Why I bought the lens: For about 2 years I go regularly to DTM and other sporting events and photograph there - as an amateur without accreditation. So far I have to the 70-200 4.0 L IS used with Extender. The resulting 280mm were me just still too short.
In between, I then had a 5.6 L 400 (fixed focal length). Image quality was ok - but the flexibility of a zoom I really missed. Also the lack of IS has done the rest, that I sold this lens again.
400mm else is there not at this price. Of course there are foreign lenses and a few years ago, I also bought a Sigma 2 times. Unfortunately I was unlucky with the mechanics of both lenses - after a very short time. Since och do it myself when purchasing lens simply: Is there a Canon L that fits and I can afford?
Picture quality: On weekends, I took the time and an objective comparison performed. As Michael Reichmann (...) I photograph to no test charts, but looking for me in reality a place where I can take pictures of different things.
What was my test? Overall, I gained 5 motives photographed in 2m, 5m, 10m, 20m and 50m in estimated (for infinite) distance. Lenses are characterized sometimes differ sharply depending on the distance.
The shots Aperture 6.3 (= 1/3-aperture vs. 5-6.) Were at maximum aperture, made of 8 and 11. Each image has been added at each of said aperture at 100mm, 150mm, 200mm, 300mm and 400mm focal length. Compared I have it. With a 70-200 4.0 and a 100 2.0
As I have analyzed? The RAWs went to Lightroom. The comparisons were made at full-screen view and at 100% (but just to confirm the first impression of the full-screen view). The full screen on a 22-inch monitor is almost my size output in print (A3 +).
The 100-400 shows over the entire zoom range at maximum aperture a slight vignetting. Even with Aperture 6.3 the vignetting was discreetly recognizable - though to an extent as to eliminate without problem. The open-aperture vignetting is only very slightly greater than that of a 70-200 4.0 L IS.
At maximum aperture in 100% view, a slight purple sheen in places was evident. In Aperture 6.3 this had disappeared.
With the sharpness I was satisfied at all distances, aperture and focal lengths. The sharpness is minimal lower at open aperture. A difference from 6.3 to 8.0 I could not find consistently. What does this 'consistently'? I have taken for me to note that the focus of 'external influences' is highly dependent: wind, vibrations, plane parallelism of the object to the focal plane, precise focusing. Only the subject plane parallelism is difficult to achieve in practice test. Have for example a mountain bark photographed from a distance of 2m (about the minimum focus distance, the 100-400). Some of the snippets were at the edge of the image unsharp, but some in the middle - just because they were at a working distance of only 2 meters outside the focal plane.
Have not made out of the hand of the test. As I had the head Novoflex Classic Ball 5 (= very stable), (not extended center column, legs not fully extended) as a tripod Gitzo Carbon. Triggered I have self-timer with mirror lockup. In practice, in sports or wildlife photography photos the conditions are a little 'restless'.
In sum, I would say: I'm really excited by 100-400.
Also, the IS works quite excellent at shooting handheld. After all, I was several times at 200mm indoor 1 / 30th hold. At 400mm is possible immerhi a 1 / 100th. The stated 2 aperture are sure maybe there are 2.5 aperture.
Summary. Those who want the focal length / needs, yet also value emphasizes flexibility, which can access here really. Who just want the focal length / needs and the price for one of the fixed focal length can not spend / wants here is also in good hands.
At 100-400 I recommend a copy of 2008 or younger - older copies could come from times when Canon did not have the build quality of this lens in the handle.
A word on the push-pull design: From my perspective, the handling of such a focal length range of no less than 300mm (100-400) on a rotating mechanism is not smooth map. The basic rate of reaction seems to be better with a touch zoom.
Some owners report in forums from 'draft' of 100-400. When the lens is moved together quickly, then that is indeed the case - at least not when the camera is mounted behind the lens. But if I at the same speed change the focal length of a zoom slider as on a rotating zoom, then 'pulls' because really nothing. I once made a 'dust test' and found virtually nothing after a few days of intensive use. Maybe this symptom with the Year of the optics is related.
As will be known, the zooming can be locked.
The lens is slightly lighter than the 70-200 2.8L IS, slightly shorter and slightly thicker - the bottom line is the same size and the same weight. This is important to know in which pockets fits the look. Lowepro relates like that a camera with 70-200 2.8 fits into the pocket.
I never would have expected at the beginning of my test so that I 5 star awarded here. I do it out of conviction but (the mix of image quality, flexibility and price makes it). Aperture 6.3 will be my standard bezel.
I have taken my tests and other shots with a 5D.
I wish you as much fun with the lens as I have him and getting enough light.
PS: Please note my review as compared to the Canon EF 70-300mm 1: 4-5.6 L IS. The reviewed here 100-400L cuts in this comparison very well.