# Canon 100-400L IS



## PixelRabbit (Apr 3, 2013)

Ok I know I promised that the last thread about a macro lens would be THE last thread in my quest for a new lens, alas I was wrong 

So I have a cheque for $936 burning a hole in my pocket now (I was only waiting for the cheque in the mail up till now but it arrived yesterday! woot! lol) and while I THOUGHT I had narrowed down what I wanted to a macro lens along came a Canon 100-400mm L IS USM. It is listed for $1200 but it looks like if I choose to go this way I can get it for $1000, it is local so I will obv be going and testing the lens etc before the final purchase. 

I have researched this lens and it lands near top of almost all lists for best wildlife lens for my Canon, reviews seem ok to good/great on it. 

I suppose the biggest thing that makes me consider this lens over the macro is I can get a very nice macro lens in the $500ish price range and "fake it" cheap (reverse tubes etc) but I can't fake a wildlife lens cheap and convincingly unless I go with longer fixed focal lengths. It will be easier to gather the funds next time to get the macro @ $500 than it would to get the wildlife lens @$1000+ and I'm already there.

I love love love shooting with my 18-200, I like the versatility of it, I like being able to transition quickly if I see a critter going by.... but .... almost every single day I wish I had more reach.  I have a pond and a river on the property and I can't get to the other side of either of them and barely to the center of the pond where the action happens with my 18-200 with any kind of IQ.
 I think I would feel limited and frustrated by a fixed focal length for this application.

So does anyone have any experience and thoughts on this lens specifically?  Thoughts in general other than I'm a pain in the butt and just need to pick a freakin' lens?? 
Thanks in advance~!~


----------



## Robin_Usagani (Apr 3, 2013)

It is a push pull lens. I had it for a few months ( bought cheap sold high ).  It is a slow lens.  You kinda need to make sure the bird you are shooting is in the sun or you have to use a high ISO.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Apr 3, 2013)

Thanks Robin, my 18-200 3.5-5.6 isn't the quickest bunny in the bunch but I have learned the ins and outs of it, do you think the 100-400 would act similarly to what I currently use?


----------



## jaomul (Apr 3, 2013)

Having only tried this lens briefly on a friends 5d mark ii, it seems to be great (actual owners will give the plus and minus points). the push pull is unusual but I reckon you get used to that in very little time. However I did use a sigma 50-500mm lens for a while and if you could get over the weight it is really great for everything from a close up dog to a bird in the distance. The one i used had no IS but the newer one does. It may not be what you are looking for but it does cover way more range and may save changing lenses as much

Sigma 50-500/4.5-6.3 OS HSM Review - Bob Atkins Photography


----------



## PixelRabbit (Apr 3, 2013)

Thanks Jaomul, I checked the link out, it was nice to see the 100-400 referenced as comparable.  
I'm finding that choosing what lens is right for you is all about little details, what tradeoffs you make with what lens and what one suits you the best, this is quite the process!!


----------



## jaomul (Apr 3, 2013)

I agree. i wanted either the EF100-400 IS L or that siggy with OS. Money didn't allow so i settled for the tamron 70-300 vc. Whatever lens you use those extension tubes are great for macro fake set up. Enjoy whichever you get

Example of said tammy with and without tubes



bee by jaomul, on Flickr




Eagle2 by jaomul, on Flickr


----------



## PixelRabbit (Apr 3, 2013)

Nice shots Jaomul and thanks  regardless of whether I go this way or macro I'm beyond excited and can't wait to get my hands on it!!


----------



## Steve5D (Apr 3, 2013)

The 100-400mm is one lens that I wish I owned...


----------



## PixelRabbit (Apr 3, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> The 100-400mm is one lens that I wish I owned...



Care to elaborate on that Sir?


----------



## CanonJim (Apr 3, 2013)

I've had this lens for about 3 years - once you get used to the trombone effect, it's a class act. It's in the bag of nearly every pro Canon wildlife shooter. It's not designed for low light shooting but in decent daylight it's fine, and the IS does add a stop or two. Out past 300mm though, it really benefits from a tripod, because of the weight. 

Here are a couple from it. The Heron was literally the second or third shot I ever took with it, I stuck it on my XTi the day I got it and went outside to the river in our back yard.  The juvie bald eagle and the adult catching dinner were handheld. One of the secrets of using this (or any long tele lens) for BIF is to set your camera to servo focus (AI Servo on a Canon), center focus spot ONLY, and continuous shooting. You're bound to get one or two keepers out of a dozen or so.


