DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Canon100-400
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 38, (reverse)
AuthorThread
10/08/2005 05:20:41 AM · #1
Hi

Im considering Canon EF 100-400 L IS USM. Does "ET-83C" lens hood come width it or do i need to buy this seperate? Any other thoughts about this lens? I have read alot that it could be a dust magnet because of the push-pull zoom.

Håkon
10/08/2005 06:11:33 AM · #2
I don't own the lens, so I can't say for sure... but I believe that all of the 'L' lenses come with lens hoods. Canon only makes non-L purchasers buy the hoods separate. (at least, that's what I've heard)
10/08/2005 06:54:11 AM · #3
It comes with the hood, and a carrybag..

I've not got one, but I have used a one few times borrowed. I didn't notice a 'dust problem' as such, although I havn't shooting anywhere with a lot of dust. More rain that dust realy!

Scott (The owner of the 100-400) said that he'd never noticed a problem on his 1DII, although on his 300D it does cause a problem. He suspects because the camera isn't all that well sealed (not at all) so the push-pull action pumps dust through the shutter/mirror box.

I suspect it depends on your shooting style, and the conditions you shoot in. If you're constantly changing zoom, particularly when firing away in 'burst' mode, and working in dusty locations you're going to get dust in there eventually...

Even if it does increase your just problems, it's a great bit of glass...

Cheers, Me.
10/08/2005 07:30:26 AM · #4
I was giving this lens a lot of thought along with the
Bigma Sigma 50 -500I saw some reviews saying the sigma was better and many others saying the 100-400 was better. Although the Bigma is a larger and heavier lens I still picked it as my new purchase. I just got it two days ago, and I am very impressed. Like it's name implies, it is big but not so much that I wouldn't have it on 90% of the time if I can. They all seem to say they would use a tripod, and I can understand that, but my first test from 50 right through to 500mm hand held and I got a very sharp picture at 500 mm 1/320sec ISO-400. It might be something you would like to look at unless you need the IS lens

Message edited by author 2005-10-08 07:30:51.
10/08/2005 08:24:36 AM · #5
I own the 100-400 L IS and i swear by it. It comes with lens hood and soft case with strap. The lens hood has felt-like material on the inside to reduce reflections and catch dust, so does the inside of the rear mount.

What people suggest about push-pull dust is bollocks. This is a far less dusty lens than my old 70-300 turn zoom, and even some of my primes. What makes people think a push-pull zoom would collect more dust than a turn zoom? The same amount of air has to move either way. If anything, it's easier to seal a push-pull. Speaking of sealing, it's also pretty water resistant (not full-on rain i imagine, but it'll survive a drizzle). Hence i imagine it's also quite dust resistant.

It's also one of the fastest focusing canon lenses i've ever seen, and the IS is indespensable. And for sheer image sharpness and quality, no sigma junk can touch it.

Did i mention i'm pleased with my purchase? :P

Edit: typos

Message edited by author 2005-10-08 10:02:03.
10/08/2005 10:29:06 AM · #6
My wife uses it to shoot motocross in dry dusty Arizona. While shooting she is in the middle of the track in a cloud of dust. No dust problems thus far.
It's not really a sports lens because it's pretty slow, but it does a great job in good lighting, examples: //www.pbase.com/tfaust/inbox&page=6

My favorite from that day: //www.pbase.com/tfaust/image/29852183

10/08/2005 10:32:26 AM · #7
More examples (these are my wife's, not mine)

//www.pbase.com/tfaust/image/29609768

//www.pbase.com/tfaust/image/27669663

//www.pbase.com/tfaust/image/35257431

//www.pbase.com/tfaust/image/35257362
10/08/2005 10:36:03 AM · #8
What is a Bigma?

Anyway, Canon is much more superior in my opinion. "S"igma lens are secondary, and mainly for the consumer market. My 100-400 out performs in many ways than my old Sigma.

By the way, my sigma is for sale.
10/08/2005 10:38:37 AM · #9
I love my 100-400, though I have to say it is a tad slow at f5.6 when out at 400mm. I've also had the lens cause lockup on the 10D, which I believe is when the IS is engaged and the battery pack on the camera is running low. Ususlly a simple battery change sorts the problem.

As for optics - its fantastic
Weight is the only other issue with this lens, I used to get severe wrist pain when using it for extended period, but that appears to have gone away now. Maybe I just grew into the lens ;-)
10/08/2005 10:41:01 AM · #10
I also own this lens and can say that dust has not been a problem with this lens. From what I have read and seen, the only time that dust could get inside the lens is if you move the zoom in and out when the lens is NOT mounted to the camera. If you get this lens you will love it like so many others.
10/08/2005 09:59:53 PM · #11
Originally posted by Falc:

Weight is the only other issue with this lens, I used to get severe wrist pain when using it for extended period


Well that's one thing the bigma won't help with :P
10/08/2005 10:44:51 PM · #12
Originally posted by swinging_johnson_v1:

What is a Bigma?

Anyway, Canon is much more superior in my opinion. "S"igma lens are secondary, and mainly for the consumer market. My 100-400 out performs in many ways than my old Sigma.

By the way, my sigma is for sale.


In my previous post I put a link there so you could see what the Bigma(nickname) lens was. You are partly right your 100-400 does out perform your old sigma, but it is also rated almost 9 out of 10 same as the Sigma 50-500 , but your old Sigma is rated 2.8 out of 10, so that's not really a great comparison. This is from Fred Maranda site reviews. And yes Riot is right the Bigma is a pound heavier so it is not going to be easy to hold for some people

Message edited by author 2005-10-08 22:48:19.
10/09/2005 12:11:11 PM · #13
both are reviewed at photozone.de. The MTF comparison shows that the Sigma is slightly sharper than the 100-400.
10/09/2005 12:31:14 PM · #14
Gotcha...."Big"ma.

