canon 100-400 is

[jce]

has anyone any info about a possible upgrade to the 100-400 is lens.having read many threads about this lens as oposed to the 400 5.6,i am confused as which lens to buy.had almost decided on the zoom but am now not shure how sharp it is.

[Keith Reeder]

I doubt that anyone knows about possible updates to Canon lenses except Canon.

And I'm afraid that you won't be any more sure about how sharp the 100-400mm is after this thread has run its course.

I'd suggest you search the gallery and have a look at examples from the 100-400mm and the 400mm prime, then at least you'll have an objective idea of what's what - all you'll get here is conflicting opinion about what constitutes "sharp", how sharp "sharp enough" is, and whether IS makes a difference.

It's all been done a million times before, JCE, and another thread on the subject won't provide any blinding revelations, I'm afraid..!

;)

[christineredgate]

Yes,JCE as Keith as said,you will be confused re the comments on these lenses.I have both,as do several other Forum members.The 100-400 is a great lens,very versatile ,easy to take away,as it compacts to a smaller size,and you have the range of 100-400.The 400F5.6 ,I think can be said is sharper,and does take excellent images.Both can be used with a 1x4 converter(taped).The 400F5.6 may produce the sharper images with the converter.

[Romy Ocon]

Just stumbled upon a prime-sharp copy of the 100-400 IS, and here's a link to my initial tests (including comparison to my old 100-400 IS and 2 copies of the 400 5.6L):

http://www.pbase.com/liquidstone/100_400is

Romy

[UlfL]

Nice test, Romy.

According to my eyes, the newer copy of the 100-400 is as sharp as the 400/f5.6. This corresponds well to my own experience with the 100-400.
The older copy of 400/f5.6 seem a tick sharper than the newer, but this is perhaps due to the somewhat darker pictures of the older lens.

This convinces me that I did the right thing buying the 100-400 ;).

Regards,
Ulf

[IanF]

The 100-400 and 400mm prime are equal for me as well. As mentioned above the 400mm prime is more suited to using a teleconverter but conversely the 100-400 is outstanding when extension tubes are added for macro photos - the minumum focus on the 400mm is just too great.

As regards an uprgade then for me really there's only the 500mm and 600mm primes which are a bit too much above my budget!!!

[Robert Tilt]

Hi Ian

Can we assume that this stuff about dust being blown into the camera is truly a myth. I have (FINALLY ) decided to get the 100-400 canon after adding to the number of threads about the alternatives BUT the dust `problem` is a worry as I find my 30D suffers from dust much more than my 300D did.

The use of the lens with extension tubes for macro is a key selling point along with the 300g lower weight than the sigma 80-400.
Robert

[IanF]

I find the 100-400mm is an amazing lens for macro photos when extension tubes are added. I wouldn't bother with the 12 mm. Most often it's the 23mm I use. The IS helps greatly in getting a high percentage of keepers.

I can't say I've really had a problem with dust mind you I've only had the camera 12 months. I'm using the 20D and swap between three lenses pretty regularly - even more often in summer when using extension tubes - yet I've only needed to clean the sensor once in 12 months despite pretty heavy use of the camera.

I do use a camera shoulder bag to carry it about rather than just the strap with the camera open to the elements but most often I've been visiting the coast where there's always wind with sand and dust - so sensor/lens dust really isn't a big issue for me.

Purely for bird photos I tend to take out the 400mm as it's slightly lighter and narrower and the autofocus is slightly faster making it more useful for flight shots - though I've taken quite a few decent ones with the 100-400 as well.

Overall though the 100-400mm is so much more versatile and takes just as good photos - sometimes better!

[Robert Tilt]

Thanks Ian

Decision made!

Just got to have another word with `she who must be obeyed`...

:flowers:

[Keith Reeder]

Robert,

see if you can get in touch with "Kerso" - he's a BF member who also trades on Ebay and is very well thought of for his extremely reasonable prices for Canon lenses, and also for his very helpful attitude.


Romy,

very interesting test. Can I ask where you found the Date Codes on your lenses?

[Romy Ocon]

Robert,

Romy,

very interesting test. Can I ask where you found the Date Codes on your lenses?

Hi Keith,

The date code in EF lenses is found at the rear of the lens, not far from the electrical contacts. It's an alphanumeric string, and the first letter tells you where the lens is made.

The second letter is the year of manufacture.

Q - 2002
R - 2003
S - 2004
T - 2005
U - 2006

And so on....

Romy

[Keith Reeder]

Thanks Romy - that makes mine a 2006 model.

What about yours, Ian and Ulf?

Coincidentally, my "place of manufacture" letter is "U" as well - this would stand for Utsonomiya, I imagine...

[christineredgate]

The 100-400 and 400mm prime are equal for me as well. As mentioned above the 400mm prime is more suited to using a teleconverter but conversely the 100-400 is outstanding when extension tubes are added for macro photos - the minumum focus on the 400mm is just too great.

