| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Canon 100-400mm lens...anyone ever use?
Anantachai Brown, Photographer
 |
Jacksonville | FL | | Posted: 11:38 AM on 08.24.09 |
->> I checked the archives, but no posts found.
anyone ever use the Canon 100-400mm 4.5 L lens for football or sports in general? Looking at the reviews, most seem to use of for nature photography.
thanks for you input. |
|
Marcio J. Sanchez, Photographer
|
San Francisco | CA | USA | Posted: 11:47 AM on 08.24.09 |
->> Hi:
I've used the 100-400 mm 4.5 for sports with some mixed results.
The Good:
The follow focus when the subject is coming straight at you works really great.
The versatily of the zoom since you can move in and out at a larger zoom rate than most lenses.
The Bad:
Autofocus when the subject is travelling across the lens plain is pretty spotty. (i.e whe shooting a touchdown in the endzone from the sideline, I've had some back focusing issues)
You have to take the lens filter off the lens when shooting because the filter affects image sharpness.
If you are shooting on Aperture priority and the subject moves from a front lit point to a shade point, you are going to lose some serious shutter speed.
On a football game, I've gone from 2500 @ 5.6 to 400 @ 5.6 in one play. Needless to say the 400 @ 5.6 picture was motion blurred.
Anyways, this is my 2 cents.
Hope it helps. |
|
Robert Hanashiro, Photographer
 |
Los Angeles | CA | | Posted: 12:00 PM on 08.24.09 |
| ->> Good question to pose to the ss.com Equipment Q & A... |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 12:22 PM on 08.24.09 |
->> I've used it for soccer and baseball, with mixed results for the former and better for the latter. This might not apply in all cases, but achieving the right balance of friction between being able to push-pull easily and keeping the lens where I want it is difficult in the unit I have. Sharpness in mine is good but not great.
Depending on how you plan to use it, you might also want to consider the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8. I did not have a good experience with the one I owned, but it was an early model, and I've talked with people since who love theirs. |
|
Nik Habicht, Photographer
|
Levittown | PA | USA | Posted: 12:31 PM on 08.24.09 |
->> I really liked using a zoom lens to cover Little League and High School softball, simply because of the size of most fields. Those were the only sports I could routinely cover with a single camera.
With football, you'll have a tendency to zoom in the middle of the play, which may result in not capturing the best moment or in having a distracting background because you lose the background blurring feature of a longer, wider aperture lens. I'd prefer a 300/4.0 at minimum, or a 200/2.8 with converters, if money or equipment weight are an object.
It's tough to beat a 50 mm around your neck on a second body for plays occurring right in front of you. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 12:46 PM on 08.24.09 |
->> 100-400 is a pretty nice lens to have overall. Great size/weight for its range, IS (though an earlier generation) and a reasonable cost for decent optical performance, though its not stellar wide open, at f8 its nice though. I used to love mine for a very versatile all around longer lens for travel, landscapes, the zoo etc. Made a great sidekick for my 500 F4 VR for wildlife shooting as well.
However, as a sports lens I think it falls rather flat. Its just not a fast lens in terms of focus speed, and being f5.6 its also really limited to good lighting and its not like you could mount it onto a D3. I'd go with a 70-200 2.8 and 1.4x TC over the 100-400 any day. Its just a more versatile combo and better lens for sports on the whole.
Its a popular lens for sure, but you just don't see them at sporting events for a reason. |
|
John Germ, Photographer
|
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 2:37 PM on 08.24.09 |
->> I have one and use it for wildlife. It's a great focal length for football, but when I shot with it, the biggest problem was the f5.6. In good light it focuses fast enough. But even in good light, I just didn't care for the deep DOF f5.6 provides.
I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say 70-200 2.8 plus TC is better. That's a nice option but still a lot shorter. Better AF performance for sure and you've got a low light option by removing the TC which you don't have for the 100-400. For what it's worth, I'm shooting with a sigma 120-300 2.8 for my football work. Easy choice over my 100-400 but it's also still f2.8. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 2:51 PM on 08.24.09 |
->> I agree with that John, but having just looked at the BH Photo price of the 120-300, its $3199! Crazy I as remember buying that lens when it first came out for $1699 way back in the day.
Anyways, given the price range they now sell for I couldn't recommend it to someone looking at a 100-400 because its probably twice what the OP might of wanted to spend. As such, a 70-200 and TC would probably provide the most bang for the buck and allow for shooting day, dusk and to some degree night once you take the TC off, so you'd really be gaining the most versatility for the dollar.
As I said, I did like having my 100-400 for some non sports shooting needs, but as a sports lens I think you'd be sort of wasting your money on something that wouldn't work under that many conditions.
