I am now the proud (And broke) owner of a ...

[Ferry_vO]

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Ferror/Diversen/C100-400ISUSM.jpg

(The lens, not the birdie.)

After thinking about which one to get for a long time and waiting for a few more weeks for the store to have it in stock I finally went and bought the Canon 100-400 L IS USM today!
I've read plenty of reviews comparing it to others like the Sigma 80-400, 120-400, 150-500 and the 50-500 with and without OS but decided the L was the one to get. I has the best image quality, colour and the quickest autofocus. It is also the lightest of the bunch though at 1,360 grams (48.0 Oz) it still is no lightweight!

Unfortunately due to the long drive to the store I hardly had time to test it but here are two quick shots made from my balcony of my car, one at 100 mm and a close up at 400 mm:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Ferror/Diversen/IMG_2355.jpg

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Ferror/Diversen/IMG_2356.jpg

And a close up of a little statue I bought in Rhodes, Greece a few years ago:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a262/Ferror/Diversen/IMG_2344.jpg

Can't wait for the flying season to begin! :d

[Panther_99FS]

Great lens for air shows Ferry for sure - have fun!

[Kiwikat]

Oooh cool!

I'm sure it will see tons of use. It was my second choice after the 300 f/4 L IS. Looks like you got a pretty sharp copy too. :jump:

[Ferry_vO]

The 300 mm F4 is about the same price as the 100-400 and gives a sharper picture but I prefer the flexibility of a zoom lens for airsohws and zoo use. I'm sure it will see plenty of use! ;)
At least four days at air shows planned this summer already! :jump:

[Kiwikat]

The 300 mm F4 is about the same price as the 100-400 and gives a sharper picture but I prefer the flexibility of a zoom lens for airsohws and zoo use.

Right now the 1-4 is a good 300 bucks or so more than the 300, at least in the US- another reason I went for the 300.

I plan on using my 100mm macro and 300mm for airshows this year (EAA Airventure being the main event). I hope I can get the money together to pick up a wide angle for walking around. The Tokina 12-24mm looks like a good choice. The 18-55 is not wide enough for most planes. With all the DC-3's that will be there this year, it would definitely be nice to have.

[Chacha]

Congratulations Ferry...

Can't wait to see your shots....

Man,

[djscoo]

Oooh cool!

I'm sure it will see tons of use. It was my second choice after the 300 f/4 L IS. Looks like you got a pretty sharp copy too. :jump:
:icon_lol: It cracks me up how you make the "L" red in your posts.

~~

Congrats on the new lens Ferry!

[JorisVandenBerghe]

Have fun with it! I remember how I have felt since getting my 70-400...

Personally, I'm more for a zoom (zooms have come a long way, admittedly...but I don't like the fact Canon still produces a 1998 design :confused:) but if I had to choose between the 300/4 or your 100-400, I'd have taken the prime.

By the way, William, if you'd get an 1.4x teleconverter for it, you would only lose one stop (f/4 -> f/5.6) and you'd have 420mm.

[Ferry_vO]

(zooms have come a long way, admittedly...but I don't like the fact Canon still produces a 1998 design :confused:)

Maybe because it still works..? From reading reviews some things have been improved on the design over the years but not enough to give it a 'II' designation. Anyway, looking at the new 70-200 IS USM II and seeing how the price was raised by over 50% over the previous model..

[Panther_99FS]

Personally, I'm more for a zoom (zooms have come a long way, admittedly...but I don't like the fact Canon still produces a 1998 design :confused:) .

Hmmm....
I wonder if this somewhat plays into why Canon owners seem to more readily accept 3rd party lenses than Sony or Nikon owners....:ques:

[Ferry_vO]

Third party lenses like Sigma or Tamron are cheaper than the Canon counterparts, but in terms of image quality the Canon lenses are a still the best. (Also because third party lenses have to be 'reverse-engineered' because Canon obviously doesn't want to share their technology with others)

[Panther_99FS]

(Also because third party lenses have to be 'reverse-engineered' because Canon obviously doesn't want to share their technology with others)

Yep - Same thing applies to Nikon too...(and I assume all the other major makers also)

[JorisVandenBerghe]

Yep - Same thing applies to Nikon too...(and I assume all the other major makers also)
Correct - Sony has the same thing...Sony lenses still offer the best image quality, although mostly at a higher price.

[Kiwikat]

:icon_lol: It cracks me up how you make the "L" red in your posts.

It is the only way! L's are red. :ernae:


Personally, I'm more for a zoom (zooms have come a long way, admittedly...but I don't like the fact Canon still produces a 1998 design :confused:) but if I had to choose between the 300/4 or your 100-400, I'd have taken the prime.

By the way, William, if you'd get an 1.4x teleconverter for it, you would only lose one stop (f/4 -> f/5.6) and you'd have 420mm.

Many of all companies' primes are old designs. Both Nikon and Canon have some 50mm designs from the 80's! Sigma is one of the few that are using a modern design. Besides, primes are pretty barebones lenses. You can only improve them as far as physics will allow.

I need to practice with my friend's 1.4x tc before I go dump 300 dollars on one. Especially considering the 35mm f/2 lens I want is also 300 dollars, and the wide angle I want is 500. When I did mess around with it, the AF was very hit or miss, not good for airshows. It seems my rebel xsi body is causing a pretty big bottleneck with its cheap 9 point AF system. Sometimes I wish I could afford a 7D... :173go1:

[Panther_99FS]

http://www.flickr.com/groups/100-400l/pool/