Right then, anyone want to talk me out of buying a...

[StuartR]

... Canon 100-400mm Zoom lens? I've now got the cash burning a hole in my pocket right now and the necessary permission slip from 'er indoors

I need to be quick because the last time I dithered we got new curtains, cushions, kitchen doors, a greenhouse and a weather station! (yes I have an on-line weather station so I can check the weather in my back garden and see if my greenhouse is too hot - it even sends me an e-mail at work sad or what? As I write this the alarm has gone off because the outdoor humidity has reached 98% - I don't know why it does that, I didn't set it and I can't work out how to turn it off )

Anyway, back to the lens, I've agonised over this for months (probably seem like years to some of you ), I don't have unlimited funds to spend on "L" glass so this needs to be the right decision.

I currently have:
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 - nice
Canon EF-S 60mm Macro f.2.8 - very nice
Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS - OK and nice once DxO has sorted the distortion and vignetting
Canon EF 70-300mm IS - very nice

The 17-85mm is my work-horse, as you'd probably expect, but the 70-300mm also gets a lot of use, especially at the long end. I have a (non-Canon) x1.4 extender but although I have used it occasionally the drop in quality is a tad too noticeable for my liking.

If I have a preference in terms of subject it's wildlife (including zoos) but I'm pretty much a general photographer really, doing all the usual stuff, portraits, weddings and increasingly, landscapes. I also really enjoy close-up > macro photography although my insect hunting is now normally with the 70-300mm and an extension tube rather than the 60mm.

So, if you had a grand to spend would you go for the 100-400mm or something else? I'm also slightly worried about stories I've read of occasional soft examples of this lens due to, allegedly, poor quality control. I'd say 95% of reviews are positive though.

I do have a preference for Canon glass - I've not had particularly good experiences with Sigma and Tamron although, to be fair, that was

[Stephen]

Re: Right then, anyone want to talk me out of buying a...

... Canon 100-400mm Zoom lens? I've now got the cash burning a hole in my pocket right now and the necessary permission slip from 'er indoors

I need to be quick because the last time I dithered we got new curtains, cushions, kitchen doors, a greenhouse and a weather station! (yes I have an on-line weather station so I can check the weather in my back garden and see if my greenhouse is too hot - it even sends me an e-mail at work sad or what? As I write this the alarm has gone off because the outdoor humidity has reached 98% - I don't know why it does that, I didn't set it and I can't work out how to turn it off )

Anyway, back to the lens, I've agonised over this for months (probably seem like years to some of you ), I don't have unlimited funds to spend on "L" glass so this needs to be the right decision.

I currently have:
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 - nice
Canon EF-S 60mm Macro f.2.8 - very nice
Canon EF-S 17-85mm IS - OK and nice once DxO has sorted the distortion and vignetting
Canon EF 70-300mm IS - very nice

The 17-85mm is my work-horse, as you'd probably expect, but the 70-300mm also gets a lot of use, especially at the long end. I have a (non-Canon) x1.4 extender but although I have used it occasionally the drop in quality is a tad too noticeable for my liking.

If I have a preference in terms of subject it's wildlife (including zoos) but I'm pretty much a general photographer really, doing all the usual stuff, portraits, weddings and increasingly, landscapes. I also really enjoy close-up > macro photography although my insect hunting is now normally with the 70-300mm and an extension tube rather than the 60mm.

So, if you had a grand to spend would you go for the 100-400mm or something else? I'm also slightly worried about stories I've read of occasional soft examples of this lens due to, allegedly, poor quality control. I'd say 95% of reviews are positive though.

I do have a preference for Canon glass - I've not had particularly good experiences with Sigma and Tamron although, to be fair, that was

[Pops]

Re: Right then, anyone want to talk me out of buying a...

Go for it Stuart.
I have one which I use mostly for bird shots. Like Stephen says it is a bit on the heavy side if hand holding but well worth it.

[StuartR]

Re: Right then, anyone want to talk me out of buying a...

Well the deed is done, plastic still smoking...

Thanks for the thought Stephen but I reckon you'll get more use out of yours yet . I should, hopefully, be OK re the duty / VAT because the item ships from the UK (i.e. it's already been imported from the US).

And Pops, prepare for a shoot-out on garden birds - going to be the ideal subject for some initial test shots. I've seen plenty of possible shots crying out for this lens over the weekend - probably won't see a thing once the lens arrives

Promise I won't post one of the cat though!

Actually, I will - here's one of our moggy on a frog hunt by the pond (the frog was too quick for him!). This was taken with my 70-300mm lens that the 100-400mm will replace. Not sure what to do with that lens now, I can either keep it as a spare or I have 2 brothers and a sister shooting Canon SLRs now (so just one brother and one sister to go!) who are always happy to receive my "cast-offs"

[Pops]

Re: Right then, anyone want to talk me out of buying a...

And Pops, prepare for a shoot-out on garden birds

I look forward to that

Now is the time to make sure your feeders are placed just right for you. Sort out where you are going to shoot from and place them accordingly. This will give the birdies a chance to adjust. This time of the year is an hectic time for birds feeding and it won't be long before the young start to appear.

[StuartR]

Re: Right then, anyone want to talk me out of buying a...

I look forward to that

Now is the time to make sure your feeders are placed just right for you. Sort out where you are going to shoot from and place them accordingly. This will give the birdies a chance to adjust. This time of the year is an hectic time for birds feeding and it won't be long before the young start to appear.

The lens arrived today so when I got home I quickly took half a dozen shots to test it worked OK - don't take these seriously Pops , they're the only 2 birds I saw and they weren't exactly close!

Nice and sharp, in fact I took some shots of my daughter and they're too sharp - 'er indoors reckons they need some serious processing (i.e. blurring) to smooth the skin

[StuartR]

Re: Right then, anyone want to talk me out of buying a...

A slightly more serious picture of a female mallard taken in between torrential rain showers while the sun was setting over our local reservoir. I was impressed with the sharpness of water droplets on the bird's breast feathers on the full-size tiff (not very visible here).

Also one of the male sprog, sporting new Beckhamesque hair style, having a go at the sunset with his Lumix. Quite nice bokeh on this shot I thought.

I think I'm going to like this lens but I'm already finding that the depth of field wide open at 400mm is noticeably less to my 70-300mm at the long end. I also had quite a few failures tonight, admittedly the light was pretty awful but I need to improve my hand-holding technique I think. Not quite as easy as with the 70-300mm.

[Pops]

Re: Right then, anyone want to talk me out of buying a...

The 2nd is a corker. Very sharp and with a real strong 3D effect.

Ya going to have fun