User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  8
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM

  1. #1
    Member Filter's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 May 2014
    Location
    Mornington
    Posts
    469
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM

    Hi all, I have searched previous posts & only a couple touch on this product. I am fairly new to this interest but the more I do it the more I want to do it. Like anything I do I am drawn to the entry level, I'm not sure if I am doing myself any favors by doing this. ATM I am shooting cricket & AFL sports using a EF-S 55-250 1:4-5.6 IS STM. I find myself doing some heavy cropping to get full frame photos. I haven't looked through a 400 so I'm not sure what I'll get. Our grounds are approx 70 meters to the middle but I'd like to shot a tad further if I could. So once again I have been drawn towards the entry level 400 lens, is it the one for my requirements? Will I kick myself a month after getting it? Any advice would be appreciated.

    BTW, is the MKll the same as this one I have supplied a link for?


    http://www.teds.com.au/canon-ef-100-400mm-is-usm-ii
    Filter


    EOS 7D Mark II - 70D - Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM, 17 - 55 2.8 Lenses

  2. #2
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    14,833
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Filter. This is NOT an entry level lens - OK, maybe for a professional sports photographer, but even then...

    To get a bit of an idea of its FOV compare to yours, crop some of your images as follows:
    - for a 55mm image, approximately half its length and width for the 100mm end of the lens;
    - for a 250mm image, approximately 62% of its length and width for the 400mm end of the lens.

    These are only approximations. There are graphical tools available to simulate the various
    focal lengths on a scene, but I can't locate any at present.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Humph! It wasn't that hard. (Search: focal length simulator.)

    Here's a good one from Nikon. It beats the Canon one.

    To use it, make sure you tell it the camera body type. Your APSC is equivalent to FX here.

    Nikon zoom simulator
    Last edited by ameerat42; 06-02-2015 at 4:01pm.
    CC, Image editing OK.

  3. #3
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Filter's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 May 2014
    Location
    Mornington
    Posts
    469
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Thanks for the comments & the simulator am, I don't think I need to go any bigger eh...

  4. #4
    Member Morgo's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 Apr 2013
    Location
    Newcastle
    Posts
    199
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The one in your link is a mk II.

    Not an entry level my any means. The new version is said to be quite improved in imagine quality over the old. Compared to a kit lens it should be a huge improvement in IQ, sharpness, auto focus etc.

    The only other lens I'd look at around that price, give or take a little, is the Sigma 120-300 Sports. Yes its a little shorter but its a constant f2.8 which would be very handy if your doing low light AFL games.

  5. #5
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Filter's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 May 2014
    Location
    Mornington
    Posts
    469
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Picked up the new 100-400 this arvo, it was suggested I get a monopod to help steady the ship. I have a lot more weight than my 70-255 that's for sure. I can see my first issue will be is to get use to not being to happy snap, the mono restricts movement in certain positions. Setting up early & planning before the shot may help this. Looking forward to different results.

  6. #6
    Drifter, Racer and Picture Taker
    Join Date
    08 Oct 2010
    Location
    Greenwich
    Posts
    1,708
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The Mk1 version is a great lens and the new version is even better.
    It's easy to hand hold as long as you have a good strap and is a lot of fun to use.
    All my photos are taken with recycled pixels.
    Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit.
    Wisdom, is knowing not to serve it in a fruit salad.

  7. #7
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Filter's Avatar
    Join Date
    19 May 2014
    Location
    Mornington
    Posts
    469
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Gee, DOF is savage at the lower end, makes for a great effect.

    Attachment 115166
    Last edited by Filter; 16-02-2015 at 9:15pm.

  8. #8
    Member neil70's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2010
    Location
    Pakenham
    Posts
    193
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    filter
    I use this lens nearly all the time.(because i can't afford a 600mm ) and i mainly shoot moto x, surfing and AFL. If u shoot at any afl game (official) then you are only allowed to use a lens 200mm or smaller.

