Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sparks

Canon 100 - 400 mk 2 l series lenses

Recommended Posts

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Much appreciated.

 

Regards

 

Sparks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.