Convince Me To Buy A 100-400L

[B7772ADL]

Why replace my crappy 100-400 with another crappy copy when I can have a 70-200 F2.8 instead? It's not a difficult choice

[Simpleboy]

It's gotten one of the best ratings for a zoom lens at Fredmiranda: 9 (137 reviews) http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/s...&cat=27&page=1

Sam,

Not to be a pain in the ass, but ALL four 70-200s have gotten higher, with 2 9.5s and 2 9.8s.

[Sam S.]

Why replace my crappy 100-400 with another crappy copy when I can have a 70-200 F2.8 instead? It's not a difficult choice

Sorry to burst your bubble but why did you buy the 100-400L in the first place when you knew you could have a 70-200 2.8 instead? In Manchester you need something faster than F/4.5+ with that kind of weather!

Who said that the second one would be crappy? You return it to a shop untill you get a copy that is sharp. I know a 3+ people which own a 100-400L that gets close to the 300 F/4 and the 400 F/5.6 in terms of sharpness. I'll be sending in mine to calibrate the optics to get the same results even though mine is bringing out perfect images at the momment.

100-400L and 70-200s play in a different legues. There is about 100mm where the both lenses can compete together (100 to 200mm). It all depends on where you spot planes and how much you need.

Not to be a pain in the ass, but ALL four 70-200s have gotten higher, with 2 9.5s and 2 9.8s.

Offcourse! 70-200mm is 130mm zoom difference in total. The 100-400L is 300mm zoom difference. Canon had it much easier to find a perfect balance so it would be sharp throughout the "zoom". 300mm zoom difference is a heck alot more. Your going to have to sacrifice more sharpness so that its equally balanced. Ever wonder why Primes are so sharp? No zoom, they can find the ideal setting and make it as sharp as possible without sacrificing anything. Offcourse there are many more factors which count besides this one.

Sam,

[B7772ADL]

Sorry to burst your bubble but why did you buy the 100-400L in the first place when you knew you could have a 70-200 2.8 instead? In Manchester you need something faster than F/4.5+ with that kind of weather!

Sam,

Why?....glad you know my whole story.

I got the 100-400 as I couldn't afford the F2.8LIS and 1.4x converter at the time (3 yrs ago). I need at least 300mm where I shoot. At the time the 100-400 was the lens to have and for the first 6 months it was fine.

Then the IS failed...when I spend that much money on a piece of metal and glass I expect more. In the UK they don't just replace your lens cos it breaks 6 months down the line. It's got a warranty so it gets fixed.
Secondly it was always soft at 400mm even after re-calibration. Thirdly the focus started going crazy at which point I lost all faith in it and switched.

I did take it out for one last session a couple of weeks ago. I'm not going to miss it's 70% acceptable shots, compared to let's say about 85-90% usable shots I get from the 70-200 combo.
I admit to missing the length, but that's what a 300/400mm prime will be for when i've sold the 100-400 and can buy one of those instead.

[Simpleboy]

Offcourse! 70-200mm is 130mm zoom difference in total. The 100-400L is 300mm zoom difference. Canon had it much easier to find a perfect balance so it would be sharp throughout the "zoom". 300mm zoom difference is a heck alot more. Your going to have to sacrifice more sharpness so that its equally balanced. Ever wonder why Primes are so sharp? No zoom, they can find the ideal setting and make it as sharp as possible without sacrificing anything. Offcourse there are many more factors which count besides this one.

Sam,

Ok, now to be a pain in the ass, If i got a 10-140mm lense would it have the same sharpness as my loved 70-200? Id love such a lense, and i know many others would too. As you stated above, theres only a 130mm difference, so it would be 'easier' to balance out and get right.
The Sigma 300-900 (sigmonster) is an incredibly sharp lense, capable of photos sharper than the 400 f5.6 (and i have seen comparisons), and it has a 600mm difference between max and minimum focal length, so why did sigma achieve it there, yet Canon cant even get a 300mm difference right?
The difference in focal length isnt the deciding factor as much as the ratio between the maximum, 70-200 is just under 3x, 100-400 is 4x, the sigmonster is 3x a 10-140 would be 14x, so quality wise i wouldnt expect very much. yes Primes are sharp becasue they have no zoom, but the difference in zoom plays very little part. The ratio between min and max plays a larger part, 3x seems to be the golden number in which most good zooms fall.

And i left out other factors there too.

[Christobal65]

I have seen most of the complaints posted about this lens in several different places including some reviews... That being said if I shot Canon i would probabally buy this lens. Since Nikon doesnt offer a similar lens (the 80-400mm is a slow shaft driven focusing lens) I will be making the jump to a 70-200mm f/2.8.

[Airbus_A320]

I'm still trying to figure out why people keep talking about a 70-200 lens when the question was about a 100-400. If you need 400mm range, who cares how good the 70-200 is, it's not gonna do the intended job. Around the US, you can't get right up next to the planes, so you need every little bit you can get. And besides the bad copies and nit picking everyone seems to like to do, from the results I've seen from people who have it, it's a pretty damn good lens for when you need something between 100 and 400mm and can't/don't have the time to switch lenses. If you get a bad copy, just send it back. Yeah, the 70-200 may be sharper, etc, but if you need 400mm to get the shot, why would you get a 70-200. And at places like BOS, you need every little bit you can get.

