 
Nice shots indeed Kaz. I agree with Hoppy, they could be a tad brighter although I'm guessing you got them under that spready old tree in shadow at Birch Coppice.

The LTT is a corking sharp shot but just needs a sharpen and brighten. I've also run noise reduction on the background.

3232656332_b4c0120f3c_o.jpg


I'm not supposed to do this unless your edit box is ticked under your username. Go to User Control Panel to tick the box, or say the word and I'll delete the edit.
 
Thank GOD this is sorted, i was starting to get a bit nervous, i purchased a 100-400L last night off fleebay for just less than £850.

From the images i've just seen, i personally can't see how anyone can say this lens is not sharp, perhaps it's my inexperience but if i get results like those when i'm at my next BSB, WSB or MotoGP meet, i'll keep the 100-400 till my dying day.
 
Well, that is hardly surprising really. You'd be hard pushed to market a lens as "professional" if it was the same as a lens (even a good lens) with a 2x TC on it.
 
Fortress said:
From the images i've just seen, i personally can't see how anyone can say this lens is not sharp, perhaps it's my inexperience but if i get results like those when i'm at my next BSB, WSB or MotoGP meet, i'll keep the 100-400 till my dying day.
Click to expand...

There is always sample variation with some being not as good (& the 100-400 is known for having had some bad qc particularly in older ones). It's also usually considered to soften slightly from ~350mm on but it's overall a very good all round package.
 
Don't all zooms tail off at the long end though? By their very nature zooms have to be a compromise and the ultra-zooms (35-300, 100-400 and sigma 50-500) will suffer more than most.... which is why we don't see everyone using a 10-500mm lens...
 
Another 100-400L shot.This was at about 200mm.

3233982348_7200e54395_o.jpg


And one at 400mm.

2930583313_91a85092cd_o.jpg
 
Kerioak said:
The only real complaint I have about my 100-400 (apart from its user) is that it frequently just is not long enough
Click to expand...

I still say that about the 500mm with converters sometimes! Actually a long prime can catch you out sometimes when you get birds within minimum focusing distance. That's what makes the 100-400 so handy.
 
LOL. I can't honestly see me parting with mine any time soon. ;) I think if I get the 300 2.8, which is highly likely at some stage, I'd still keep it.
 
My 100-400 was nice and sharp too, too many people hear a rumor and that's it, bad news spreads faster than good.

I love my prime super telephotos.
 
CT said:
LOL. I can't honestly see me parting with mine any time soon. ;) I think if I get the 300 2.8, which is highly likely at some stage, I'd still keep it.
Click to expand...

Which makes me wonder why you want a 300mm f/2.8 :thinking: Not that it isn't an exceedingly lustworthy lens, and f/2.8 is always nice, but when I see pics of the quality you have just posted I wonder how a new lens is going to improve them, unless you want even less depth of field ;)

I thought about a 300mm f/2.8 with 1.4x extender as an alternative to my 100-400mm, but it seemed like a less desirable set of compromises just to get 420mm f/4 at the long end. And much more expensive, obviously.

A thought which keeps recurring with disarming regularity is that a better way of addressing long lens problems is to embrace the lastest technology and get a camera with better high ISO performance and really good focusing. Like a Nikon D3, or D700. Canon 1D3 is none too shabby, but I think the 1D4 is going to cost me :eek:

It pains me to think that it might be better to throw money at a camera rather than good and fast glass, it's just contrary to what I've always known, but I keep having these immoral thoughts :help:

Richard.
 
HoppyUK said:
Which makes me wonder why you want a 300mm f/2.8 :thinking: Not that it isn't an exceedingly lustworthy lens, and f/2.8 is always nice, but when I see pics of the quality you have just posted I wonder how a new lens is going to improve them, unless you want even less depth of field ;)

I thought about a 300mm f/2.8 with 1.4x extender as an alternative to my 100-400mm, but it seemed like a less desirable set of compromises just to get 420mm f/4 at the long end. And much more expensive, obviously.

A thought which keeps recurring with disarming regularity is that a better way of addressing long lens problems is to embrace the lastest technology and get a camera with better high ISO performance and really good focusing. Like a Nikon D3, or D700. Canon 1D3 is none too shabby, but I think the 1D4 is going to cost me :eek:

It pains me to think that it might be better to throw money at a camera rather than good and fast glass, it's just contrary to what I've always known, but I keep having these immoral thoughts :help:

Richard.
Click to expand...

I can see what you're saying entirely, but the reasons really go back to when I bought the 70-200 2.8L IS. My other half Jan loves to have a go on zoo visits and those sort of days when the 500mm would be just too long - not to mention heavy to cart around. She loves the 100-400 and the deal at the time when I bought the 70-200 was I use that and she uses the 100-400, which is what we've basically stuck to, and good a lens as the 70-200 is, Jan kills me for reach all day long. :D

She's also getting more interested in bird photography and is acutely aware that she often needs more reach than the 100-400, so the 300 2.8 would be a good solution there, as I already have both Canon converters, so she'd get 600mm with the 2XTC, while I still have a 700mm option with the 1.4X TC.

If it wasn't for the fact that there's two of us I doubt I'd seriously be considering the 300 2.8, although there are occasions where it would be a welcome change from the weight and bulk of the 500mm.

I do agree - I'd rather spend money on good glass than bodies any day.
 
HoppyUK said:
It pains me to think that it might be better to throw money at a camera rather than good and fast glass, it's just contrary to what I've always known, but I keep having these immoral thoughts :help:

Richard.
Click to expand...

LOL. I get lots of those. You really shouldn't be discounting the 50D which will seriously extend the reach of your 100-400L anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top