Thought it was a "Type"o.

Back to waking up.
10/09/2005 12:40:24 PM · #15
so it's not weather sealed?
10/09/2005 03:08:30 PM · #16
Originally posted by kyebosh:

so it's not weather sealed?


It is to a degree, i.e. the controls on the side etc are water resistant, but it's not properly sealed - no zoom can be - and neither is the mount sealed. The only ones that are fully sealed are canon's so-called "super-telephoto" lenses - the big fast primes. You can recognise them quickly by the black rubber seals on the mount.
10/09/2005 03:20:03 PM · #17
Originally posted by riot:

no zoom can be - and neither is the mount sealed. The only ones that are fully sealed are canon's so-called "super-telephoto" lenses - the big fast primes.

Are you sure about the "no zoom can be" part? I was under the impression that several L-zooms were "weather resistant" when used on a 1-series camera.

My reference: on 6/30/03, Chuck Westfall, Director/Media & Customer Relationship, Camera Division/Canon U.S.A., Inc. wrote on the Rob Galbraith forums:

"The EOS-1D and 1Ds are weather-resistant in conditions equivalent to rainfall at a rate of 10 inches per hour, which would be very heavy rain. Several L-series lenses including the EF 16-35mm L lens have the same degree of weather resistance, but be sure to mount a protective clear filter and the supplied lens hood for best results. We also suggest cleaning the equipment as soon as possible after exposure to rain, and of course the lens mount, the CF card slot cover and the interface ports should be closed at all times during exposure to rain or other precipitation." (emphasis mine)

10 inches per hour is a pretty good rain, too. Not a light drizzle by any stretch.

Also, quoting from this article:

Additionally, the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM features weather-resistant construction in the mount area, switch panel, zoom ring and focusing ring to prevent water and dust from reaching the inside of the lens. This design philosophy matches the performance of the EOS-1V professional camera and makes the new lens usable in a wider range of adverse shooting conditions.

The 70-200 has both internal zoom and focus mechanisms; there are no exposed parts that "move" other than the weatherized focus/zoom rings themselves. Internal mechanisms are much less prone to sucking in dust than front-extension designs.

I know I've had my 1DM2 and several of my L-lenses out in the pouring rain and never been concerned... (I do have Hoya Pro-1 UV filters on the front of all my lenses...)

Message edited by author 2005-10-09 15:23:36.
10/09/2005 06:27:51 PM · #18
Originally posted by riot:

Originally posted by kyebosh:

so it's not weather sealed?


It is to a degree, i.e. the controls on the side etc are water resistant, but it's not properly sealed - no zoom can be - and neither is the mount sealed. The only ones that are fully sealed are canon's so-called "super-telephoto" lenses - the big fast primes. You can recognise them quickly by the black rubber seals on the mount.


Hi-ho,

FYI:

16-35mm 2.8 L USM
17-40mm 4L USM
24-70mm 2.8 L USM
24-105mm 4 L IS USM
70-200mm 2.8 L IS USM
28-300mm 3.5-5.6L IS USM
300mm 2.8L IS USM
400mm 2.8L IS USM
400mm 4 DO IS USM
500mm 4 L IS USM
600mm 4 L IS USM

Are all 'weather sealed'. (The 100-400 isn't on the list, btw, but 6 zooms are.) The first 6 of these require a front filter to be waterproof.

10/10/2005 09:07:29 AM · #19
That's interesting. The brochure i have here for the EOS-1v also has a list, but only includes the 300 f/2.8, 400 f/2.8, 500 f/4 and 600 f/4. As far as i understood, those are also the only ones with a properly sealed mount. That's what i was going off.
10/10/2005 09:44:26 AM · #20
Originally posted by riot:

That's interesting. The brochure i have here for the EOS-1v also has a list, but only includes the 300 f/2.8, 400 f/2.8, 500 f/4 and 600 f/4. As far as i understood, those are also the only ones with a properly sealed mount. That's what i was going off.


I'm sure that I read somewhere that the L lenses introduced since 1999 are weather sealed, hence the 16-35 2.8 is weather sealed, whereas the older 17-35 2.8 is not
10/11/2005 02:52:29 AM · #21

Hi, thanks for all the respons.

I just ordered my 100-400 today. Will the 100-400 be sealed better if i ad a filter to it?

I dont tink any of the lenses i own today are well sealed.

Håkon
10/11/2005 02:53:30 AM · #22
exept the 24-70mm 2.8 L USM according to the list KiwiChris wrote.
10/11/2005 06:01:43 AM · #23
Originally posted by haakky:

Hi, thanks for all the respons.

I just ordered my 100-400 today. Will the 100-400 be sealed better if i ad a filter to it?

I dont tink any of the lenses i own today are well sealed.

Håkon


The lens hood does quite a good job of keeping water away from the front element, i don't think a filter would improve things much - the main source of water entry will most probably be the zoom slide. Mind you, i don't know anything about the internal construction of the lens, so i may be wrong.
10/12/2005 02:46:27 AM · #24
i wouldt use this lens in any weather that may distroy my photoequiptment anyway:)
10/12/2005 04:50:49 AM · #25
Originally posted by haakky:

i wouldt use this lens in any weather that may distroy my photoequiptment anyway:)


Don't think of that way... Think of it more as taking photos in challenging conditions. :-).


Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/25/2020 03:16:37 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 11/25/2020 03:16:37 AM EST.