DSLRUsers.com

Looking to replace the cheap 75-300 lense that came with my camera with the Canon EF 100-400mm f 4.5-5.6 L USM IS.

Would welcome some opinions on this lense and perhaps recommendations of another brand with similar specs and $$$

Cheers
Craig

It would be a very nice upgrade i think. I have one myself and find a very versitile, fast focusing lens. There are cheaper alternatives such as the Sigma 50-500 otherwise know as the "Bigma' which also get good reviews. However you lose the IS or OS (optical stabliser in Sigma lingo) with the Bigma. I know Sigma released a whole slew of new lenses recently at the PMA with OS so you might want to check if this lens has been updated with OS. Other options include any of the 70-200's whether it be Canon or Sigma. Going for a 2.8 version rather than the slower f/4 version will alow you to comfortably stick on a 1.4 televerter and you then have simialr range to your old lens with a faster f stop when 200mm is sufficent. Hope this helps.

Hi Craig,

I recently upgraded from a 90-300USM lens to a 70-200f2.8 IS USM lens and I love it. You could do a search for loads of threads that I posted asking for advice. While your requriements may vary, the L series lenses are simply beautiful. It weighs a bit, but thats what you'd except with IS.

I havent used the 100-400 so cant really comment.

Cheers
Mak

It depends on what you do, personally I'd rather buy the 70-200 2.8 IS and a teleconverter (whichever one) and will be a more versatile combo.

I've tried the 100-400 with teleconverters on the 400d, 40d and 5d and none of them work, not even the 1.4 teleconverter, so since you can't extend the range of that lens, then why not get the legendary 70-200 2.8 IS and get teleconverters for them for a way more versatile combo? Of course you'll be spending extra money.

I actually did what Grev just said with my 70-200 and a 2x but now I have the 100-400 I can say that I much rather the latter. This lens is great in some situations and not in others. Obviously these focal lengths with this f stop is always going to be a compromise but it all comes down to what you are going to use the lens for. If it is for general/sports/action photography taken in good light then it is a beauty. Not so good under low light conditions but overall I find it a good "compromise" lens. The fact that I have the 70-200 f2.8 and a 300mm f2.8 helps in those situations but I still find I use it a lot as a grab and shoot lens.

Well since I'm not that big fan of telephoto lenses, my experience and preference for this is obviously to go for the more versatile combo. And also I don't like the push-pull ones either... Although if we were talking about the 28-300 then it would be a different story, it has more versatility than the 70-200 and the two can't really be compared.

I waited so long before I bought this a) because I had no money and b) because of all the talk aboot its replacement. While it is a "compromise lens" with f stop and the push pull action it is fantastic to just put up to your eye and grab a quick shot - especially of moving action


I love this shot taken under less than ideal conditions - makes the car look brutal.



Late arvo sun is better but to me both are pretty sharp considering

I have a 100-400 IS and love it for day time photography, drags, tractor pulls etc etc. But i also bought a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 for night times at motorsport events and its a great lens too.The 100-400 not so crash hot for night time motorsports even with film ISO set at 3200.
Just curious, to the people here who said they have a 70-200 f2.8 and use a 1.4 or 2x tele converter, doesnt the converter change the f stop? eg wont it change the f2.8 to say f3.5 as an example?

I was saving up to buy one of these but I lost my job so it's on the back burner for a bit. From my searching on the net and many forums, it is a great lens BUT you must bear in mind its capabilities.

It is not good at low light (especially at full zoom) and fully wide open. So you need to have enough light and be careful of the exposure and you shouldn't have any problems. I've seen hundrends of great and very sharp shots taken with it and the ones here are great too.

I'd say go for it (and invest in a monopod too if you haven't already got one).

Yes sydney 1965
a 70-200 f2.8 with 2x is a f5.6
same as 100-400 @ 400

Tony
Thats on a 5D on the smaller sensors a 70-200 is 105-300 I think

Thanks Tony T,
I thought that was the case. Then for the life of me why buy a f2.8 lens and there not that cheap then add a tele converter. That just defeats the purpose of the f2.8. Just save up and buy both lens like i did then you have the best of both worlds.
Cheers.