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

TirEoghain

Hi folks,

I recently was in Conn's camera shop, and had a look at this lens on a camera the same as mine. My camera is an EOS400D by the way.

Does anyone else have one, and can they comment on what it would be like for sports photography?

I see they are available in the US for a lot less money. I will be in the U.S. next month, and I am thinking about getting it. Is there any difference between a U.S. model and a European one?

Thanks for any feedback.

bovril

What type of sports and in what type of lighting conditions?

TirEoghain

It would be almost exclusively GAA matches, and hopefully on nice summer days in Croke Park and around the country.

I'm not too concerned about floodlit games, but I would consider a different lens at some stage in the (distant) future for that purpose.

bovril

There are better people on here than me for giving sports advice. That lens will certainly give you the distance for GAA. It won't be as fast as a prime lens and it won't be very good for flloodlit games or bad lighting conditions but it should be fine on a bright day.

TirEoghain

bovril wrote: »

There are better people on here than me for giving sports advice. That lens will certainly give you the distance for GAA. It won't be as fast as a prime lens and it won't be very good for flloodlit games or bad lighting conditions but it should be fine on a bright day.

Many thanks for your input. I'll hang around to hear more, as it's a sizable investment for me.

Duchovny

Thats a pretty good lens, but you wont be taking pictures in the winter? F4 its ok but with low light conditions will struggle a bit.

Nice summer games?? lets hope for that

I would prefer to go for a F2.8 lens because of the weather in this country

TirEoghain

Would there be any f2.8 lens on the market for similar sort of money that would be better suited for this?

bovril

check out reviews and prices of the 70-200 2.8 and 70-200 2.8 IS from Canon and also the Sigma equivilant although 200mm may not be enough reach for GAA. Again someone who shoots GAA might be able to give you a better answer.

Duchovny

After doing a quick search i didn't find any for a good price just the 70-200 F2.8 L

So you might want to stick with your option, as the price looks ok for the range

jackdaw

Duchovny wrote: »

After doing a quick search i didn't find any for a good price just the 70-200 F2.8 L

So you might want to stick with your option, as the price looks ok for the range

Kea photo on ebay have an excellent price for the 70-200 IS L f2.8 ..
I got it last week...

Valentia

I have this lens and like it a lot. In fact the more I use it the better I like it. It's very sharp. If I was doing sport and I had the money I'd get the 300mm 2.8. The 2.8 would be needed more for fast focusing more than anything else I imagine. Looking at the details of shots taken with it the 2.8 aperture isn't used that often.

That said for the money the 100-400 is great. leinsterman really got to love his during his African trip and I have found it great for nature. Maybe he'll give us a comment.

Duchovny

jackdaw wrote: »

Kea photo on ebay have an excellent price for the 70-200 IS L f2.8 ..
I got it last week...

Ups my mistake. After searching for a while i didnt search any for a good price that would be arround the 100-400.

then you have the 70-200L 2.8

Sorry :P

kjt

Also theirs a rebate at the moment on some of Canon's lenses.

Linky

TirEoghain

kjt wrote: »

Also theirs a rebate at the moment on some of Canon's lenses.

Linky

Conns have the lens I was talking about at €1799, and they have advertised the €100 cashback, so it will work out at €1699.

I was looking at the same lens in the U.S. and it comes in at $1400. Would this be the exact same lens?

kjt

Here's a good price for you too. You can then get the €100 back too after you order. I haven't ordered from him before but heard good things. I'm about to order myself something similar in the next day or two.

Carrigman

TirEoghain wrote: »

I was looking at the same lens in the U.S. and it comes in at $1400. Would this be the exact same lens?

Yes.

Valentia

TirEoghain wrote: »

Conns have the lens I was talking about at €1799

In my experience Conn's is one of the most expensive places anywhere to buy stuff. That Scottish link is not too bad but Kea have it for approx €940 + postage. Bear with it, EBay seems to be dog slow to load at the moment, here anyway.

AnimalRights

While the P+P is dearer from Kea that is to be expected because of distance + they use airmail/DHL, I got my present in 4 working days!
On day 3 now waiting for my Pressie from Scoootland.

Tropheus

Valentia wrote: »

In my experience Conn's is one of the most expensive places anywhere to buy stuff. That Scottish link is not too bad but Kea have it for approx €940 + postage. Bear with it, EBay seems to be dog slow to load at the moment, here anyway.

Kea have it at a good price, but they ship from Hong Kong. You'd most likely be hit with VAT and Duty so may be better to get the one based in Scotland as you won't have to pay any additional taxes.

MartMax

With cheap Ryanair flights and favourable exchange rates nowadays, a day trip to UK finding a good bargain should also be considered. well, just my theory - haven't really made the calculations yet.

Valentia

ksimpson wrote: »

Kea have it at a good price, but they ship from Hong Kong. You'd most likely be hit with VAT and Duty so may be better to get the one based in Scotland as you won't have to pay any additional taxes.

Do a search here and you will find that very few, if any, have been caught. Myself included.

leinsterman

I originally bought mine for both wildlife and sports ...

As a wildlife lens it is perfect ... as Valentia points out it got a massive amount of use during a recent trip to Africa ... in fact it was here that I fell in love with it ... on a 1.3 or 1.6 crop camera it offers a decent enough range although you still find situations where even this is not enough reach ... and in Africa there is usually bag of light during the day (too much in fact) ... in the evening you need to reach for a faster lens or pop up the ISO ...

