| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/25/2005 11:23:37 PM · #1 |
| I too have this lens and will commit suicide if i lose it;-) I have had a some time and use it very often, to date no dust problem what so ever. But I do take care of my stuff and I do make sure to clean my equipment... If I could I would take my 100-400 to bed, not as a symbol of ..... but as a girlfriend! Love it with a passion! |
|
|
|
10/25/2005 11:12:24 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by haakky:
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 |
I have this lens and I LOVE it. It comes with the lens hood. I haven't noticed any particular dust problem with it at all. |
|
|
|
10/25/2005 11:07:40 PM · #3 |
I agree the 300mm or 400mm primes are sharper but the 100-400 is very sharp and has IS.
Originally posted by Beagleboy:
I was in the market for a long lens and thought long and hard between selecting the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS and the Canon 300mm f/4.0L IS.
What did it for me was that the 300mm was significantly cheaper ($300US less) and my web research showed that the 300mm had higher image quality than the 100-400mm. True, the 100-400mm offers more flexibility in range. You just have to decide what's more important to you: zoom range or slightly better quality images.
The 300mm works great with the Canon 1.4x tele-extender.
Terns
That said, I wouldn't mind owning the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS on top of the Canon 300mm f/4.0L IS that I already have. |
|
|
|
|
10/25/2005 10:26:03 AM · #4 |
I was in the market for a long lens and thought long and hard between selecting the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS and the Canon 300mm f/4.0L IS.
What did it for me was that the 300mm was significantly cheaper ($300US less) and my web research showed that the 300mm had higher image quality than the 100-400mm. True, the 100-400mm offers more flexibility in range. You just have to decide what's more important to you: zoom range or slightly better quality images.
The 300mm works great with the Canon 1.4x tele-extender.
Terns
That said, I wouldn't mind owning the Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS on top of the Canon 300mm f/4.0L IS that I already have.
|
|
|
|
10/25/2005 09:53:03 AM · #5 |
The only lenses that are 'sealed' as far as i know are the Cnaon L lenses, and from postings here, i guess not all of them.
I try to avoid the wet - i have never liked being out in the rain, but was twice this year...
a memorial day parade but i kept the camera pretty dry.
The other was a wedding, and when we got to the formals it was beyond a drizzle. I did the best i could to keep things dry, but hiding under a tree is not the same as an umbrella! Lots of water drops on the body (300D) and lens (Sigma 18-50 2.8 EX DC) and no issues of any kind.
I have not used a tele-extender. I have read they slow down teh focusing (on canon's - they're programmed to do that) and of course it costs light. I have not read any reviews on how it effects the image and anecdotal reports are rather mixed. I would think that if i ever get one, it'd be a 1.4x canon and i'd stick on a canon 2.8 lens - i.e. the best of circumstances.
Message edited by author 2005-10-25 09:55:20. |
|
|
|
10/25/2005 09:35:31 AM · #6 |
I have The 100-400 and I love it. I have also done a lot of tests with the extenders on my 20D.
OK NO ONE FREAK OUT!!!
But these are my results; nothing looks, as good using the extenders as having the actual length example 70-200 plus extender will not equal the quality of the 100-400. In my opinion it degrades it by a lot.
Also I tested the 400 2.8L and the 100-400 with the extenders (1.4x and 2x) it degraded the image more the when I crop on photo shop. The image was clearer and I did not loose stops because of the extender.
I have tested this a couple times in a variety of scenarios. Tripod and cable release, handheld, Low light, Bright sunny day, Studio etc.. And always equals the same for me.
Again this is just for me but I sold my 1.4x and will never rent either again. Not worth it for me.
Message edited by author 2005-10-25 09:35:58. |
|
|
|
10/25/2005 08:08:06 AM · #7 |
I have a 100 - 400 L and love it. The real question to me was whether I should have gotten a 70 - 200 and a 2x entender. Despite loving the 100 - 400, I have used friends 70 - 200 plus 2x and think it is a faster, more versatile lens. The 2x on the 200 allows the autofocus to still work, while the 1.4x on the 400 kills the autofocus (you can hack this by covering the right connectors, but the hacked autofocus is very poor).
I recommend the 70 - 200 L w/2x if you can afford, otherwise the 100 - 400 has had no dust problems, is somewhat weather sealed, and produces really fantastic (albeit slow) shots. |
|
|
|
10/20/2005 08:28:54 PM · #8 |
I am seeing subtleties of color I certainly hadn't noticed before. At first blush I like it. (My banker says "Geez I hope so"
|
|
|
|
10/20/2005 10:02:17 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by chiqui74:
MOST definitely NOT a walk around lens. What did you think of the coffee mug, i mean lens hood? ;)
June |
:-) At least now I can leave the thermos home because a cup that size will wire you for the day.
|
|
|
|
10/19/2005 11:54:34 PM · #10 |
MOST definitely NOT a walk around lens. What did you think of the coffee mug, i mean lens hood? ;)
June
|
|
|
|
10/19/2005 10:28:46 PM · #11 |
Woot! Arrived today. Just in time for my DPC outing to Denver zoo on Saturday. First impression is good but really haven't used it. It is definitely not a walk around lens! :-)
|
|
|
|
10/12/2005 09:59:18 PM · #12 |
|
|
|
10/12/2005 08:18:04 PM · #13 |
Ordered mine with 1.4 TC today. Given B&H holiday schedule I am not sure when I will get it. My first L class lens.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2005 04:50:49 AM · #14 |
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. :-).
|
|
|
|
10/12/2005 02:46:27 AM · #15 |
| i wouldt use this lens in any weather that may distroy my photoequiptment anyway:) |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 06:01:43 AM · #16 |
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.
|
|
|
|
10/11/2005 02:53:30 AM · #17 |
| exept the 24-70mm 2.8 L USM according to the list KiwiChris wrote. |
|
|
|
10/11/2005 02:52:29 AM · #18 |
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 |
|
|
|
10/10/2005 09:44:26 AM · #19 |
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
|
|
|
|
10/10/2005 09:07:29 AM · #20 |
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.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2005 06:27:51 PM · #21 |
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.
|
|
|
|
10/09/2005 03:20:03 PM · #22 |
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 03:08:30 PM · #23 |
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 12:40:24 PM · #24 |
so it's not weather sealed?
|
|
|
|
10/09/2005 12:31:14 PM · #25 |
Gotcha...."Big"ma.
Thought it was a "Type"o.
Back to waking up.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 08:45:53 AM EDT.
