100-400mm Canon

[Bushcraft]

Hi,

Has anyone got a brand new copy of this lens? I wondered if it's pin sharp throughout the range? I know the older copies were soft after 300mm but I have heard this is now not the case.

Cheers
Kris

[Boddie]

Originally Posted by Bushcraft

Hi,

Has anyone got a brand new copy of this lens? I wondered if it's pin sharp throughout the range? I know the older copies were soft after 300mm but I have heard this is now not the case.

Cheers
Kris

I was pretty chuffed with my images from last weekend. Johns is a week old

[DaiTheDragon]

I think the focal length doesn't matter the f number has more effect, I find f8 is the sweet spot and gives the sharpest images.

Dai

[cannylad]

Hi Dai just got one myself and still in the process of trying it out. I can only compare it to the Sigma 170-500mm and it seems ok so far but not outstanding.

This could be me or could be the lens, as i am relatively new to photography, the Sigma performs well on a tripod but i bought the Canon because of the IS so i could hand hold it.

[colincurry]

Good morning

I have had one about a fortnight, and I think it is amazing. This is my first venture into the SLR field and I am as green as grass. I cannot compare it with anything else. I have posted a couple of snaps of a grey heron, one across the river on a log and one in flight. Both were taken at 400. You might find a peek at these helpful.

Best

Colin

[Bushcraft]

You all have some very nice images. I want somthing in between to go with my prime lens that will be with me soon. The 100-400 does look very nice indeed, but then so does the 300 f4 with IS, razor sharp images.

Its going to be either the

70-200 2.8
300 f4
100-400

All very different, i know, but im thinking the 300mm will have a sight edge over the 100-400, and a 1.4 can be added when and if needed.

Kris

[Boddie]

Originally Posted by Bushcraft

You all have some very nice images. I want somthing in between to go with my prime lens that will be with me soon. The 100-400 does look very nice indeed, but then so does the 300 f4 with IS, razor sharp images.

Its going to be either the

70-200 2.8
300 f4
100-400

All very different, i know, but im thinking the 300mm will have a sight edge over the 100-400, and a 1.4 can be added when and if needed.

Kris

Are you going to get one of these lenses before or after the Sigmonster?

[Bushcraft]

Originally Posted by Boddie

Are you going to get one of these lenses before or after the Sigmonster?

As I have said twice before, the sigmonster had a fault and went back, hence some new glass.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Bushcraft

As I have said twice before, the sigmonster had a fault and went back, hence some new glass.

yeah but I thought you said you were going to get the canon 600 f4 IS to replace the sigmonster. all the lenses you list are decent kit but none are in the sigmonster league for length (or price)

another nice one is the sigma 800mm prime - very heavy and very pricey (somewhere in the region of 4.5k) but reputedly very tasty too

Or of course you could've just got the sigmonster fixed....

[Bushcraft]

Originally Posted by eeyore

yeah but I thought you said you were going to get the canon 600 f4 IS to replace the sigmonster. all the lenses you list are decent kit but none are in the sigmonster league for length (or price)

another nice one is the sigma 800mm prime - very heavy and very pricey (somewhere in the region of 4.5k) but reputedly very tasty too

Or of course you could've just got the sigmonster fixed....

I went for a 500mm f4 in the end after testing the 500 and 600, I think the 100 loss in a way can have an advantage with handholds. Im not after maximum reach, I just need somthing to fit in the middle and was interested in seeing what kind of images they can produce in the right hands. It would help if I could test them out without renting.