Up to my trip to Africa it had not gotten a whole lot of use ... except during sports in Croke park, Lansdowne Rd or Donnybrook ...

It is less than percect, but good enough for sport ... under the flood lights of the Dublin v Tyrone match (the first ever) it did not do the job at all ... However during a recent Leinster match it proved itself a very capable solution ... it can't mimic the quality of a 300 or 400 F2.8 big boy to be fair ... but under decent lighting conditions it is an admirable performer ... and produces images good enough to publish in most forms (though you won't be making any posters out of it) ...

An alternative first L lens (assuming this is your first) for sports is the 70-200 F2.8L IS with the 1.4x Teleconvertor making it F4.0 ... a lot of sports shooters use this on their second body at matches (without the TC) ... to be fair if you can get on the side line you won't use the teleconvertor while you still shoot at F4.0 ... this is because this particular lens becomes tack sharp at F4.0 and the TC reduces the quality ... It will enable you to catch most action from the 20M line ... though you may have to sit about half way along the goal line instead of at the corner (in Croker they allow this ... there is a green mark in the turf) ...

Between the 70-200 and 100-400 it is a toss up which is better to go for if you are on a budget ... if it were me I'd say the 70-200 mostly because, while it is a little short for sports it is a cracking all rounder lens, with constant F stop in zooming and fast which is important in sports ... it also offers greater versitility for other forms of shotting such as portraits and landscapes ... in my case I bought the 100-400 and wished I had the 70-200 after ... so now I have both

Interestingly enough I went through a similar process as yourself when choosing the 100-400 lens ... what triggered me to buy eventually was a chat with a Tyrone based GAA shooter behind the goal during the Tyrone v Dublin semi final (the drawn one) ... his argument was while it is slow most GAA takes place in good light and the 100 - 400 pull zoom (note: "pull", not twist) gives the added benefit of being able to zoom quickly and get things close in when the bigs boys are only seeing bits of bodies or sponsor logos ...

Check out MY Sports Group in Flickr for some examples of both lenses ...

PM me if you want more information ...

leinsterman

TirEoghain wrote: »

Conns have the lens I was talking about at €1799, and they have advertised the €100 cashback, so it will work out at €1699.

I was looking at the same lens in the U.S. and it comes in at $1400. Would this be the exact same lens?

Oh yes ... there is a clue why in the name of the shop ... though I bought a camera bag in Conns just today ... much to my shame ... As my post suggests I'd spiring for the 70-200 F2.8L IS before the 100-400 ... in my opinion it is a toss between these two for roughly the same money ... if you are buying in the US then B&H photo in New York is your man ... if visiting a friend living in another state then have it shipped to him in advance to save your self and additional 8.75% NY state tax ...

EDIT - +1 one for me on using Kea ... Albert the guy who runs it is great and knows the score ... be sure to let him know in advnace though - albert@keaphoto.com ... and get a 77mm Hoyo pro UV filter form him as well ... not advertised on his ebay store but he'll sell em to you ... you need it to protect you new baby ...

kjt

leinsterman wrote: »

and get a 77mm Hoyo pro UV

Linky
Thanks for the long post above Leinster, it was good to hear your thoughts on both lenses!

kjt

Any filter buffs out there?

Is their much of a difference between the
Hoya 77mm Pro 1 Digital Circular Polarising filter(£43) - Link
and the
Hoya 77mm Pro 1 Pro1 Super HMC UV filter 47(£20) - Link

No point in spending €1,000 plus and putting tin foil over your lense.

leinsterman

kjt wrote: »

Any filter buffs out there?

Is their much of a difference between the
Hoya 77mm Pro 1 Digital Circular Polarising filter(£43) - Link
and the
Hoya 77mm Pro 1 Pro1 Super HMC UV filter 47(£20) - Link

No point in spending €1,000 plus and putting tin foil over your lense.

They are totally different filters used for different situations ... you need both it is not a matter of one v the other ...

UV filters are more often then not used to protect the lens element from damage more than anything else ...

Whereas a polariser is used in a number of situations e.g. to reduce glare off glass or water ... to cut the amount of light coming in to the lens so you can use a very slightly longer exposure ... and most commonly to increase contrast e.g. to darken blues skies, particularly good against cloudy skies where the light is coming from the side ...

kjt

Cheers Simon! I didn't even notice in the heads that one of them was polarised, Nap time I think!






(sorry for the thread hijack!)

leinsterman

kjt wrote: »

No point in spending €1,000 plus and putting tin foil over your lense.

This is an important point and often lost on many people ... there is no point in spending €1000 on a lens only to put a cheap filter over the top ... a lens is glass as is a filter ... both have optical properties that effect the end result in terms of colour, contrast, flare etc ... I use Hoya pro most of the time and consider them the minimunm acceptable ... when I really need it I reach for my B&W or Rodenstock UV filters ... for my P series filter I use Hi Tech ...


I did some googling for you to help you understand a bit better and show you some examples -

http://www.dpfwiw.com/filters.htm
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/polarizers.shtml


I get a lot of my filters from these guys -
http://www.2filter.com/prices/catalog.html

AnimalRights

leinsterman wrote: »

As my post suggests I'd spiring for the 70-200 F2.8L IS before the 100-400 ...

I already have the 70-200L f4 non IS and was aiming to buy the 300mm f4 IS later in the year, but just back from the Phoenix park and the 70-200 f4 struggled with the light and have now changed my mind so aiming for the 70-200L 2.8 IS later in the year instead of the 300mm f4.

A few weeks ago I would not have sussed out the above sentence.:D