Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS II USM Lens or other options?

I am looking for input from those of you shooting sports and/or wildlife. I am at the ALMOST point of ordering the 100-400 II to use on my full frame camera (Canon 5D Mark III) for sports and wildlife. I have rented it a couple of times over the past 2 years to use in the national parks for wildlife and really liked it. I need more reach than my 70-200 f/2.8L II has. I have been shooting youth sports for the past couple of years as well, and would love that extra reach. I do worry about night lights in a stadium (faced that with a playoff game) but the 400mm and up with f/2.8 is NOT in my budget. So, here are a couple of other choices I have been considering as well. I am hoping those of you with more more experience and knowledge can offer your input.

1. What about using the 1.4 extender on the 70-200? That would give me almost 300, but not sure if that will enough, but what a huge price difference!

2. Another option suggested to me is the Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM. That has more reach, but I think that I will need the extra light on the Canon 100-400 more, and more often?

3.I know I am going to look like an idiot for asking this, but I am going to anyway. Can the extra reach help lessen the need for larger apertures when shooting action shots? For example, if I am having to zoom at 200 mm on my 70-200 and it is needing f/2.8 to get a shot that I then crop in to, will it lessen the demand any if the lens is taking me "there" where the subject is at 400mm?

4. Any other suggestions to consider?

Really appreciate any advice you care to give!

I had the 5dIII....when I got my 1Dx, I really never picked it up again.  Then I got a 1DxII and then a 5DIV.....and because of the 5DIV I really havent picked up the 1DxII since.  The newer cameras with better ISO performance really help.  So there is my rant...now to answer your questions...

1. The 70-200 IS II is a real GEM.  Without knowing where you stand and take the photos its hard for anyone to say that 280mm is going to get you enough reach.  But given its price advantage for you, its worth the try assuming you can afford to be out the money if it doesnt have the reach you want.

Having a camera with higher MP would help because you could crop for what you want and not lose the detail or begin to pixelate.

2. To me, unless you can afford to run at higher ISO because the cameras capability is there, you could go with the Sigma lens, but I wouldnt because you will always want more and more lens speed, either to compensate for lower light or because you want faster shutter speed to freeze the action.  The kids are only going to get faster....

3. quick answer No.  If you snap a photo realize that the amount of light coming in is going to hit the exposure sensor and calculate what the lens opening should be based on shutter speed/ISO (I am assuming that you would set the shutter speed via Tv to make sure that you have the correct shutter speed and not something that the camera picked.  I would probably set the camera in manual and pick shutter speed and opening, letting the camera pick the ISO.  That way I am making sure I am getting the key settings I would want (narrow DOF versus a deeper DOF, panning the camera to get the sense of speed versus a frozen snapshot).  At the end of the day you want to have a properly exposed photo.

4. First off before I spend any money, I would see if I could borrow or worse case RENT the 1.4xIII and try it first.  This way you know if it gets you what you want.  If not then you know you need to try a 100-400 and see if it gets you what you want.  I am a Canon fan, I only have Canon lens so it is hard for me to think through saying you should get the Sigma lens.....I just dont think it will get you what you really want.  What ever you decide you need, I would suggest buying a used one, people are always moving in and out of gear and you should be able to find a good one.  Just remember that you might have to MFA the combo of multiplier and lens where you didnt have to before.

I hope this helps...I was a little fragmented in my thoughts so hopefully it makes sense.  There is so much that I take for granted because I have been in photography for almost 50 years that often many things come as a second nature to me so if I need to clarify something, please ask.  No question is a dumb question.....

Adam2...good answers....

Adam2 wrote:

Sandyld7 wrote:

I am looking for input from those of you shooting sports and/or wildlife. I am at the ALMOST point of ordering the 100-400 II to use on my full frame camera (Canon 5D Mark III) for sports and wildlife. I have rented it a couple of times over the past 2 years to use in the national parks for wildlife and really liked it. I need more reach than my 70-200 f/2.8L II has. I have been shooting youth sports for the past couple of years as well, and would love that extra reach. I do worry about night lights in a stadium (faced that with a playoff game) but the 400mm and up with f/2.8 is NOT in my budget. So, here are a couple of other choices I have been considering as well. I am hoping those of you with more more experience and knowledge can offer your input.

ok

1. What about using the 1.4 extender on the 70-200? That would give me almost 300, but not sure if that will enough, but what a huge price difference!

