Convince Me To Buy A 100-400L

[Crism]

I would like the 400mm so the 70-200/1.4x is out of the question. Wright had a GREAT copy of the 100-400. What was wrong with yours James? I've seen some shots with the Sigma 80-400 and they haven't been as nice as I'd like. Here at work there's a spot where I can get VERY nice sunset shots at about 1/20-1/50 which is why I want a nice IS.

[photoid=5875523]

I've also heard that the Sigma OS isn't as nice as the Canon IS. The 50-500 would be perfect but it doesn't have OS.

The worst part is that there's no lens rental places around me so I can't test drive any of them!

I could always go to the mall at Ritz and order the 100-400. Worst comes to worst I can always return it.

[B7772ADL]

What was wrong with mine....

1. It was un-naturally soft at 400mm, waymore soft that i've seen on other examples, so I can only assume it was poorly calibrated out of the factory.
2. At 6 months old the IS failed in a major way on the very day I was flying out to LAX for the first time back in 2004.
3. Back at the end of 2005 it started producing blurry images on one side, which when went in for service was attributed to a faulty AF motor (which i don't think was the case now). I merely think the calibration was screwed, but too late ...also factoring in that my 20D went psycho at the same time and needed the focus system re3-calibrating.
4. It was a big player in causing dust problems with my 20D which have diminished alot since switching to a twist zoom.

It's fine now, but out of frustration I switched to the 70-200 set up and i've not regretted it at all. The 70-200 produces consistently more in focus shots than my 100-400 ever did at all legths of zoom and even with a 1.4x attached. I'm not going back.

[turbotraker]

What swayed me to this particular lens was this review:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx

Do you rekon it may just have been a problem with your lens?

[Crism]

What was wrong with mine....

1. It was un-naturally soft at 400mm, waymore soft that i've seen on other examples, so I can only assume it was poorly calibrated out of the factory.
2. At 6 months old the IS failed in a major way on the very day I was flying out to LAX for the first time back in 2004.
3. Back at the end of 2005 it started producing blurry images on one side, which when went in for service was attributed to a faulty AF motor (which i don't think was the case now). I merely think the calibration was screwed, but too late ...also factoring in that my 20D went psycho at the same time and needed the focus system re3-calibrating.
4. It was a big player in causing dust problems with my 20D which have diminished alot since switching to a twist zoom.

It's fine now, but out of frustration I switched to the 70-200 set up and i've not regretted it at all. The 70-200 produces consistently more in focus shots than my 100-400 ever did at all legths of zoom and even with a 1.4x attached. I'm not going back.

Are you sure you didn't get a bad copy? I would have had it replaced the minute I saw soft images at 400mm. I don't have a problem with dust, I'll just buy a blower thing.

[B7772ADL]

Are you sure you didn't get a bad copy? I would have had it replaced the minute I saw soft images at 400mm. I don't have a problem with dust, I'll just buy a blower thing.

Yup, I absolutely got a bad copy. I know of many fellow photogs who think it's great and have had no problems.

I also know that the IS failure isn't an isolated problem and has happened to numerous copies of the lens.

[JordanD]

Are you sure you didn't get a bad copy? I would have had it replaced the minute I saw soft images at 400mm. I don't have a problem with dust, I'll just buy a blower thing.

Yeah just to let you know Steve those blowers don't get everything. Or maybe Nikon just put glue on the D50 sensor.

[Crism]

I still think the 100-400 is perfect. I don't really go anywhere at the moment (that'll change next summer hopefully). The 75-300 III USM is what I use. I shoot off the parking garage here at PVD and that requires at least 300mm. The other streets aren't bad with my current lens, but I'd like to get some closeups past 300mm too. I really wish I could go to BOS too. There's a bunch of really nice spots where I can use a 100-400 to get some sick shots (especially the Terminal B garage). I want to go to Vegas again this summer, LAX, San Diego, and I'll be in DAB next fall (Wright replacement ). I'm going to try to get to MAN as well to visit all the crazy Englishmen too!

I was thinking about getting a Haze filter for my 10-20. It'll probably work well.

Yeah just to let you know Steve those blowers don't get everything. Or maybe Nikon just put glue on the D50 sensor.

Wouldn't surprise me...it IS a Nikon

[turbotraker]

Convince Me To Buy A 100-400L

Have you been convinced?

I'm going to try to get to MAN as well to visit all the crazy Englishmen too!

Us, crazy? yep we have to be to put up with MAN weather!!

[BA747-436]

Use the lens......come back to me.....tell me your not convinced....

Seriously though, apart from James dodgy lens I cant fault it. I wouldnt swap it for anything in its range. As an all round lens for this zoom range you cant beat it. You'll find it in pretty much every pro-shooters kit bag. If that doesn't say enough, then well.... I give up lol

[turbotraker]

Use the lens......come back to me.....tell me your not convinced....

Seriously though, apart from James dodgy lens I cant fault it. I wouldnt swap it for anything in its range. As an all round lens for this zoom range you cant beat it. You'll find it in pretty much every pro-shooters kit bag. If that doesn't say enough, then well.... I give up lol

I have already been convinced and will be ordering mine today......I shall be back on in new year with my comments. Cheers

[Crism]

I'm waiting before I slam my head into my desk. I've decided that this is the lens that I want. Yes, you HAVE convinced me . But now the justification of $1400 on a lens (which is more than the camera cost lol). I get my check from work tomorrow so I'll have to see what goes down and see how much money I've got extra. Looks like I'll have to put in some OT this week since I've got it off school and need to buy this lens

[Airbus_A320]

I'm waiting before I slam my head into my desk. I've decided that this is the lens that I want. Yes, you HAVE convinced me . But now the justification of $1400 on a lens (which is more than the camera cost lol). I get my check from work tomorrow so I'll have to see what goes down and see how much money I've got extra. Looks like I'll have to put in some OT this week since I've got it off school and need to buy this lens

In the end, lenses will cost more than your camera. Lenses are supposed to outlast your camera. Thats why when you buy your first SLR, you aren't just buying a camera, your buying that SLR system.

[seventwo]

I agree, the lens gets the picture, the camera just puts in on a memory card/film.

The 100-400 is a very nice lens, I'm happy with mine!

[BA747-436]

Hey dont complain boys. I paid £2000 for mine as soon as it came on the market. In saying that I havnt had one single problem occur with it and it looks almost as good as new.

[Tanner_J]

A 70-200 with a 1.4 is very close to 400mm on a 1.6x crop body. If you're getting nice sunset shots (assuming sillhouette) you'll go for a fast shutter than 1/50.