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

[Filter]

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

[ameerat42]

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 (http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/simulator/)

[Filter]

Thanks for the comments & the simulator am, I don't think I need to go any bigger eh...

[Morgo]

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.

[Filter]

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.

[Bennymiata]

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.

[Filter]

Gee, DOF is savage at the lower end, makes for a great effect.

115166

[neil70]

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.

[Babu]

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 ?

[Analog6]

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.



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.

[Tannin]

The old 100-400 is very hand-holdable. Easy as pie. No reason the new one won't be even more so.

[Babu]

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.