You could, but I doubt that you’ll be as happy with the IQ

2. Another option suggested to me is the Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM. That has more reach, but I think that I will need the extra light on the Canon 100-400 more, and more often?

Perhaps you’ll have better luck but I couldn’t get the sigma 150-600 to focus well with the 5dmkiii. It needs a lot of light and had difficulty tracking and focusing consistently. There’s no comparison with the 100-400 ii with respect to af, build, mfd, etc.

3.I know I am going to look like an idiot for asking this, but I am going to anyway. Can the extra reach help lessen the need for larger apertures when shooting action shots? For example, if I am having to zoom at 200 mm on my 70-200 and it is needing f/2.8 to get a shot that I then crop in to, will it lessen the demand any if the lens is taking me "there" where the subject is at 400mm?

Not sure what you mean? Filling the frame will improve the af results and afford ability to crop. If you are asking about dof run a few scenarios in a calculator and decide for yourself.

4. Any other suggestions to consider?

Sure. The Canon 100-400 ii offers the best balance of performance, construction, and performance in its price range. Check canonpricewatch for the best deal. At its longest fl the aperture is 5.6 so in real low light such as under the lights it will struggle a bit and the af isn’t on par with a 400 f/2.8. Then again it’s 1/4 the price. Buying a 300 f/2.8 is expensive though it’s performance is spectacular with a 1.4x iii tc. The 300 f/4 isn’t my favorite in terms of af and performance and it’s less useful than the 100-400. Incidentally, the 100-400 works great with a 1.4 iii tc though the af will suffer on a 5dmkiii (all af points are available on a 5dmkiv). Realistically, it’s hard to find a better value than the 100-400 ii.

Really appreciate any advice you care to give!

Anytime.

Thank you for taking the time to give me info! I was already thinking of getting the extender even if I got the 100-400, mainly to use for wildlife. So far I have only used it for wildlife when I rented it, so I would love to try it on youth sports. I really appreciate your input!

Adam2 wrote:

Sandyld7 wrote:

I am looking for input from those of you shooting sports and/or wildlife. I am at the ALMOST point of ordering the 100-400 II to use on my full frame camera (Canon 5D Mark III) for sports and wildlife. I have rented it a couple of times over the past 2 years to use in the national parks for wildlife and really liked it. I need more reach than my 70-200 f/2.8L II has. I have been shooting youth sports for the past couple of years as well, and would love that extra reach. I do worry about night lights in a stadium (faced that with a playoff game) but the 400mm and up with f/2.8 is NOT in my budget. So, here are a couple of other choices I have been considering as well. I am hoping those of you with more more experience and knowledge can offer your input.

ok

1. What about using the 1.4 extender on the 70-200? That would give me almost 300, but not sure if that will enough, but what a huge price difference!

You could, but I doubt that you’ll be as happy with the IQ

Actually... I've read that the IQ with this combination is excellent, so don't discount it unless you really need the extra length.

Rose

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Sandyld7 wrote:

3.I know I am going to look like an idiot for asking this, but I am going to anyway. Can the extra reach help lessen the need for larger apertures when shooting action shots? For example, if I am having to zoom at 200 mm on my 70-200 and it is needing f/2.8 to get a shot that I then crop in to, will it lessen the demand any if the lens is taking me "there" where the subject is at 400mm?

The whole point of f-numbers is that they allow for the focal length difference so that the brightness of the image is the same at any focal length. If you need f/2.8 at 200 mm then you will also need f/2.8 at 400 mm, to get the same result in terms of exposure settings.

OK. That answers a big part of what I was trying to ask about that. That is what I figured, but wasn't quite sure.

That's the simple answer, but it's not the whole story. Cropping the 200 mm image is exactly the same as using a smaller sensor, and if you've read anything about 'equivalence', it applies here. By using only 1/4 of the image (1/2 width and 1/2 height) you are only using 1/4 of the light, and while that doesn't affect the brightness, it does affect the image noise. I'll skip all the explanation of equivalence as it has been well documented many time before, and just give the result, which is:

200 mm, 1/1000 sec, f/2.8 and ISO 400 cropped to the same image as a 400 mm lens (1/2 width and height) is equivalent to 400 mm, 1/1000 sec, f/5.6 and ISO 1600 uncropped.