    You will enjoy this lens.
    The only other one i would have looked at would be the sigma 50-500mm it seems to have great reviews.
    Canon 6d, 7d , 40d, 100-400L, 24-105Lmm, 50mm 1.8, 28-135 and a sigma 18-200
    Aquatech underwater housing
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/neilpoulton/

  9. #9
    Member Babu's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Apr 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    154
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    filter
    I mainly use my telephoto lenses to shoot wildlife and I keep this lens permanently mounted on a 7D II. I also use my 500 mm f4 II on another body (with TCs if necessary); however, if an interesting subject moves in close,
    the 500 will only get a nice shot of its eye. The 100-400 II is not called the zoo lens for nothing. It also helps if my partner is there with a 24-70 or 24-105 on a full frame body for closer encounters.
    The 100-400 II is a step up on the old model which I used for many years on the 7DI. While shots from monopods/tripods are crisper, both 100-400s work well handheld for birds in flight (not as easy with the 500).
    I have scored some very pleasing shots with my Sigma 150-500 but I rate the 100-400 II well ahead of that lens.

    - - - Updated - - -

    neil
    Would you be permitted (at an official AFL game) to use a gripped 7D II with a 200 mm f2 + TC ?

  10. #10
    Fuji Fanatic
    Join Date
    20 Mar 2008
    Location
    Glenorchy
    Posts
    4,040
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    You WILL need a monopod. I used to use my 100-400 mounted straight onto the monopod, i.e. no head in between, for surf shots. The only direction that is restricted is steep angles up and down. Adjust the height so it is a smudge below your eye level.

    And with the older 100-400 I always used to go to 400 and manually dial back just a smidge - improved edge sharpness. This may not be an issue with football shots.


    Quote Originally Posted by Filter View Post
    Picked up the new 100-400 this arvo, it was suggested I get a monopod to help steady the ship. I have a lot more weight than my 70-255 that's for sure. I can see my first issue will be is to get use to not being to happy snap, the mono restricts movement in certain positions. Setting up early & planning before the shot may help this. Looking forward to different results.
    Odille

    “Can't keep my eyes from the circling sky”

    My Blog | Canon 1DsMkII | 60D | Tokina 20-35mm f/2.8 AF AT-X PRO | EF50mm f/1.8| Sigma 150-500mm F5-6.3 APO DG OS HSM | Fujifilm X-T1 & X-M1 | Fujinon XC 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 OIS | Fujinon XC 50-230mm F3.5-5.6 OIS | Fujinon XF 18-55mm F2.8-4R LM OIS | tripods, flashes, filters etc ||

  11. #11
    can't remember
    Join Date
    16 Apr 2007
    Location
    Ballarat
    Posts
    2,010
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The old 100-400 is very hand-holdable. Easy as pie. No reason the new one won't be even more so.
    Tony

    Edit and critique at will. Tokina 10-17 fish, Canon 10-22, 24-105, 100-400, TS-E 24, 35/1.4, 60 macro, 100L macro, 500/4, Wimberley, MT-24EX, 580EX-II, 1D IV, 7D, 5D II, 50D.

  12. #12
    Member Babu's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Apr 2010
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    154
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Analog
    I'm guessing you don't often need "steep angles up and down" for surf shots and hence the no head.
    For wildlife shots I often need to shoot at steep angles (rain forest canopies, cliff tops...) and have found the Really Right Stuff MH-01-PRO + B2-Pro II clamp on a Gitzo 5 series CF monopod easy to work with and stable.
    Filter will have to consider the sorts of angles that need to be covered during a match in order to decide whether to attach a head or to go headless. Maybe a tripod and ballhead would be more useful.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Tony
    I totally agree that the old one was very hand-holdable.
    My new 100-400 II is 190g heavier, 4mm longer (at 100mm) and 2mm wider than my old 100-400. They both take 77mm filters.
    The new one is still easily hand-holdable. I like to use it on my gripped 7D II as I feel a bit more weight in the back helps to balance out the weight of the lens up front.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •