Canon Mount Zooms (Page 2): Now that is one damn good photograph

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

imagemeister wrote:

Canon 60D and Sigma 100-300 f4 W/Tamron SP 1.4X @ 420mm from monopod......

..

Now that is one damn good photograph - impressive.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

I agree, renting is one way to determine if you like the lens. Another way is to buy from a house that has a no questions/full return policy.

orchidalan Loc: Arroyo Grande, CA

Hi, have the sigma 150-600 C lens with the sigma 1.4 converter. They say that only fits 3-4 of their Sigma lens and I tried to see if it would fit on any of my Canon lenses but the way it fits into the lens makes it not fit, but it works good with the Sigma lens without any real quality loss (maybe a little softer focus). It is heavy but for the size of lens it really isn't too bad. I'm happy

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

TriX wrote:

Now that is one damn good photograph - impressive.

Seeing is believing ......I shot this combo along side the Canon 300 2.8 W/2X II and could not tell any difference. The Sigma 100-300 with the Canon 2X II is astounding ! (no AF tho)....

..

ggab Loc: ?

Travelin' Bud wrote:

Hi all. I've been mulling around the idea of possi... (show quote)

Consider the Sigma 100-400 contemporary. Not as heavily built as the Canon II, however sharp as a tack.
My $0.02 worth! The picture was taken hand held on an older EOS 7D.

Norm W. Loc: Southern CA

I have the Canon 100-400, it has served well. For action photography I find the push pull zoom effective.
The negative was after a time it needed an expensive repair. I learned that this repair was a usual requirement for that lens.
If buying a used one be wary of previous use.

khumiston

I have a Canon EF 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS II USM lens I use for casual wildlife and ecological photography. I also have a 600mm prime but generally use it with a tripod so it usually goes on outings for a specific purpose, eg. nesting birds which make great subjects but one doesn't want to get close enough to flush th birds from the nest, or wildlife that are hard to get close to, the 600 is very nice, but a little large and heavy for carrying on long hikes. But the 100-400mm is my favorite lens for a walk in a local park where I see wading birds. Regarding the zoom; it can actually be operated either push-pull or by rotating the wide knurled band around the lens (the forward and wider black band if you are looking at it on the Canon or other retail websites). The narrower band toward the camera end of the lens the manual focus. I seldom use the push-pull zoom for anything except when putting the lens back in the very nice protective sleeve that comes with the lens. The sleeve even has a belt loop which is very convenient for bringing along an extra lens without having to carry a case or backpack. I flipped a BOTE paddle/motor board, which turns out not to be quite as stable as advertised by the salesman I bought it from. Although my camera and 100-400mm lens were in a well padded "dry box" it turned out to not be quite completely dry, and my camera and lens got wet. A little salt water goes a long way on delicate electronics, and by the time it got to Canon by express overnight shipping, saltwater corrosion had rendered both camera and lens unrepairable. More accurately the repair cost would exceed the cost of new equipment. To me it would make no sense to incur the repair cost instead of new equipment for less money. Also, Canon offered an "upgrade discount", which meant stepping up one in quality at the cost of the cheaper model which is a nice deal if you find yourself in the unfortunate situation I was in. I took advantage of the offer for the camera body and went from a 70D to an 80D which I've not had an opportunity to use yet so I have no comparison to offer. And regarding the lens, Canon considers that lens to be top-of-the-line for that class of lens, so I bought a new one identical to the old one. If it is within your budget I think you will be very happy with the 100-400mm 4.5-5.6 L IS II USM lens. I also have a BOTE for sale cheap. It is actually an interesting craft for backwater fishing, very shallow draft and can get into small waterways and despite my accident it is actually quite a bit more stable than a plain paddle board and will get you where you want to go quickly with a 6 HP 4 stroke Yamaha engine. Not ideal as a stable photography platform, although certainly possible with plenty of light and fast shutter speeds. I plan to use more it to get to a site, then set up on land or in shallow water for photography, and of course for fishing. But I could be talked into selling it for a reasonable price, I am 72 and think I'd have enjoyed it more if I had it when I was younger.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Norm W. wrote:

I have the Canon 100-400, it has served well. For action photography I find the push pull zoom effective.
The negative was after a time it needed an expensive repair. I learned that this repair was a usual requirement for that lens.
If buying a used one be wary of previous use.

Just curious - what was the nature of the failure? All information appreciated.

Travelin' Bud Loc: New Mexico, Central Ohio & Eastern Kentucky

amfoto1 wrote:

People either love or hate push/pull zooms. I know several people who really enjoy their Canon 100-400. I personally don't like push/pull, but that's just me (so I jumped on the II version of the 100-400).

The push/pull zoom has been particularly popular among birders (for bird in flight images) and air show photographers. Anywhere the fast zooming action is beneficial.

That earlier version of the Canon lens is excellent too... not quite as sharp as the II... but darned good.

DON'T put a "protection" filter on the push/pull version of the 100-400mm. For some reason even a high quality, multi-coated filter tends to make that lens "go soft". The II is fine with filters.