On a sidenote, I just bought a Nikon 200-400, which is a F4 zoom, so I'm going to be curious how well that is going to work given its max aperture. Luckily D3's high iso performance might help to keep it shooting a little longer as the sun goes down its defiantly not going to cut it on the HS fields. |
|
Erin Schrad, Photographer, Assistant
|
Glen Allen | VA | United States | Posted: 11:14 AM on 08.25.09 |
->> I opted for the 70-200/2.8 + 2x TC combo over the 100-400. It definitely offered more versatility and got around that awful push-pull design.
I'm sure wide open the 100-400 is sharper than the 70-200 + 2x, but this setup works for me as a part-time sports shooter shooting mostly for parents who buy nothing larger than 4x6s, and it is less to carry.
Maybe one day I'll own a 300/2.8, or Canon will make a better 100-400... maybe a fixed f/4 and a twist zoom. |
|
Joseph D. Sullivan, Photographer
|
Long Island | NY | USA | Posted: 12:28 PM on 08.25.09 |
| ->> Erin... it sounds like you're describing Nikon's well-liked 100-400 f4. My friend has one and uses it all the time (the NIkon). I too prefer the twist ring to a push-pull. Would be a nice Canon lens for sure. |
|
Anantachai Brown, Photographer
|
Jacksonville | FL | | Posted: 1:21 PM on 08.25.09 |
| ->> I appreciate everyone's input...maybe I'll just stick to my 300 2.8 and 70-200 with a 1.4 tc. I'm wanting to get a nice used 400, 500, or a 600 because can't justify the purchase right now. |
|
Christian del Rosario, Photographer
|
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 3:03 PM on 08.25.09 |
| ->> Something else to consider. When researching this lens at one point, folks online mentioned that with the push-pull design, it tends to "suck" in air through the seals like a vacuum. Some felt this allowed dust to suck into the camera body. Wondering if that is something anyone has had a problem with? |
|
Paul Alesse, Photographer
|
Centereach | NY | USA | Posted: 3:10 PM on 08.25.09 |
| ->> Jeff.. FWIW the 200-400 will blow away all of the aforementioned lenses |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 3:18 PM on 08.25.09 |
->> Christian, the 100-400 doesn't suck any more or less air than any other lens of similar size. That is just this dumb internet "fact" that has been spread around for years. Being a push/push or twist zoom doesn't matter because even a twist zoom is going to have to move its elements and displace a volume of air as its doing so.
It would be physically impossible to have a twist (or push/pull) zoom that didn't displace air because when you twisted the zoom ring you'd be compressing the air inside the lens and air doesn't compress very easily.
There are so many downright idiotic versions of that "fact" going around its almost funny. You'll always come across some message board user who had the lens mounted and would get dust blown into his eyes out of the viewfinder when he'd zoom and crazy stuff like that. Just makes zero sense because for one thing the lens just doesn't move that much air, nor does it through the rear element. Additionally that air would have to go through the prism housing and then somehow out of the sealed diopter glass in the viewfinder. Just isn't possible.
You can take the lens and put your hand over the rear mount and zoom in and out as much as you want and your not going to feel a breeze or be able to inflate a balloon or anything.
In fact, and I dont own one anymore to check, I think the rear element of the lens is solid in fact so no air is going to move through into the mirror box of any volume. |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 3:49 PM on 08.25.09 |
->> Christian:
I saw those comments, too, but have not experienced this "Hoover Effect" so far. |
|
Philip Johnson, Photographer
|
Garland | TX | USA | Posted: 4:17 PM on 08.25.09 |
->> It is physically impossible to have dust or dirt from inside this lens enter your camera body. I have owned this lens for 3 or 4 years and have not noticed any dust inside the lens. I have noticed some dust inside my 28-135 lens though.
You have a greater chance of metal from the lens mount entering the camera body from mounting and dismounting the lens. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 4:50 PM on 08.25.09 |
->> Well one time this guy I know told me a story about a friend of a friend who was driving across the desert and got a slow leak in his tire. There was no help for miles and he didn't have cell service in this hot remote area and the tire was near totally flat and he knew he couldn't drive on the rim long enough to reach safety.
Luckily he had a 100-400 in his camera bag and with a bit of "McGuyver-ing" he was able to use the 100-400 as a make shift tire pump, stopping every 20 miles or so and using the lens to put a few more pounds pressure back into the tire.
While not the sharpest or fastest lens made, its very well may of saved his life that day.
True story. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 4:57 PM on 08.25.09 |
->> My uncles sisters cousin told me one time about when he was on a camping trip with some friends and they were out doing some hiking in a wooded area. One of the group was stepping over a log when an Eastern Hog-nose Rattlesnake bit the guy on the calf.
They were able to carry him back to camp but the venom was quickly spreading and taking its toll. One of the group who was a doctor predicted grimly that the man had less than 24 hours to live if he didn't get help but the group was a 2 day hike from the nearest road or civilization.
