Your opinions on this lens… Please…

I know a very fine alternative for you. Teh Sigma 100-300 HSM 4.0. It is really a marvellous range on one level with a Canon or Nikon.

Another idea would be the Sigma 80-400mm VR, but I think it is too slow.

On the other hand you want make a mistake with the Canon either.

I’ll second the 400 5.6L. Have been using one from new for 8/9 years and it works fine. Internal focussing. Its been dropped & repaired & still works fine. Also have 1st Gen 70-200 F2.8L which is very good too. How did yours let you down?

Mine is one of the early black lenses, the one you can’t use a converter on.

It just stopped autofocusing.. I went to use it for a job for the paper I work for and…. nothing.

I have had it repaired, a connection problem, but I don’t trust it now. I will keep it as a spare.

I was just wondering of there was a better alternative to a 70-200?

I need something between 24-105 L USM IS (on order) and my 300 F2.8 USM, preferably a zoom lens.

Looks like it might have to be the 70-200 F2.8..

I’ll second the 400 5.6L. Have been using one from new for 8/9 years and it works fine. Internal focussing. Its been dropped & repaired & still works fine. Also have 1st Gen 70-200 F2.8L which is very good too. How did yours let you down?

The 100-400 is a god among lenses, perfect in every way.

It is entirely coincidental that I am flogging one… 😉

Damien,

Can I ask why you are selling your 100-400 and if you are not replacing it, what do you use???

I use an older design 80-200 f2.8L with a 1.4x Converter. Have been doing so for most of this year and I haven’t been dissapointed by the quality of my results, certainly on a par with seniors 100-400 a fair amount of the time. The only disadvantage is the smaller focal length which means it can be tough to get more distant pics.

Doubt if the F4 version of the 70-200 is better than the 2.8 one. It is cheaper and lighter, but not better. The 70-200 2.8 is Canon’s sharpest zoom lens. I use it in combination with the 1.4 without a problem. For longer lenses I use a Canon 300 2.8 and a Canon 500 F4 ( on both I also use the 2x). Expensive but very sharp. Apart from that, I bought them used.

Why don’t you take the 300 F.4 with an 1.4 in consideration? about the price of a 100-400, but optically much better

BW Roger

Why not just get a straight replacement?

That is the other option. I thought now I have the opportunity and the money, perhaps I could get a longer lens in my collection. Mind you I am always suspisious of lenses that cover a large range ie, 28-300 or the older 35-350.

Someone told me that the 70-200 F4 L USM IS, optically, is better than the F2.8 version even when you use a 1.4 converter?

I am just looking for something that will fit into my range of lenses that I can use on Aviation and Motorsport plus my press work..

Roger has just about ummed it up. I have one, its a great lens but its not THE great lens.

If your choice is one or the other then you arent comparing like with like. if you want an additional lens then its a good choice but there are better lenses out there. Why not just get a straight replacement?

The 100-400 is a fine lens, but it has some disadvantages. The way it is constructed, it is a push/pull one, it blows/moves dust around inside the camerahousing. I had to clean the camera’s sensor almost every time I used it. A second weakness is its construction, many have had problems with the lens locking up (so you couldn’t zoom anymore). I used it for 2 years, and overall the image quality was fine. Sold it in January this year, and I am back on primes which give a far better quality, but are less handy. BW Roger

100-400

I have one and it’s hard to beat for its ease of use, size, zoom range and the results. Compared to a prime it’s a bit soft, but so are all zooms. I’m sure you have seen the photos posted here taken with this lens, and was the first thing you thought, “oh no it’s not very sharp”.

This lens would be the best bang for your buck, IMHO. Women, cars, planes and good wine aside!!