Notice that what I've done is to increase the ISO speed by two stops to compensate for the slower aperture. Using the 100-400L II at 400 mm f/5.6, you can achieve the same noise level as the cropped image from the 200 mm f/2.8 while upping the ISO speed by two stops.

This is very helpful. But - the 100-400 has the capability of f/4.5, so why not 400mm at f/4.5? Then I am kicking the ISO up, and getting more noise, right?

I guess the other thing I was struggling to understand is the situation in which I am a distance from the subject, and there is light on the subject in the distance, but there is dark between me and the subject. Is my camera thinking I need more light (f/2.8 vs f/4.5-5.6) because of the distance, and lack of light between me and the subject? Or is it really able to read the need for light on a subject at a distance 100 yards away?

I am thinking specifically of a football player under stadium lights at night, or a soccer player, both of which I have dealt with recently.

Why bother if it's only the same, not better? Well, it's the same in terms of noise, but you now have four times as many pixels so you have recorded much more detail; the greater magnification should also help you to choose your subject for focusing more effectively.

And hopefully get a better photo, which is the whole goal of putting out this kind of $$ in the first place!!

I hope I've understood the question (will it "lessen the demand") correctly!

You have helped a lot! I appreciate your efforts. The more I learn to more I realize how much I need to learn, but wrapping my right-brain self around this aspect of it has been my struggle.

-- hide signature --

https://www.flickr.com/photos/stevebalcombe/

Herb wrote:

I had the 5dIII....when I got my 1Dx, I really never picked it up again. Then I got a 1DxII and then a 5DIV.....and because of the 5DIV I really havent picked up the 1DxII since. The newer cameras with better ISO performance really help. So there is my rant...now to answer your questions...

1. The 70-200 IS II is a real GEM. Without knowing where you stand and take the photos its hard for anyone to say that 280mm is going to get you enough reach. But given its price advantage for you, its worth the try assuming you can afford to be out the money if it doesnt have the reach you want.

I LOVE the 70-200 IS II!! It is the best lens I own and I have gotten some amazing shots with it.  But, on a football field, I am missing half of the shots due to distance.

Having a camera with higher MP would help because you could crop for what you want and not lose the detail or begin to pixelate.

Ah, but the 5D Mark III is going to have to do me for a while. Maybe in a couple of years I can justify the expense, but right now I need more reach on a telephoto lens. My husband is encouraging me to get the 100-400 because he liked the wildlife shots we got in the national parks, but if I said I needed a new camera, I don't think he would be as encouraging as he was when I plunked down the $3,200 3 years ago to get the 5DMarkII

2. To me, unless you can afford to run at higher ISO because the cameras capability is there, you could go with the Sigma lens, but I wouldnt because you will always want more and more lens speed, either to compensate for lower light or because you want faster shutter speed to freeze the action. The kids are only going to get faster....

You are right. I am always wanting more lens speed. And the kids are getting bigger and faster.

3. quick answer No. If you snap a photo realize that the amount of light coming in is going to hit the exposure sensor and calculate what the lens opening should be based on shutter speed/ISO (I am assuming that you would set the shutter speed via Tv to make sure that you have the correct shutter speed and not something that the camera picked. I would probably set the camera in manual and pick shutter speed and opening, letting the camera pick the ISO. That way I am making sure I am getting the key settings I would want (narrow DOF versus a deeper DOF, panning the camera to get the sense of speed versus a frozen snapshot). At the end of the day you want to have a properly exposed photo.

I really need to work more in manual. I have been getting the hang of it, but there is a learning curve!

4. First off before I spend any money, I would see if I could borrow or worse case RENT the 1.4xIII and try it first. This way you know if it gets you what you want. If not then you know you need to try a 100-400 and see if it gets you what you want. I am a Canon fan, I only have Canon lens so it is hard for me to think through saying you should get the Sigma lens.....I just dont think it will get you what you really want. What ever you decide you need, I would suggest buying a used one, people are always moving in and out of gear and you should be able to find a good one. Just remember that you might have to MFA the combo of multiplier and lens where you didnt have to before.