Also be aware that the push/pull version's Image Stabilization needs to be turned off at the switch, should you ever use it locked down on a tripod or in any other situation where there is no movement. It' sgot the form of IS that goes into sort of a feedback loop and creates movement and image blur, when there is no movement to counteract. Since the lens is more often used handheld (or on a monopod or tripod with a gimbal), this usually isn't any problem (I've used a pair of 300mm f/4 with similar IS and never had any problems with them at all). The II has an upgraded form of IS that turns itself off when not needed.

If you don't want to go as big as the Sigma or Tamron 150-600mm.... an alternative they both offer is their own 100-400s. These were introduced within the last year and between the two I would probably prefer the Tamron because it can optionally be fitted with a tripod mounting ring (which I consider essential on a lens reaching 400mm, especially when it's used on an APS-C camera). The Sigma 100-400 doesn't have any option for or means of adding a tripod mounting ring (both the Canon 100-400s include them, and both Sigma and Tamron 150-600s come with tripod rings).

The Sigma and Tamron 100-400s are are the same or less weight than the Canon 100-400s... 3 to 3.5 lb. The 150-600 Sigma Contemporary and Tamron G1 and G2 are around 4.5 lb. The Sigma "Sport" 150-600 is about 5.5 or 6 lb.

The Canon 100-400mm is 2/3 stop faster than the Tamron or Sigma 100-400s, through most of their range. Especially the Sigma, which starts out at f/5 and drops to f/5.6 almost immediately at around 110mm, then to f/6.3 by about 180mm... the Canon starts at f/4.5 and is f/5 through 310mm, where it stops down to f/5.6 and no farther.

You can find a TC to fit any of them, but won't have autofocus on a T6i if you use any teleconverter on any of these lenses.... 100-400 or 150-600. The T6i is "f/5.6 limited". These lenses are already f/5.6, so adding even a 1.4X will make things too dim for the camera to focus. A 2X would even make the viewfinder too dim to use for manual focusing (Live View manual focus may be possible, but is slower... FYI T7i, 77D, 80D and 7D Mk II have f/8 focus capabilities).

When it comes to image quality, teleconverters almost always work better with prime lenses than they do with more optically complex zooms. There are some exceptions, usually specific teleconverters with specific lenses. For example, the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS "II" works very well with the EF 1.4X III teleconverter. That lens isn't bad with the 2X III either. I can tell you from experience that the older version 70-200/2.8 IS was not great, but okay with 1.4X II and not very good at all with 2X II. I don't know how the new III version of the lens works with TCs yet.

I've had the Canon 100-400mm II for two years now.... and to be totally honest, I've never had need for a teleconverter on it!

People either love or hate push/pull zooms. I know... (show quote)

Thank you Alan. This is a LOT of valuable and applicable information! I've read it three times thus far and will continue to refer to it as my final decision draws nearer.

Thanks for taking the time to aid me in my quest!

Norm W. Loc: Southern CA

TriX wrote:

Just curious - what was the nature of the failure? All information appreciated.

Sorry don’t recall the exact problem and don’t have the records. I think it was in the auto focus system it cost several hundred dollars.
I live in Southern Cal and picked the lens up at the Canon shop. They had just moved to a new facility. In a large room were samples of all the camera and lens products. Most were available to be handled. Amazing place.

khumiston

All of the electronics were corroded from salt water. Canon sent the unrepairable items back to me so out of curiosity for what they looked like inside I started taking them apart. everything was corroded, it is very ugly.

Curt B

CHG_CANON wrote:

You might consider renting a copy of the new 100-4... (show quote)

I have the 300 f/4L IS lens myself. I've used it very little in the years I've owned it, but the images I have gotten with it are very impressive. It's a wonderful lens. While I would, myself, consider the 100-400 Series II lens if I felt the need for a 400mm lens (even though I'd give a great deal for a 400 F2.8L III if I could afford it), I'm thinking that a used 300 with a teleconverter might work well for you. I've recently upgraded to a 5D Mark IV with the new 24-70 f2.8 II, and been thrilled with that combo. I'm a firm believer in Canon L glass, so I'd go that route if you can find the funds to do so.

kmohr3 Loc: Rockford, IL

I bought a 100-400 mark I (used) and it worked very well. But one thing I noticed was that the barrel lock would not fully stop the lens from moving, signifying that it was worn out. So I googled it and found what happens at that point is you will notice some black flaking material coming out from under the focus ring. Eventually small ball-bearings will come out as well and the lens barrel will get stiff, jerky, and maybe lock up. I found out that it's a $400 repair. So, I decided that I would trade mine in and get the mark II before mine had a chance to go bad. Others have claimed that they have used theirs for many years after the barrel lock quits working.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Travelin' Bud wrote:

Hi all. I've been mulling around the idea of possi... (show quote)

If weight is of concern, check out the 400/5.6L, it really does weigh next to nothing, so its the ideal lens for handholding and the IQ is way better than the 100-400 I !