Best Zoom Lens for Canon (now talking about 2.8 IS)

What are your thoughts on the Canon 100-400 zoom? Is the push/pull zoom a big negative? Is there a better choice in terms of use and image quality?

I need a walk about lens that is multi functional and am considering this one but thought I should check with the folks that know first!

thanks in advance,
Peter

Hi Peter. I have been using the Canon 100-400 with the EOS 40D body for the past 11months and have not found the push/pull zoom to be a problem at all. It is certainly a heavy piece of kit to carry for any length of time. I don't think that I do it justice by trying to take pictures of birds which are too far away and then enlarging them on the PC. When I take pictures of subjects at a closer distance then the quality improves. I think it is more down to me than the lens!

Peter, I have had the 100-400 for over a year now and still have a love-hate relationship with it. I love the focal range and it has allowed me to capture some images that otherwise would have been out of range, but I hate the push-pull because it's a little awkward to handle and I really hate that it throws my gimbal of balance and have to reset it every time I change the focal length. I love the fact that it's "carryaroundable", but I hate that in many situations the f4 just isn't fast enough and if I pump up the ISO then I have to deal with the grain, etc. I hate the fact that most of my shots are softer than I would like, but then I love that one shot out of 100 that has the right focus, exposure, lighting and is pin sharp. That's one reason why I just got the gimbal system (amazing - I love it), to eliminate any issues of shake. That may have something to do with the gallons of coffee I drink, but i'm not ready to that up yet.

I am now seriously looking at replacing it with the 70-200 f2.8 IS USM + 1.4 TC. As you know, the 70-200 is an in-lens zoom. Then also picking up a 400 f4 for bird and wildlife photography.

I'd like to hear other opinions and thoughts on this as I'm sure you would too.

Garry

Hi Peter:

I had the 100-400 for several years and as Garry mentioned, i would occasionally get a very sharp image from it. However, most of my images were softer than I would have liked. That said, it could be my technique. As you are probably aware, Nick Saunders uses that lens a lot and gets amazing results. For reference, I picked up a 300 f4 for a walk around lens and it works well with a 1.4TC. This is a pretty new acquisition, but based on a relatively small sample of images, I think I'm going to like it. My last two posts were taken with this system, so you can see what kind of sharpness I'm getting (when I use the right technique).

Peter, From all I've read, there is quite a bit of variation in the sharpness of the 100-400 from copy to copy. I had one for a year and liked it, but wasn't getting those really sharp shots so I sold it and bought the 400/5.6L. It is not IS but you don't need IS at high shutter speeds. I LOVE this lens and I started getting much sharper shots once I switched. It doesn't off the focal length range, so if you really need a zoom it's not the answer, but it is a fantastic lens, and it's much cheaper than the 100-400.
Regards,
Michele

Thanks everyone, it doesn't really sound like there is a great solution. I would like the versatility of a zoom when I'm just walking without knowing what I may encounter of interest but then again if the results are not sharp.....

I think I'll just wait and hope Canon does something great.

I'll add my 2 cents worth on the Canon 100-400. I used it on my 50D to photograph eagles in Alaska last year and found the lens to be exceptionally sharp. With the IS mode on 2 and shutter speeds above 1/500 every image was tack sharp. The lens is a bit heavy to be hand holding for any length of time.

I too, have been working lately to improve my number of keepers with my 100-400. I was not familiar with Nick Saunders work, but went to the avian gallery and did a search for Saunders. I then went to his gallery where you can view the Exif data for his shots. It seems that most of his shots are of well lit subjects using an aperature of f8 and a shutter speed of at least 1/300. And I am sure he is using good long lens technique. The combination of all these factors probably combines to make this lens work to our liking.

Ken

Peter, One last thought ... have you considered the 70-200 IS with either a 1.4 or 2.0 TC? I'm sure you can find lots of feedback on those combinations. It is known to be a very sharp lens and is relatively lightweight. I'm thinking of getting one because I do sometimes miss having a zoom. But then I'd have to get another camera body because I don't want to be without the 400!
- Michele

Peter and Michele, as I mentioned in my earlier comment, I am also considering the 70-200. It has a huge reputation for being an extremely sharp lens. Some reviewers even say it's the best lens Canon ever made. I'm considering the f2.8 over the f4. Yes it is heavier, about the same as the 100-400, but the filter thread is also the same; 77mm. The f4 is definitely lighter and smaller (67mm) and easier to walk around with, but it is also slower and you'd have to get different filters. Just can't seem to win.

So to continue the discussion along the 70-200 lines, does anyone have a sense for how much better the IS II is over the original IS lens (both 2.8 models)?

I have not tried the new 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, but my older 2.8 IS has been great! I use it for 90% of my shots, and couldn't be happier. Although I am now looking at getting a longer lens, for walking around this lens is superb. I know the f/4 is lighter and cheaper, but the extra stop of light has been extremely useful (far more so than I thought it would be). If I were you, I would buy one of the older 70-200's because I truly doubt the new features (are there really any?????) are worth $500 when the old version is already known as one of Canon's best lenses... Hope this helps!
-Cam

Peter, My sister has the 70-200 2.8 (non-IS) and she takes great sports shots, with and without the 1.4TC. If you are using high shutter speeds IS doesn't matter. I love the Canon 400/5.6, which is non IS. It produces sharp images handheld at medium to fast shutter speeds, and for low speeds, I use a tripod. With regard to the 70-200, the IS would be useful if you want to handhold at less than say 1/300 or 1/400 sec, but I'd put my money into the extra stop before the IS. Photographers have been making great images without image stabilization for many decades.
Michele

Thanks everyone, I am using the 2.8 IS. (not the IS II)

Peter