I'm looking for a high quality zoom lens ... I will be doing nature photography, mostly birds. Any thoughts on the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS ?? Realistically, is this a walkaround lens, or is it too big? I've never seen it.
I'm a bit split between this one and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS ... The second one is much lighter, but only $300 less. And I lose half of the mm..
Any suggestions much appreciated.
Edit: I should add... I don't want to drop more than $1,300
IMHO my 70-200 f/4L (USM only - no IS) is just on the edge of a "walkaround" lens. IS is going to add some weight as well. I can't imagine lugging a 100-400 around the field.
Have you considered the 70-200 f/4L combined with a 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter to use when you really need the length? The 1.4x will preserve AF with the f/4 lens, otherwise you're MF only if you go with the 2.0x converter. $1k for the 70-200 f4/L IS plus about $300 for the converter (a bit less for 1.4x) and you're still in budget. Plus you've still got the length while giving yourself the flexibility of a much lighter setup in the field.
My understanding is that 200mm is genreally too short for birding. Otherwise the 70-200 is a great lens. I've never used the 100-400, but I've heard it's great too. If birding is your goal, you will really appreciate the reach.
I have the 70-200mm f/4L, non IS version, and it's not long enough for serious birding. I had the 1.4X converter for a while but i took it back; it wasn't helping much, and it made the lens really hard to hand-hold.
I have used the 100-400mm and it's a hell of a lens, but it IS bulky. If you want serious reach in a high-quality zoom, you are gonna have to accept that it is going to come at the expense of weight and bulk, and learn to live with it.
What Robert said... also, be aware that the 100-400 is a "push-pull" zoom design. Some like it, some don't.
I had a chance to handle one the other evening; as far as bulk, it's bigger than the 70-200/4, but not as heavy and not quite as bulky as my 70-200/2.8.
I was afraid the 70-200 f/4L might not really cut it.. I have thought of the teleconverter, but I'd almost be leaning to just get over it and buy the 400mm Canon lens... I think I will need to go to the store and see how big it really is... The birding season is here, there is so much waterfowl at our local pond, and I find myself being able to spend the $, so I need to get this ASAP :):):)
I got the 100-400 a year ago, and it is far and away my used lens. I absolutely love it, and can't recommend it highly enough, especially for the wildlife enthusiast. I have hardly ever used it with the tripod, and regularly take it on six-seven mile walks; that said, I tend to stick it on my shoulder, and probably wouldn't want to walk more than ten miles with it. You will build up some muscles, but it is perfectly managable as a walkaround, providing you are prepared to sacrifice a little comfort! All my FS photos from this year have been taken with it.
I love my 100-400 and again it is my most used lens. I walk about with it everywhere and bought an Optech strap - which helped enourmously with the comfort.
I rarely use a tripod (I'm too tired carrying the lens :) ) and did I mention that I love it ? :- )
A variety of shots I've taken with it
I would say that it is essential to hold before you buy though. I actually went in to get the 70-210 F2.8 and was convinced by the 100-400 instead.
I'm looking for a high quality zoom lens ... I will be doing nature photography, mostly birds. Any thoughts on the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS ?? Realistically, is this a walkaround lens, or is it too big? I've never seen it.
tx, you know what I meant! I meant the 400mm L IS one!!
I'm not sure you're sure. The only 400mm L with IS is a 2.8 prime and it's like $6000 or something. Do you mean the 100-400 F4.5/5.6L IS. I'd hate to see you buy something that wasn't what you really wanted or thought it was.
.jpg)
(available for both Nikon & Canon)