----------



## Overread (Apr 3, 2013)

400mm f5.6 L - the best image quality you can get in this price bracket for new bar none. This is the best option if you want reach and where zoom or a shorter focal length is simply not a concern. It might not have IS, but with wildlife you'll need 1/400sec or faster at the least anyway unless your panning and a monopod is a cheap and quick fix to the lack of IS and a tripod is even better for fixed shooting positions. 

300mm f4 IS L (+1.4TC) - with a 1.4TC you can get up to 420mm f5.6 with IS. A touch down from the 400mm, but still very usable image quality and a very good prime lens. It's good for giving you a bit more variation with your setup and allowing for a great 300mm and a good 420mm with a TC

100-400mm IS L - this might be bottom of the 3, but its image quality is still very usable. You might find that you lose a stop when shooting as you try to lower the aperture by one so that you retain an extra edge of image quality. That said its a very powerful zoom lens and gives you the bonus of being able to use a variety of focal lengths and not just the single focal length that the primes offer. 

Sigma also makes a good 50-500mm and 150-500mm lens options in various forms, the newest of which which are in the same price bracket are easily able to stand up to the 100-400mm. Note that the Sigma options are generally closer to 450mm over most regular used focusing distances (focal length is measured at focus set to infinity - focusing closer can cause many lenses to reduce their effective focal length). 50mm is not much, esp at long focal lengths so you won't miss too much, but it does have the option of a little extra reach. 


All of the above options are great choices and often personal preference comes to the fore as well as your requirements. If you want better you have to go up a big price jump (even for the second hand market).


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 3, 2013)

I purchased one for JacaRanda_wifey for Christmas and rarely is anything else used on her T3I. (BTW she/we also have the 100L macro)  Occasionally I use the 100-400L on my 60D and have no complaints other than we still want/wish we could have something longer.  Auto focus does not work on it when the 1.4 TC is connected.  That being said, the shots we have gotten when there is plenty of light are more than acceptable to us.  

I have suggested to my wife that she comments to perhaps give some added info or perspective for you.  

Almost all of our shots with it have been handheld and that has not been an issue either.  I guess we can call ourselves birders at this point.  I don't think you will be disappointed with it if that is the route you go.  

We are joined at the hip so the flickr page is a mix of both of our shots; more than likely any shots listing the 100-400L were taken by my lovely wifey!


----------



## ducatiman1967 (Apr 4, 2013)

I was in the same boat, wanting more reach than my 70-200. But in the end my wife and I decided to go with the 400 f5.6 prime as it's sharper wide open and we'd always want to be at the long end of a zoom.


----------



## PixelRabbit (Apr 4, 2013)

CanonJim said:


> I've had this lens for about 3 years - once you get used to the trombone effect, it's a class act. It's in the bag of nearly every pro Canon wildlife shooter. It's not designed for low light shooting but in decent daylight it's fine, and the IS does add a stop or two. Out past 300mm though, it really benefits from a tripod, because of the weight.
> 
> Here are a couple from it. The Heron was literally the second or third shot I ever took with it, I stuck it on my XTi the day I got it and went outside to the river in our back yard.  The juvie bald eagle and the adult catching dinner were handheld. One of the secrets of using this (or any long tele lens) for BIF is to set your camera to servo focus (AI Servo on a Canon), center focus spot ONLY, and continuous shooting. You're bound to get one or two keepers out of a dozen or so.


Thanks so much for your thoughts and the sample shots Jim.
Ah you have a river close by also so you can relate!  The river is off our front deck and there is always someone flying by! My 18-200 was great to learn on, but I definitely need more reach now, here are some shots I've taken with it around here.






















And this one I just love the moment caught 











Overread said:


> 400mm f5.6 L - the best image quality you can get in this price bracket for new bar none. This is the best option if you want reach and where zoom or a shorter focal length is simply not a concern. It might not have IS, but with wildlife you'll need 1/400sec or faster at the least anyway unless your panning and a monopod is a cheap and quick fix to the lack of IS and a tripod is even better for fixed shooting positions.
> 
> 300mm f4 IS L (+1.4TC) - with a 1.4TC you can get up to 420mm f5.6 with IS. A touch down from the 400mm, but still very usable image quality and a very good prime lens. It's good for giving you a bit more variation with your setup and allowing for a great 300mm and a good 420mm with a TC
> 
> ...



