Master of variability

Who
- Lays great emphasis on variability
- Can dispense with the last ounce of image quality
- Has no problem with a sliding zoom
- The comparable sluggish autofocus accepted
- Is aware that depending on the camera occasionally the sensor needs to be cleaned, because the lens is properly inflated dirt in the camera
- Tolerated that a hunk (> 1.4 kg) must be moved
- Can spare 1300-1400 Euro

receives here one of the most interesting telephoto zoom lenses in the market. The image quality is impressive for a 4x zoom. You can not complain about the sharpness really. The resolution is sufficient to good depending on the application. Serious differences in the picture quality compared to other lenses do not become apparent until really large prints. In addition, the mechanical qualities are proverbial. This can be necessary even sometimes drive a nail into the wall
This lens provides with its purchase price already an official investment. In comparison, and given the options you have it in turn to be favorable or call Inexpensive.

"Long version" (for the curious)

As has been emphasized elsewhere, it concerns with this lens to a rather controversial objective of the Canon L series. First, it must be said that with the Canon L series serves the professional photo application. These lenses are not only in their optical performance demanding but especially mechanically more solid constructed as lenses for the consumer sector. This is underlined by a dust and splash water protection, the denied unfortunately some (seemingly designed only for studio operation) L lenses. Here I would have liked Canon consistent implementation, because ultimately, the photographer decides the application. However, this 100-400 mm Zoom includes this protection.
Furthermore, given the L lenses innately a lens hood, which is not the case with the standard lenses. This lens described here beyond a nylon quiver is attached, which can be attached to a belt or backpack.

First, the proper weight of this lens is important to note that even though relativized. On a hike or even an expedition it can replace the 70-200 and 300 (400) mm optics that be considerably more difficult in the sum. But is the optical quality in the foreground, the above objectives are to be preferred.
If the telephoto use be limited, it is especially with a 4.0 / 70-200 mm Zoom served more effectively priced, technically weight and also in the optical quality

As a photographer with an average of 50,000 admissions per year I am happy to underline that getting the job determines the technology. I also want to distance myself from the professional tests under laboratory conditions that serve, at best, highly professional photographer at a purchase decision, but unfortunately are significantly more likely for fetishists or technocrats generally. The professional photographer, who has opted for a system and a specific focal length requires a dedicated early opening, in any case hardly an alternative to the system optics laboratory values ​​remains or not

My benchmark for the acquisition of the reviewed optics was clearly their variability. In conjunction with the 4.0 / 24-105 mm zoom reportage use is almost perfectly satisfied. In the studio I use again prefer the 2.8 / 2.8 and 24-70 / 70-200 mm optics. Viewfinder picture is brighter here, the focus quickly and the minimum focusing distance at the telephoto zoom decisively shorter. And who wants to drive the parameters latter on the top and has the appropriate money and can do without the variability of a zoom lens, it is still best served with fixed focal lengths, such as 2,0 / 135 or 2,8 / 200mm telephoto be.

Parameters such as sharpness and resolution are perceived rarely differentiated just by laymen. This is well known must also find attention always the lighting situation of a recording. Thus, laboratory values ​​into perspective. For example sharpness and resolution are significantly only when really big screen prints for the demanding photographer or the critical consumer.
At the end you can always compare only apples to apples and not oranges. Fixed focal length always usually have better image quality. Zoom lenses with a focal length factor greater than 3 are structurally difficult to implement and to take a critical look at the results

This 100-400 mm lens at least excited me again and again with his sharpness, the 4,0 / 24-105 zoom is obvious even without measuring instruments well above one (example). Even with the resolving power of these optics can live very well. However, those who passionately with a magnifying glass looking for details at 100 percent representation on the monitor, may of course find better lenses (for considerably more money).
The distortion of this lens is acceptable and falls in particular not in the portrait or Wildlife Photography significant. The vignetting is also perfectly reasonable and is successfully compensated by the current digital camera models. Overall, one can look for in Aperture 8 only pedantic for errors. If these panel in view of the bokeh (blurred the background) is too large must be said that there are for this purpose generally better optics. For selective sharpness this lens is suitable but still excellent. So I use in portrait photography like the 400 millimeters, which in turn requires a minimum aperture 8, to image a face in the format and frontal full focus. The more the face tends to side, conditions change accordingly.

The handling of the sliding zoom has in my view no disadvantage to a rotary push. Only which thereby magnifying lens length can prove according to the shooting situation a disadvantage. This technique should also be noted that tidy air and thus dirt is pumped into the camera. In older camera models without automatic sensor cleaning it regularly requires a sensitive manual cleaning of the sensor. In the current models with an automatic sensor cleaning this dirt is negligible. In this context, nor is the Canon Professional Services (CPS) above, which assumes such a service free of charge after a certain amount of equipment. This scope is achieved fairly quickly by interested parties of such objective and should definitely be considered.

Finally remains only the autofocus to criticize thoroughly, which is total income, which increases under low light conditions again. This can have a negative impact on sports photography especially in a hall. Also at the concert photography, where I prefer very tight cropping, the focus speed has denied some valuable recording. This disadvantage can be compensated by the quality of the camera body used a little. So take the focus speed of the EOS 5D Mark I on the Mark II to 1DX clearly. This, however, does not conceal that there are significantly faster lenses.

One designed for professional use lens is preferable, from a qualitative point of view always an inexpensive consumer version. Here you should only decide the individual budget. The 100-400 mm telephoto zoom lens, I can now recommend use of highly after 5 years. At the end you have to compromise at some point in each lens. Here, this lens is perhaps the most versatile. 5 Stars!