advertisement


Canon 100-400 Lens - your thoughts?

Bartman

Bartman

pfm Member
I'm thinking about buying one of these lenses for our family return trip to Tanzania for a safari next summer. Have any PFMers had experience of this lens, good or bad? It will be on a 450d or 550d alongside 15-85 and 55-250 Canon lenses. Is the bellows effect of the trombone zoom likely to be an issue for a hobby photographer in dusty African conditions?
 
My father has had his since 1998 and had good results, but also a few problems. It has been to fixation twice, Lehmanns once and Elstree once, pretty much being fully rebuilt. My 300 f4l is which I got the same week in 98 has been much more reliable, and notably sharper even on the 1.4x. However, a colleague bought one more recently which performs better than my fathers.
 
Did a safari of a lifetime a few years and used my 70-200 f2.8, all the time wishing I had a 100-400 as there were loads of them being used and the extra reach would have been handy. Bought the 100-400 a couple of years later and love it for cricket and animal shots. Getting used to the bellows action isn't a problem and even wide open images are plenty good enough.

You are right to be worried about sand/dust, but as long as you are sensible it shouldn't be a big problem, I did have to get my 70-200 cleaned when we got back as the action had become 'gritty'.

Enjoy
 
If the push-pull zoom caused problems, canon wouldn't make it. Realistically, for dust penetration to cause problems in a telephoto you'd have to be getting vast amounts of the stuff into the lens to even be visible, and then it will be out of focus and just give reduced contrast...

My experiences with it (albeit borrowing a friends for a little) is that it's a bloody great big lens, and produces excellent images. Your cropped camera will feel very small on the end of it, but it'll produce great results. Factor in a monopod to reduce the weight to hold if you are planning to be out and about with it all day.
 
Oh, and the 100-400 isn't weather sealed, i'd be more worried about that than dust, as I do tend to shoot in the rain a fair bit.
 
Had one since 2005 and taken literally 10's of thousands of images with it in USA, Africa and Europe. Never missed a beat. Much easier to take on trips than a big prime telephoto.
Strong rumours that a replacement will be announce within the next year though.

This was a jpeg taken in The Kruger with a 1D/3 at 375mm


 
Dya mean like the one being modeled here by PhilEos?

4737293454_b89ca6a4a2_z.jpg


Mull
 
 
I borrowed our guide's 100-400 while in Zambia on safari in 2004. It was a cracking lens for a safari, and he still has it for motorsport snapping in Kenya, but used it on hundreds of rallies 2005-2008 in the uk. He did get it serviced in about 2007 and had a teaspoon of dust returned in a small poly bag. But considering the extreme use it'd been through, that wasn't surprising. Dusty rallies are more testing than a safari.

I'd forget the 55-250 by the way. What on earth would you use that for? Seriously. We were limited to 12kg each, total baggage. No room for pointless glass.


Tony
 
24-105 and a 100-400 is all the glass you'd ever need on a trip. It's my preferred travelling combo. Especially on a full frame body
 
I'd go as far as to say a 100-400, and a nice 24mm compact camera. No lens changing, both ready at all times, light.

Tony
 
Took the kit lens and my old 70-300 (sadly departed) on my previous 300d body on last year's safari. Elephants were so close on one occasion I needed the standard zoom. Replaced the 300d with a 550d and 450d backup, and the kit 18-55 lens with the 15-85, which is a good deal better. Thankyoul for all the feedback on the 100-400. The replacement (200-400?) seems much bigger and out of my reach at £6k+. Serengeti and Ngorogoro next year - weight of glass not such an issue, the advantage of taking 2 teenagers with us!
 
The 200-400 F4 is in no way a replacement for the 100-400. That's like saying the new BMW 7 series is the replacement for the 3 series - they are different classes of lens.
 
Another option is the 400mm F5.6. Sure it isn't a zoom, but my expereince when I was taking wildlife was that reach was paramount, and I got the impression that the 100-400 wasn't at it's best at max zoom. The prime also has amazingly fast focus, which certainly can be useful. Here's one I took of a falcon in action when I owned a 1D a few years ago:
Bird-02-ABAF6930.jpg
 
No IS on that lens though. I find at 400mm the IS can really help save a shot, since you don't need huge fast shutter speeds on occasion (e.g. Slower moving wildlife) but on a 400mm without IS you'd need at least 1/400th to keep a steady shot. Not always easy with a lens that only does f5.6
 
Only does f/5.6, and most action is at the beginning and end of the day, where even in Africa the light level does plummet, and quickly.

Tony
 
Cesare said:
Oh, and the 100-400 isn't weather sealed, i'd be more worried about that than dust, as I do tend to shoot in the rain a fair bit.
Click to expand...

Good point, but get a 'Storm Jacket' for a few quid to protect it. The push-pull action is an advantage then as it's easier than a twist-to-zoom with the lens protected.
 
Yeah but then in defense... The 100-400 only does f5.6 at 400mm. But at least you have IS to help low light shots. You can get some success as low as 1/100th at 400mm with IS and a steady hand
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top