Reviews for the Canon EF 100-400 F4.5/5.6L

[abchip]

Does anyone have personal experience with the Canon EF 100-400 F4.5/5.6L? Right now I'm using the 24-70 F2.8L on my 5D mark II and now I'm looking to invest in a telephoto lens. My question is, has anyone experienced the lens being slow to focus and/or poor performing in low light? The lens gets great reviews when used in outdoor bright light but one use I would like this lens for is indoor natural light pet photography. Any advise would be much appreciated!

[OsmosisStudios]

Only issue I had in my limited use was the zoom mechanism: Push-pull is VERY weird when you're not used to it.

[abchip]

Originally Posted by OsmosisStudios

Only issue I had in my limited use was the zoom mechanism: Push-pull is VERY weird when you're not used to it.

Thanks for the advise!! With the push-pull do you feel dust can easily enter the lens? We have lots of dust and dirt here in Colorado.

[RichardTaylor]

I have owned this lens for three years or so, and while it a great good light lens, if the focal length range meets your needs, it is too slow, as is any F4.5-F5.6 lens for poor light photography, unless shooting on a tripod or for relatively static subjects.
The push-pull zoom mechanism is not a problem.
It is rare that I am shooting in dusty conditions.

For low light, when not using a tripod, shooting I use fast, ~ F2, primes.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by abchip

Thanks for the advise!! With the push-pull do you feel dust can easily enter the lens? We have lots of dust and dirt here in Colorado.

Dont know about dust, it's just very different to get used to when you haven't done it before. Im sure youd get used to it.

[irispatch]

I think the reviews for the 100-400mm amount to a long series of love / hate relations. While I have never owned one I have rented them on several occasions. Though I think for your application it will be too slow and over kill on FL. Perhaps look at a 70-200 F2.8

100-400mm:
Pros, great range and usually acceptable images especially if you use a tripod.

Cons Does not work well with TCs image quality drops when you try using them.
For many the push pull is a royal pain and remembering to lock the zoom down before picking up and moving on is critical.

Really the best way to determine if this is a lens that you want to invest inis to contact Lens Rentals and rent one for a week or two. Give it a through testing on the subject matter you are planning on using it for. I think in a week or less you will know if this is a lens that you will love or one that you do not want to drop $1200+ on.

Do not take too long to decide Canon prices go up 10% Feb 1.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by abchip

...I would like this lens for is indoor natural light pet photography...

You want to use an f/4.5-5.6 supertelephoto for available light? Wow. I think you have an overinflated idea of what IS can actually accomplish for you. For this kind of photography, I'd actually say a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, EF 135mm f/2L USM, or EF 85mm f/1.8 USM would be a better choice.

Originally Posted by irispatch

...Do not take too long to decide Canon prices go up 10% Feb 1.

Where did you hear this? Canon Rumors? You know that Canon Rumors has the CR1 rating defined as "A rumor from a source I’ve never heard from, take it with a grain of salt." Right?

Wouldn't surprise me if it happened (it's been happening a lot the last few years), but also wouldn't surprise me if someone's playing a game of telephone with the fact that the winter rebates are about to end, and it'll be a few months before the summer ones kick in.

[abchip]

Thanks everyone for the helpful advise! As put by Irispatch there seems to be a love/hate relationship with this lens. From your suggestions I need to decide whether I want the FL or a faster lens like the 70-200 F/2.8. I do like the idea if renting the lens to try it out...now if I can only convince my husband (I know you're reading this) what a great idea that is.

Originally Posted by inkista

You want to use an f/4.5-5.6 supertelephoto for available light? Wow. I think you have an overinflated idea of what IS can actually accomplish for you.

What, I can't have my cake and eat it too?

[inkista]

Originally Posted by abchip

What, I can't have my cake and eat it too?

Oh, wouldn't it be lovely if IS meant f/5.6 was good for available light on anything that moves.

The main thing to keep in mind with IS, is that it's very much like a tripod or a monopod: It only helps you with camera shake blur--it does diddly squat in terms of subject motion blur. You're still using slower shutter speeds. Only more max. aperture or higher ISO is going to help get your shutter speed high enough to freeze action.

As I said, I prefer using an EF 135mm f/2L USM.


Canon XT/350D. EF 135mm f/2L USM. iso 100. f/2. 1/4000s.

[in2fx]

A friend loaned me her 100-400 for as long as I want it and have been using it mostly in good light and have grown to really like it, but after a couple of months decided on the 70-200 f/2.8 II IS for the larger aperture.
I am still enjoying the 100-400 for the reach, but will next get a x2 II for my 70-200 to allow me out to the same focal lengths, but still have the faster lens without it.
I have used the 100-400 indoors and had to boost the ISO way too high for my liking and would steer well clear of this lens for indoor pet photography.
For indoor pet photography, I have used a EF 50 f/1.8, EF 24-105 f/4 L and even a EF-S 18-200 with very good results.
Hopefully you can borrow a few lenses so that you can find out what works best for your tastes.