Canon 100 - 400 mk 2 l series lenses

[sparks]

Good afternoon all,

 

After reading numerous reviews on this lenses....all good.

 

Wondering how alamy contributors  find this product if you use one.

I use the 70 - 300 l series already...but would appreciate any opinions.

 

Thanks

 

Best regards

 

Sparks

[Niels Quist]

Then I guess you have already been here:

 

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51858121

 

Personally I use no longer than the 70-200 mm, yet.

 

Niels

 

[Niels Quist]

- and here:

 

http://www.canonfeatures.ca/comparison-tool

 

 

[imageplotter]

Really depends on what you need it for. I like that lens, it's very sharp and a similar weight to my 70-200 f2.8, for things like occasional wildlife it's a great lens because it can be used handheld or with monopod even if you're a little woman like moi, and it does work for some daytime sports if it's quite bright. It's a very reliable lens, robust and happy to take the odd rain shower like all the larger Canon L lenses. The best thing is that it's quite a steal, price wise for the sharpness you get, compared to the decent F4 and F2.8 long lenses.

 

However, if you're looking for a proper sports lens then this is not it, it's too slow and not adequate for any larger field sports under floodlights or even shady conditions, the 300 with converter/400/600 primes are made for that use for large fields like football/rugby/cricket (and are priced accordingly, sadly), and the 70-200 F.2.8 is great for small courts (tennis/handball/basketball/volleyball etc).

[Doc]

Hi Sparks

I have both the 100-400 mark 2 and the 70-200 mark 2 - the 100-400 is an excellent lens for wildlife, and also birds when used with the 7D2. Also worked very well for air displays and some sports though I agree with Imageplotter that's it's a bit too slow for faster sports.

never had any problems with water or dust (and it's been tested well in both) and its very sharp - significantly sharper than the old Mark 1

I think it's very good value if you can afford it!

regards

Kumar (the Doc one)

[sparks]

Just to say "Thank you" to ones replying to my question. interesting reading.

 

Much appreciated.

 

Regards

 

Sparks

[Graham]

Sorry about the late response - I have been away. 

 

I have both the 70-300 L and the 100-400 II.  Both are excellent lenses, and I find separate uses for each.  The 70-300 L is more compact and lighter than the 100-400 II, which means that it finds its way into my camera bag whenever I go out.  The 100-400 is a little too large and heavy for this - in particular, it is just a little too long to fit comfortably standing vertically in either of my camera bags.

 

For safaris, wildlife etc., the extra reach of the 100-400 makes it my preferred zoom lens of the two.  I do not have either the 70-200 f 2.8 or the 200-400 f4 with its built-in extender.  Moreover, the 100-400 II will accept the Canon 1.4x and 2x converters, which do not fit the 70-300.  It annoys me that Canon do not include a collar and foot in the 70 - 300 L package, whereas the 100 - 400 II does include this, which means that if I know I am going to be using a tripod, the 100 - 400 II comes with an inbuilt advantage.

 

In summary, if I do not have to carry it around too much, my go-to telephoto zoom would be the 100-400 II.  If I do have to carry it around and the use is more speculative, then the 70 - 300 L suits my needs very well.

 

Graham