Thanks so much Over, I researched everything and this is what I figured out.

I definitely want a zoom, I want the versatility that comes with it, I love using my 18-200 and I know I would feel limited a fixed focal length so the 400mm and 300mm are out.

The Sigmas have a lot of charm and are very tempting, where they fall short is weight most of all, they are both about 4lbs vs. 3lb for the 100-400 (which is already 2+x's the weight of my 18-200).  I will be hand holding probably 90% of the time, again like with the fixed focal length I feel limited when I'm on a tripod unless I'm doing something specific.  As a "sometimes" lens I would be sold.



JacaRanda said:


> I purchased one for JacaRanda_wifey for Christmas and rarely is anything else used on her T3I. (BTW she/we also have the 100L macro)  Occasionally I use the 100-400L on my 60D and have no complaints other than we still want/wish we could have something longer.  Auto focus does not work on it when the 1.4 TC is connected.  That being said, the shots we have gotten when there is plenty of light are more than acceptable to us.
> 
> I have suggested to my wife that she comments to perhaps give some added info or perspective for you.
> 
> ...


Thanks so much JacaRanda!  I checked out the flickr page, nice examples 
Don't we always want a little more focal length?? lol I'm pretty sure I'll be super happy with around 400mm for quite a while but eventually I'm sure I will yearn for more!!
From what everyone is saying about the light and this lens it sounds like it is going to act very much like my 18-200 but actually better at around 200mm where mine obviously falls short.  


ducatiman1967 said:


> I was in the same boat, wanting more reach than my 70-200. But in the end my wife and I decided to go with the 400 f5.6 prime as it's sharper wide open and we'd always want to be at the long end of a zoom.



Thanks for your thoughts Ducatiman  I will certainly consider a prime in the future to round out the edges of my gear but with this being my first lens purchase I have a whole lot in the middle to improve on before I get there


----------



## Overread (Apr 4, 2013)

Sounds like the 100-400mm is warming to you! 
The only other similar option that I can suggest is a Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS L MII (not the original version nor the Sigma) - that with a 2*TC is:

a bit heavier than a 100-400mm
more expensive than a 100-400mm
Sharper through the 70-200mm range (actually its outstanding over that range)
Just as good as the 100-400mm over that range with hte 2*TC - note that the 100-400mm retains the edge just, but its very slight and after editing you won't be able to tell them apart. 

I only suggest that as I know that 70-200mm are a popular grouping of focal lengths for many and for some it proves to be a good inbetween option - good enough with the TC to get you to 400mm and a good enough lens on its own that if you ever upgrade to something better for the longer ranges it will still be of use .


----------



## PixelRabbit (Apr 4, 2013)

Now that one looks yummy for sure, I love the idea of using the TC and having room to upgrade and it still being usable, but after a quick search for new/used it is way out of my price range


----------



## sm4him (Apr 4, 2013)

Since I'm a Nikon shooter, and have serious jealousy issues concerning anyone with a lens longer than 300mm, I can't really be of any specific help as far as whether the 100-400mm L is a good choice, BUT:

Macro, Wildlife and Abstract are pretty much the three *main* things I shoot. I got my macro lens, and extension tubes, before I got my 70-300, but I totally agree with your assessment. If you have the money right NOW to get the longer lens--do it!!  You won't regret it.

Get the longer lens now, when you HAVE that money. Then start saving up again for the macro; as you said, you can always just buy some extension tubes or even a reversing ring in the meantime. But getting more reach is a different ballgame.

Also--I don't know which macro lens you settled on, but I got my Tokina 100mm macro used from (I think) KEH (might have been B&H...) for just over $350. So, keep your eyes out for a good deal and you might just be able to add that macro lens sooner than you think.


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 4, 2013)

This review is old, but seems to be fair.  He has a paragraph regarding Macro.

Canon 400mm f/5.6 L versus Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L - Canon Digital Photography Forums


----------



## Derrel (Apr 4, 2013)

Looks like mebbe it's time to clear out a bunk for the 100-400 zoom...


