Convince Me To Buy A 100-400L

[Alex - Spot-This !]

DON'T
Don't.....


Hi... as an ex 100-400 user I can only agree with EVERYTHING James said.
Maybe I was unlucky and got a bad copy, but if you look at different forums you'll realise that many people seem to have a bad copy too...
Main issue with mine was dust. It was eating dust like a vacuum cleaner. So it went on repair 3x (!!!) times in 2 years and now F*** Canon Switzerland refuses to pay for the repair...
Since that I got the 70-200L 2.8 IS and the 1.4 TC So yes it's expensive but it's just a perfect lense. I have absolutly nothing to complain about, colours and sharpness are incredible reducing the editing time the minimum. My 100-400 was getting soft after 350mm and I found 100mm to be a problem here in GVA where 70mm suits for everything.

Cheers
Alex

[Sam at MAN]

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

ooooo yeh you have to come WE ARE MAD!!!!!! standing out in the cold, wet and dark wooo fun

(and also getting free gravy at the AVP how could i put up with that )

[davepotter]

Go for the 100-400L Steve you will definatly not regret it. It is a sharp lens that yes may not be for indoor shooting but how often are you in the hanger or you see an aircraft parked actually inside the terminal :P.

This lens is all round a fantastic piece of kit, I've coupled it with a 24-105L so have the complete range covered and I'm overjoyed with it!

All I can say is go with your instincts, you say you really want this lens, do it, you know you want too!

P.s - You will always get people who have problems (I feel bad for James and Alex as they obviously got a rough copy which put them off this wonderful lens) and these people more often than not, will vent there displeasure towards the item in question more than people perfectly happy with an item. Its just how the world spins .

[exmanx]

Joey, Joey, Joey......Nikon is a swear word in these parts ....Canon rules and eveyone knows it!!!!!

Not quite everyone young man!! And to see such bias coming from one of the crew? What ARE the proles supposed to think eh? Tsk, tsk!

Andy

[seahawk]

The question is if it has to be 400mm.

In any case it might be an idea to consider some of the Sigma offerings, like the 80-400OS or the lovely 100-300 4.0 HSM. Otherwise it seems that the 100-400 is very popular with Canon shooters.

Not quite everyone young man!! And to see such bias coming from one of the crew? What ARE the proles supposed to think eh? Tsk, tsk!

Andy

If you are using Nikon you canīt be crew

[Mungous]

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.

That's 400 mm equivalent though. If you put a 400 mm lens on the 350D will be like 600 mm so obviously one will be considerably different to the other.

I want one really bad hahaha but I just don't want to think about spending the money. Here's a challenger: figure out a way to justify $1400 on a lens for my 350D!

It'd be more like a 100-400 L with a 350D stuck on the end

[Crism]

That's 400 mm equivalent though. If you put a 400 mm lens on the 350D will be like 600 mm so obviously one will be considerably different to the other.


It'd be more like a 100-400 L with a 350D stuck on the end

Haha good point. Well in that case, I'd like the additional range over my 75-300 .

And yes, it's a 100-400 with a 350D on it

[Airbus_A320]

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.

200 + 1.4 x 1.6 will give you 448mm effective. 400mm x 1.6 will give you 640mm effective. The only way your statement is true is if the 400 is on a FF body, and the 200+1.4 is on the 1.6x crop body. But he only has a 350D, having the 400mm would be a much greater reach.

[Tanner_J]

Right...

I guess I just don't see a point in buying a lens just to shoot aviation, but then again I don't shoot aviation, but once a year.

[LX-A343]

I haven't read all posts, but here's my CHF 0.02 worth.

I have a Canon 100-400 and I have to say, it's a damn fine lens I won't give away. Do I need the 400mm end? Well, at least I have used all the range from 100-400 more or less equally.

The only alternative in my eyes would be the 70-200 f/2.8 IS L, together with a 1.4x or 2x converter.

BTW, I strongly suggest you to read the reviews on www.fredmiranda.com, also the ones about possible Sigma alternatives.

Cheers

[Olli Vainio]

Sigma alternatives.

SIGnificant MAlfunction as an alternative. NEVER!

Canon L-series all the way.

[seahawk]

That is simply put to simpel . While I would most likely also stay away from the 80-400OS from Sigma, as its OS is much less effective then IS or VR from Canon/Nikon. the 100-300 HSM 4.0 however is a lense that can compete with any Canon/Nikon zoom out there in its price range. Built like a tank and praised for focus speed and optical quality.

I have some friends who I did convince to go with this lense instead of 100-400 or 80-400 (Nikon) and neither did regret it.

[exmanx]

If you are using Nikon you canīt be crew

Hey!! Thats discrimination that is! And racist, sexist and any other -ist you can think of!!

Who wants to be crew anyway!!

Andy

[BA747-436]

Not you it would seem lol

[LX-A343]

Yes, who wants to deal with some weird photogs from weird parts of this world anyway ....

Wish you a happy new year!