As regards an uprgade then for me really there's only the 500mm and 600mm primes which are a bit too much above my budget!!!
Ian,I am glad you mentioned the better lens re ext tubes.I purchased a set of Kenko tubes ,only had one try with them.With the 400F5.6,nothing,just no focus,but with the 100-400,I did manage a couple of decent shots.But I was led to believe that they worked better with a fixed focal.I will get in some practice on a dry Winters morning.there are no instructions with the tubes,so just had to keep fiddling until I managed a pic.

[Roy C]

[QUOTE=Keith Reeder]Robert,

see if you can get in touch with "Kerso" - he's a BF member who also trades on Ebay and is very well thought of for his extremely reasonable prices for Canon lenses, and also for his very helpful attitude.
QUOTE]
BTW you can still claim the Canon rebates for lenses bought from Ian (Kerso) but you need to ask him for a uk invoice.
I received a cheque from Canon yesterday for £70 for a 17-40 L that I got from him recently.

[Roy C]

Ian,I am glad you mentioned the better lens re ext tubes.I purchased a set of Kenko tubes ,only had one try with them.With the 400F5.6,nothing,just no focus,but with the 100-400,I did manage a couple of decent shots.But I was led to believe that they worked better with a fixed focal.I will get in some practice on a dry Winters morning.there are no instructions with the tubes,so just had to keep fiddling until I managed a pic.
Must be something wrong Christine - I use Jessops tubes on my 400mm f5.6 with no problems, AF is fine. For info 25mm of tubes gives you a working range of approx 2 to 12 metres.

[UlfL]

What about yours, Ian and Ulf?

Coincidentally, my "place of manufacture" letter is "U" as well - this would stand for Utsonomiya, I imagine...
Mine is also an "UU" model. 2006 in Ulan Bator, perhaps? ;)

[Keith Reeder]

;) ;) ;)

[IanF]

Thanks Romy - that makes mine a 2006 model.

What about yours, Ian and Ulf?

Coincidentally, my "place of manufacture" letter is "U" as well - this would stand for Utsonomiya, I imagine...
UT for both of mine 400mm and 100-400 - which is correct as it was 2005 they were bought though a little surprising as the 400mm was second hand.

[IanF]

Ian,I am glad you mentioned the better lens re ext tubes.I purchased a set of Kenko tubes ,only had one try with them.With the 400F5.6,nothing,just no focus,but with the 100-400,I did manage a couple of decent shots.But I was led to believe that they worked better with a fixed focal.I will get in some practice on a dry Winters morning.there are no instructions with the tubes,so just had to keep fiddling until I managed a pic.
Maybe the contacts need a bit of cleaning?

The extension tubes work fine on the 400mm prime but it's the minimum focus I don't like - it's still way too far to fill the frame with small insects. Results are sharp enough though. It could be that with the prime you weren't far enough away for the focus to lock. With the 100-400mm you can get down to a couple of feet and fill the frame with just the legs of a butterfly if you want.

For use of the tubes there's no special technique, I leave the camera exposure mode on 'A' and the lens on autofocus and shoot away as normal. Bright/sunny days are as with most nature photography best to give enough quality light on the subject - though even using the built in flash on auto gives pretty decent results too with auto-extension tubes.

[Bish]

[QUOTE=Keith Reeder]Robert,

see if you can get in touch with "Kerso" - he's a BF member who also trades on Ebay and is very well thought of for his extremely reasonable prices for Canon lenses, and also for his very helpful attitude.
QUOTE]
BTW you can still claim the Canon rebates for lenses bought from Ian (Kerso) but you need to ask him for a uk invoice.
I received a cheque from Canon yesterday for £70 for a 17-40 L that I got from him recently.


I claimed cashback for my 100-400mm lens & a 2x extender bought from Kerso by using my paypal receipt with no problem

Regards Bish. :t:

[Keith Reeder]

This (http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=240421) is impressive!

[Duck_Pond]

Very good. Strangely I was in Manila last week... for a day. Don't ask. Business trip...

I'm crossing everything I can, provided it's not too painful, that my 100-400 turns up tomorrow from Kerso. His prices make a mockery out of the ones on other sites and on the high street.

[biswasg]

Robert,

Romy,

Can I ask where you found the Date Codes on your lenses?

I had once stumbled on the following link which described the Canon lens codes:
http://reviews.ebay.com/Canon-Lens-Date-Code-and-Aging-How-Old-Is-That-Lens_W0QQugidZ10000000000133620?ssPageName=BUYGD:C AT:-1:SEARCH:5

[Duck_Pond]

It's here - whoo hoo!! Thanks to "Kerso" for it. :)

I'm now counting seconds at work before I can go home to play. Bah!