----------



## PixelRabbit (Apr 4, 2013)

sm4him said:


> Since I'm a Nikon shooter, and have serious jealousy issues concerning anyone with a lens longer than 300mm, I can't really be of any specific help as far as whether the 100-400mm L is a good choice, BUT:
> 
> Macro, Wildlife and Abstract are pretty much the three *main* things I shoot. I got my macro lens, and extension tubes, before I got my 70-300, but I totally agree with your assessment. If you have the money right NOW to get the longer lens--do it!!  You won't regret it.
> 
> ...


Thanks Sharon!  I was worried I was just trying to convince myself to go this way because it's spring and all the birds are arriving home, and the Eagles are sneaking closer and closer to us (there have been reports of sightings of two of them once upriver and last week downriver), and I found the bunch of Eagles on the lake, and and and lol.  I could do the same with macro though, everything is springing so even if for whatever reason I end up going the macro way (I'm not ruling anything out until the lens is in my hot little hands lol) I'll be thrilled to have a new toy   I just want to be smart about choosing the toy 


JacaRanda said:


> This review is old, but seems to be fair.  He has a paragraph regarding Macro.
> 
> Canon 400mm f/5.6 L versus Canon 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L - Canon Digital Photography Forums



Thanks Jaca, I didn't see that review, it definitely confirms my suspicion that I would feel limited with a prime at this point.


Derrel said:


> Looks like mebbe it's time to clear out a bunk for the 100-400 zoom...


I think that perhaps you may be correct  Definitely leaning that way... like reeeeeeeeeally leaning that way.... it makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside


----------



## ronlane (Apr 4, 2013)

Hey Pixel. You know what they say "a little less talk and a lot more action"   Just get it and get us some pictures posted.


----------



## Overread (Apr 4, 2013)

Go for it!  

You won't regret it!


----------



## Tony S (Apr 4, 2013)

I have the 100-400 and have been pretty happy with the use I've gotten from it. Images from it come out clear and contrasty, although you do need to make sure you have the shutter speed up high enough to keep things motion free. I tend to use it when I want to cut down on weight or limit what I pack, this is only because my long lens of choice is my 400 2.8 IS which weighs nearly 12#.

This eagle shot was taken on my Alaska fishing trip. I was in a 14 foot skiff moving in the opposite direction and the sun had set about 15 minutes earlier, probably the worst light I would even try to use the lens in...


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 4, 2013)

Overread said:


> Go for it!
> 
> You won't regret it!



I don't think she will regret it either.  But I think I will.  I am seriously looking at the 400 prime now.  I have a major love - hate relationship with this hobby! :crazy:


----------



## PixelRabbit (Apr 4, 2013)

Ok ok ok! I'm sold!! I was 99% of the way there and you sealed the deal Tony 

 I've been trying to "visualize" how this lens stacks up against what I'm used to with my 18-200 especially in low light, this is a perfect example.  The second the sun gets low and I'm not in direct light I might as well put my camera away for birding because my lens simply won't do anything other than silhouettes with any measure of quality. 

Well, this has been a heck of a learning curve!  

At first I was like "YES! I still have the poker moves!! I have money to spend!!"





 Then I started shopping around and was like "I know NOTHING..."





So I tried to figure it out... but I was getting nowhere.





Then I asked you guys and got to work edumacating myself. It took a while.... (as you know  )





With your help and lots of research I finally started getting a grasp on it... phew!





So finally I have made the decision and I'm back at YES!...





And I can't wait to get the lens in my paws!!





So a BIG HUGE BUNNY THANK YOU TO EVERYONE!!










I went from knowing basically nothing to being able to make this decision confidently, thanks everyone for your help, I really appreciate it!

Phew!!




Tony S said:


> I have the 100-400 and have been pretty happy with the use I've gotten from it. Images from it come out clear and contrasty, although you do need to make sure you have the shutter speed up high enough to keep things motion free. I tend to use it when I want to cut down on weight or limit what I pack, this is only because my long lens of choice is my 400 2.8 IS which weighs nearly 12#.
> 
> This eagle shot was taken on my Alaska fishing trip. I was in a 14 foot skiff moving in the opposite direction and the sun had set about 15 minutes earlier, probably the worst light I would even try to use the lens in...


----------



## squirrels (Apr 4, 2013)

PixelRabbit said:


> At first I was like "YES! I still have the poker moves!! I have money to spend!!"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 I love this story so much!


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 4, 2013)

Me too.  Especially since I went through the same process.  Except I did not ask anyone in TPF.  Next time, I am going straight to Overread!


----------



## Jacaranda_wifey (Apr 5, 2013)

Hi PixelRabbit.  You will NOT regret getting the 100-400mm it is a fantastic lens - once you get used to the push/pull it's a snap....oh and of course the weight.  Again you will get used to the weight, I hand hold most of the time and we go out anywhere from 2 to 8 hours at a time and use this lens 98% of the time.  Go for the gusto!!!


----------



## ronlane (Apr 5, 2013)

Pixel's out shooting with her new lens. While we all sit here at our PC/Mac waiting on her to return to show us pictures......... Come on Pixel, hurry up.....


----------



## PixelRabbit (Apr 5, 2013)

Thanks so much Wifey! I've decided to go with it!
Ron, close! Leaving shortly to go look and maybe come home with my new lens! 
Be back in a while!


----------



## Overread (Apr 5, 2013)

Show us pictures of the new lens when it arrives!



Ps one tip I've picked up regarding the lens is to ensure that you always release the pressure lock fully before zooming the lens back or forth so that you don't wear the rubbery material inside the locking ring.


----------



## stevensondrive (Apr 5, 2013)

PixelRabbit said:


> It is listed for $1200 but it looks like if I choose to go this way I can get it for $1000, it is local so I will obv be going and testing the lens etc before the final purchase.



I too have looked at this lens.  It looks incredible.  But I am confused where you can get it for such a good price?  is it used?  cause I can't find that price anywhere online.....


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 5, 2013)

stevensondrive said:


> PixelRabbit said:
> 
> 
> > It is listed for $1200 but it looks like if I choose to go this way I can get it for $1000, it is local so I will obv be going and testing the lens etc before the final purchase.
> ...



I think she is going somewhere local.


----------



## stevensondrive (Apr 5, 2013)

it sure is a good price


----------



## PixelRabbit (Apr 5, 2013)

Look who came home with me 

Sorry, crappy iPod pic for tonight.

First impressions .... O M G!!!!


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 5, 2013)

Yayyyyyy.  Have fun!


----------



## squirrels (Apr 5, 2013)

Ooooo!


----------



## PixelRabbit (Apr 5, 2013)

Thanks you two!!


In the car....

Me... Did ya hear that Hon?
Mr R..... Hear what?
Me.... The lens focusing.
Mr R.... No....
Me.... EXACTLY!


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 5, 2013)

Haaaaaa.  Good one.


----------



## Overread (Apr 6, 2013)

PixelRabbit said:


> Look who came home with me
> 
> Sorry, crappy iPod pic for tonight.
> 
> ...



You wait till you see it - FULLY EXTENDED!!


----------



## Tiller (Apr 6, 2013)

PixelRabbit said:


> Thanks you two!!
> 
> In the car....
> 
> ...



I think most people have that conversation with their first USM lens. I did


----------



## pgriz (Apr 6, 2013)

Congrats!  The downside is...  you have fewer excuses for taking only "OK" shots.  The upside is....  with that lens, no-one is going to mistake you for a newbie.  Uh-uh.  

So....  where are the pics? :waiting:   sexywink


----------



## PixelRabbit (Apr 6, 2013)

Overread said:


> PixelRabbit said:
> 
> 
> > Look who came home with me
> ...


Oh it's TOTALLY sexy  Lets call a spade a spade, lenses are about as phallic as you can get and I feel very well endowed right about now  


pgriz said:


> Congrats!  The downside is...  you have fewer excuses for taking only "OK" shots.  The upside is....  with that lens, no-one is going to mistake you for a newbie.  Uh-uh.
> 
> So....  where are the pics? :waiting:   sexywink


Thanks Paul! Haha, do I at least get a grace period?  
Just got back from a little walk around here with it, Miss Gabby my faithful sidekick came along and Mr. Rabbit kinda joined... with the ATV lol So not much hope of anything furry or feathered but took some shots to see "near and far" etc... I'm going to make a "first time out" thread in a bit


----------



## kathyt (Apr 6, 2013)

:addpics:


----------



## PixelRabbit (Apr 6, 2013)

Oops, no time to finish editing, we are heading out for a drive to a conservation area nearby that should have a bunch of ducks and geese


----------



## Derrel (Apr 6, 2013)

100-400 Canon L?????


----------

