Home Forums Gear Photography Need a longer lens

I'm in the market for a longer lens for my Canon 7D. My focus is primarily wild life and outdoors and I currently have an 18-200, I'm debating between a Canon EF 300mm f/4L IS USM with an extender and a Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L USM. I like the idea of working with a prime lens, but I'm not sure if the versatility of the 100-400 is greater than having a fairly long prime lens...what are your thoughts?
Thanks

The 100-400 runs well and is well worth the price....

Based on my wife's experiences, I think the 100-400 is a good investment and reasonably priced. She lost a bit of resolution with the first skylight filters we tried and is not using a filter now. We will not purchase any more until we are in a store where one can give them a try. With a little effort, she gets by with a lot of handheld shots but it is an image stabilized lens. One really crosses a fiscal line when he steps to 500. Search around here a bit, and one can find several pics my wife has taken. They are of course scaled down for posting, but one should get an idea of its potential.

fwiw, the B+W filters are stellar, particularly the "Kaeseman" line of weather-sealed ones. they run about $150-200 each though.

to the OP, the 100-400 is a great performer and (if you can't get both right away), get the zoom now and re-evaluate the need for a prime later.

I also run mine with no filter unless I toss on a polarizer for some pic...

On Photozone, the rez of the 100-400 @ 400 looks comparable to the 300 w 1.4tc, and the 400 f/5.6 prime. I would hazard to say that the 100-400 would be much more versatile.
http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos

1minute- does your wife find that she is often at the 400 end of the zoom?

Handheld on the long end of a 100-400 canon....

Thanks, that's my inclination also.

RedRabbit:


Just a guess, but for a preponderance of her medium scale wildlife shots (birds, rabbits, coyote, etc), I think she's at the limit. Other times though, when she has some luck and gets close, she's complained that the 100 mm end is too much. That's when she starts chopping off antler tips and such. Those are typically not moments where one can be shuffling about switching things out.

In total, she packs around a true macro (don't remember the designation), a 24-70 mm, a 38-135 mm, and the 100-400. Most of the time, it's the 100-400 that's mounted if wildlife is the objective. When she finally retires and has the time, I'll probably spring for a prime 500. That should be grounds for fine Shiloh for me a bit later on.

400 can do a lot, for sure. I have an Oly E-620 with a 70-300 lens. In an Oly, that's a 140-600 equivalent. I don't have a decent tripod, but with this thing on even a cheap one, it takes some very good long range shots.

I have the same body and lens and have been very happy with this setup. I agree 400mm can really do a lot even when hand held.

The 100-400 really is king...............

1DMK2N/100-400,handheld.



40D/100-400,handheld.



7D/100-400,handheld.



1DMK3/100-400,handheld.



You get the idea.................

Can't find my 100-400 XTi,50D,5D,5D MKII or 1Ds files.

But that glass do shine everywhere.................

Dang, Big Stick, those are some SHARP photos!

Several of my friends have various Canon "L" series lenses, and it is not hard to see that they are a notch (or more) above average. I am going to just go ahead and break the piggy bank, I guess!

John

Compression absolutely kills the images here,though an inkling is conveyed.

The 7D/100-400 is a VERY impressive machine,as it's(7D's) bolstered AF performance,does exceptionally nice things with said glass. While I prefer my 1DMK3 to the 7D,the 1.6x crop is a very nice crutch.

The 7D absolutely crushes the FF 5D2 in AF,for anything moving even a smidge.

Go Heliopan filters.

Hint.....................

The wife's Canon 100-400




One can expand his page a bit by using the Ctrl and + keys and return to normal scale with the Ctrl and - keys.

It do rock.

I'll mebbe dig some more up,later.................

I think you can't get a long enough lens for wildlife. I like to shoot wildlife as well, and even bought a 600mm F/4L. Still not long enough, but here's always the 800mm.

The 100-400 is a reasonable compromise, but if you want go with the 300 + 1.4 T/C. That would be a great combo IMHO.

I'd agree with that, and also suggest that one needs a body to go with each lens and gunbearer to pack everything around. Opportunities are fleeting unless on is locked down waiting for something specific to come together.