100-400mm Canon f5.6 Good and Bad

[huntnphool]

Bean Counter, for me there are two lenses that are a must to have for shooting critters and covering a wide range of shots, the 70-200 2.8 IS and the 400mm f/4 IS DO. With these two lenses there is almost nothing you cant do when shooting deer, elk, sheep, goats etc.

 The 400mm 2.8 IS is a nice lens but at that size and weight packing it into the hills will require a sherpa unless you are built like Bone, but even he uses his point and shoot way too often because of the bulk. The 400mm DO is half the weight, half the price and I believe just as sharp. It makes spending the extra money on the 2.8 out of the question for me. By the way, most of those Canada picks Pope has been posting are with the 400mm DO.

 Back on topic though, until you are ready to spend the coin on the 400 DO, the 100-400 will get you in the game.

[boneaddict]

Its hard for me to relate distance to what I can take a picture of.  First of all, one of those cool things about fixed power lens, is that when you put a double or 1.4 on it, it generally seems to still take a pretty clean shot.  So essentially, I have my 400, throw a doubler on it, now its 800 F5.6 (I think) if not F4 with the 1.4.  Then throw in teh crop factor with the camera I have and its even more. 

If you shoot a sharp image, then its amazing what you can crop.

[Timber]

When Timber was considering his new 400, I think my quote to him was "If you can wait until you can afford it, you'll never get it."   

That quote from bone was the final straw for me. My only regret about buying the 400 2.8 is that I wish I had bought it sooner.

Here are a few random examples of what the 100-400 f5.6 lens can do given decent light. Two of these pics wouldn't have worked with a fixed power lens, because the animal was too close.

[Hornseeker]

Nice pics Timber!! YOu selling that lens??

[Timber]

Yeah, I want to sell it and buy a 70-200 2.8. I've been too lazy to put it up for sale anywhere. Are you interested? PM me if you are.

[popeshawnpaul]

Since others have posted some good 100-400 pictures I'll hold off.  One comment above was it won't get many field and stream covers but people don't have 4-6k for a lens.  It can get some covers as some of the good pictures posted show.  However, the 300mm f4 L IS can get covers and is a big step up from image quality than the 100-400 and it's cheaper.  Couple that with a 1.4x and you can do some good work with that combo for about $900.   

[popeshawnpaul]

I hate mm as a designator of "power"  as a lifetime shooter, why can't they just make it an "X"?  Point being, with a prime of 300 or 400, what is the approximate range that a decent shot can be made?  If a moose is grazing in a meadow or clear cut, and I can get to within 80 yards, is a 300mm lense going to do much for me?

The "x" designation just doesn't work well for photography.  Suppose you had a 25mm lens, then you would have to say you have a 1/2x lens.  Or 12mm, that would be a 1/4x.  What if you had a 17mm?  It would get confusing on the wide angle.

300mm will get you good shots from 50-20 yards.  400mm will get you to 70-30 yards.  300 is fine with a crop camera with animals that can get easy to approch but wild animals require 400mm+.  400mm is the perfect all around focal length for mammals, IMO. 

[e55komp]

prime vs zoom, prime will always be more clear, you also have to remember us working stiffs cant afford a 100mm, 200mm 300mm 400mm prime lens in our arsenal , maybe not even a 200mm IS prime lens with a 1.4x. so cost wise the 100-400 may be more logical in some, actually most of our cases. people are are mostly hobbyists wanting to take pictures of their kids, dogs ect.. at 20 feet away. having a $2k dollars lens for just long range photography of animals in the wild just might not be practical. the 100-400 can product amazing pictures as long as you know its limitations and work with the camera/ lens combo enough.