It looked like the end for this poor fellow but luckily one member of the group was a photographer and had a 100-400 zoom in his camera bag.
With quick thinking this photographer grabbed his lens, places the rear element over the bite and by zooming in and was able to suck all the poison from the wound.
Due to his quick thinking and trusty 100-400 the man was able to hold onto until they were able to get help and rush him to the hospital where he made a full recovery.
Doctors said had it not been for the 100-400 zoom a life would of been lost.
True Story |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | Lower 48 | Posted: 5:46 PM on 08.25.09 |
->> I'll add a couple of things as I've not seen them mentioned, and perhaps someone will happen upon this thread needing general info.
For my dinero, the 100-400 is at its best when used for aerials. I love, love, love that lens when I'm up in the wild blue yonder (in a chopper, that is ... never tried it on a plane). With that and a 24-70, you're pretty much set when shooting from the sky.
It's also a damned fine choice for golf. A couple of AP shooters here use it (along with a wide) exclusively. Much easier lens to walk the links with than a 400 /2.8. I prefer the option of a longer throw, if needed, so I'll use one in concert with a 500 /4 and 1.4 TC. It is amazing how much lighter that 500 is ...
Lastly, if the venue has enough light (but you really would need a lot of light) or you have strobes, it's a nice choice for hockey, too. The Stars' team photog, Glenn James, uses one and it seems to work well for him. When you're ice level on one of the corners, you really do need that 400 for stuff on the opposite end. To my mind a 300 really doesn't cut it (unless your cam sensor is enormous and the AF is razor sharp tack), and hand holding a 400 (and trying to angle it through a funky hole in the glass in the corner, which is how most of the AAC's shooting spots are) is quite the challenge.
Speaking of baseball, Jeff B ... I actually took one out to Rangers spring training a couple of years ago for s's and g's ... couldn't get into it. For one, when I shoot field level, I use a 400, so it seemed redundant. I also had issues with the push/pull tightening. Obviously needed to leave the friction a little loose, but it was hard to find the sweet spot where it wouldn't slowly pull out to 400 while slung it over my shoulder. After that hosed me a good three or four times (incidentally, the geriatrics who tend to have the time and inclination to go to spring training games sure don't like it when you keep yelling "f*ck" in frustration), I put it away in place of the 70-200.
I'm sure the lens has plenty of other applications -- I'll have to try the tire thing, Jeff M. -- but the above are all I've tried.
All in all, a solid little lens. I'd never in a million years suggest it in place of a good 400, but it does have its useful applications.
Cheers,
- gerry - |
|
William Maner, Photographer
|
Biloxi | MS | USA | Posted: 5:48 PM on 08.25.09 |
->> Jeff Mills..
Did that 100-400 have a genuine Swiss army knife built in?? I've seen some available on ebay, but the built-in knife was Chinese made.. I'm kinda leery of imitations... |
|
G.J. McCarthy, Photographer
|
Dallas | TX | Lower 48 | Posted: 5:48 PM on 08.25.09 |
->> Ah -- remembered one.
NASCAR. That lens is a pretty good thing to have with you when shooting from pit level. The I.S. comes in handy, too, when you try to pan stuff.
- g - |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 5:55 PM on 08.25.09 |
->> William:
If you search on eBay, you can find the model with the built-in Ginsu knives. I think they also make one with an "in the egg" scrambler and another version comes with a Sham-Wow cleaning cloth. I'm holding out for the Chuck Liddy chia pet. |
|
Chuck Liddy, Photographer
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 7:09 PM on 08.25.09 |
| ->> Jeff, send me a certified check for $500.00 and I'll ship you that chia pet edition (minus the lens of course!) |
|
Jim Owens, Photographer
|
Cincinnati | OH | usa | Posted: 7:18 PM on 08.25.09 |
->> Jeff,
You have WAY too much time on your hands.
Good thing the Buckeyes are starting soon. |
|
Randy Abrams, Photographer
|
Bath | NY | US | Posted: 10:06 PM on 08.25.09 |
->> I shoot Nikon so I can't speak specifically about the 100-400/4.5, but I can I do have the Nikon 200-400/4 and will say that the zoom is awesome to have available. It is just about perfect for baseball, softball, football, soccer and lacrosse. I've used mine with the 1.4tc with pretty good results in good light. Speaking of light, that of course is the downfall of either of these being f/4.5 or f/4. I shoot with the D3, but at my local football/lacrosse/soccer fields that all start games between 6:30-7:30PM I can only shoot with f/4 for the first half of games. After that is the 300 or 400/2.8.
If you are going to shoot a lot of day youth sports, then these zooms are great! |
|
Jeff Brehm, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Charlotte | NC | USA | Posted: 10:16 PM on 08.25.09 |
| ->> $500 for a Chuck Liddy chia is a steal. I saw one appraised for twice that price on Antiques Roadshow. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|