[Christobal65]

I'm still trying to figure out why people keep talking about a 70-200 lens when the question was about a 100-400. If you need 400mm range, who cares how good the 70-200 is, it's not gonna do the intended job. Around the US, you can't get right up next to the planes, so you need every little bit you can get. And besides the bad copies and nit picking everyone seems to like to do, from the results I've seen from people who have it, it's a pretty damn good lens for when you need something between 100 and 400mm and can't/don't have the time to switch lenses. If you get a bad copy, just send it back. Yeah, the 70-200 may be sharper, etc, but if you need 400mm to get the shot, why would you get a 70-200. And at places like BOS, you need every little bit you can get.

Well most people are saying to get the teleconverter, at either 1.4x or 2x (for canon), to go with it. I ment to say i was getting the teleconverter (1.7x or 2x) with the 70-200mm f/2.8, but i forgot to.

[Crism]

I'm still trying to figure out why people keep talking about a 70-200 lens when the question was about a 100-400. If you need 400mm range, who cares how good the 70-200 is, it's not gonna do the intended job. Around the US, you can't get right up next to the planes, so you need every little bit you can get. And besides the bad copies and nit picking everyone seems to like to do, from the results I've seen from people who have it, it's a pretty damn good lens for when you need something between 100 and 400mm and can't/don't have the time to switch lenses. If you get a bad copy, just send it back. Yeah, the 70-200 may be sharper, etc, but if you need 400mm to get the shot, why would you get a 70-200. And at places like BOS, you need every little bit you can get.

BOS is one of the places I was actually hoping to go. I was planning on driving up and around for the 22 arrivals and 27 arrivals. Then take the Blue Line from Orient Heights over there to Terminal 2 and hit that parking garage. After that I'd hop back in my car and check out some of the places to the side underneath the 4's. What time of day is best to shoot over there in February? That's when I was planning on doing this if I get it by then. Hit me up with a PM if you've got any more BOS tips. I know all the ones on SpottersWiki.

[Sam S.]

B7772ADL:

Ouch... now thats got to be a pain. I've never heard any stories about that. A few friends of mine(2) brough their first 100-400L back to the shop after one week of intensive testing, though they needed it for their job and not a hobby.

Simpleboy:

You got a point there. If there were a 10-140 lens at a certain point the nasty little "wide lens" sideaffects would come up though. 10mm being to close to a fisheye (or is it?) I don't get how you would zoom. Anyways,

BTW. The "Bahigma" is 300-800 (not 900), but still impressive piece of equipment.

In the states you have less choice when buying lenses. There are certain areas where you can get close (LGA/LAS) but most areas do need a lot of range. I found myself using 400mm a lot this summer. (BNA/LAX/SFO) In Europe, you usually don't need this much range but its always nice knowing you have 100-200mm more mm left to get creative and bring up some new angles.

Sam,

[Simpleboy]

Simpleboy:

You got a point there. If there were a 10-140 lens at a certain point the nasty little "wide lens" sideaffects would come up though. 10mm being to close to a fisheye (or is it?) I don't get how you would zoom. Anyways,

BTW. The "Bahigma" is 300-800 (not 900), but still impressive piece of equipment.

Even with it being 800, my points are still valid:P.

The 'fisheye' effect is something that the lense has to be made to do or is an effect of the manufacturer trying too much. Canons 10-22 has very little distortion at 10mm
(see below)


However, the 17-85 has a fair bit more,

(Images from photozone.de)

Generally,distortions on lenses are most pronounced when it is a designated 'fisheye' or it goes from a wide angle and has a high 'zoom' power.

[philh]

Granted the 200 is sharper by itself but I heard the teleconverter causes a fair lack if quality when used to get to the full 400 (my mate has this set up and has commented on just this).

What is the comparitive result between the 200 with tele at full zoom and the 400 alone?

[B7772ADL]

200 + 1.4x looses quality slightly, but at 300mm i'm still gettting results way better than 100-400, in terms of consistency of in-focus un-blurrry shots.

200 + 2x....general feedback suggests no better than 100-400.

I'm going to pick up a 2x later this year (just for fun) and also selling on my 100-400 to be replaced with either a 300mm f4LIS prime or the 400mm f5.6 prime, which the proceeds of the 100-400 sale should pretty much cover.

[Christobal65]

200 + 1.4x looses quality slightly, but at 300mm i'm still gettting results way better than 100-400, in terms of consistency of in-focus un-blurrry shots.

200 + 2x....general feedback suggests no better than 100-400.

I'm going to pick up a 2x later this year (just for fun) and also selling on my 100-400 to be replaced with either a 300mm f4LIS prime or the 400mm f5.6 prime, which the proceeds of the 100-400 sale should pretty much cover.

Which will still be far superior to my current lens...course im a Nikon guy so what do you guys care