I really preferred to get the 100-400, as I have already rented it twice and really liked it. The enticing part of the Sigma was that extra reach. Finding a used one has not been as easy as I would have hoped. Right now Band H has one for $1699, but the brand new one is $1899 (with a Canon 13 month accident plan). Doesn't having the new packaging help for resale, should I decide to do that at some point?

MFA - adjusting the focus to the camera, right?

I hope this helps...I was a little fragmented in my thoughts so hopefully it makes sense. There is so much that I take for granted because I have been in photography for almost 50 years that often many things come as a second nature to me so if I need to clarify something, please ask. No question is a dumb question.....

But I can learn from your experience. I really appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions!

-- hide signature --

regards, Herb

I find it's a easy decision for me. The 100-400 II is a really nice lens. I use it on a 7D II for wildlife and grandkids outdoor sports.  It also makes a nice macro lens. Works well with the 1.4 ext.

For the price, its a good buy. Unless you a serous photographer or just have a lot of disposable cash I think it's the best choice for someone looking for a quality lens in the 400 mm range.

My only regret is I'd really like a 500 II....for wildlife. Just can't justify the price.

Go for it..

Casey

casey1823 wrote:

I find it's a easy decision for me. The 100-400 II is a really nice lens. I use it on a 7D II for wildlife and grandkids outdoor sports. It also makes a nice macro lens. Works well with the 1.4 ext.

Actually, wildlife and grand kids outdoor sports are what I am looking to do with this lens. I am being paid for the youth sports, so that helps justify the purchase. I am also very enticed by using it as  macro lens, as I don't have a good one and really like macro shots. Have you played around with this lens for macro shots much?

I am thinking of adding the 1.4 extender to go with this lens.

For the price, its a good buy. Unless you a serous photographer or just have a lot of disposable cash I think it's the best choice for someone looking for a quality lens in the 400 mm range.

Well, I am a serious photographer, but don't have a lot of disposable cash. I teach high school as a day job, ha ha. I do have some income from the photography, but not enough to justify one of the f/2.8 telephotos at 5k-10k.

My only regret is I'd really like a 500 II....for wildlife. Just can't justify the price.

Me, too.

Thanks so much for your input!

Go for it..

Casey

Sandyld7 wrote:

This is very helpful. But - the 100-400 has the capability of f/4.5, so why not 400mm at f/4.5? Then I am kicking the ISO up, and getting more noise, right?

The 100-400L cannot shoot wider than f/5.6 when zoomed into 400mm. In fact, I think that as soon as you go beyond 300mm it will be at 5.6 and not wider than that. Only between 100-250 or so will it open up to f/4.5. Some websites will give you that detailed information.

I guess the other thing I was struggling to understand is the situation in which I am a distance from the subject, and there is light on the subject in the distance, but there is dark between me and the subject. Is my camera thinking I need more light (f/2.8 vs f/4.5-5.6) because of the distance, and lack of light between me and the subject? Or is it really able to read the need for light on a subject at a distance 100 yards away?

If you use spot metering or center-weighed metering, the camera will determine exposure based on the light directly on your subject; this is convenient when you cannot fill the frame with your subject, e.g, a far-away player. You can change the metering system if you are not filling the frame with the subject.

I am thinking specifically of a football player under stadium lights at night, or a soccer player, both of which I have dealt with recently.

And hopefully get a better photo, which is the whole goal of putting out this kind of $$ in the first place!!

I have shot soccer in high school stadiums: light is not abundant: be prepared to use high ISO.

Hope this helps,

Armando

The beauty of auto ISO!  You can begin to get a better feeling of how you can set aperture as well as shutter speed and let the auto ISO figure that for you.  So while you will be in manual, you won’t really be because the camera is setting the ISO.

so try taking some photos in these cold months before you get back out...work in manual and get a better feeling for different settings in aperture and speed noting what happens with the ISO setting.  I once attended a seminar by a professional photographer.  He made a comment that has stuck in my head.  He said photography is like a professional sport.  You have to work at your craft everyday to get really good at it.  So if you want to be better, you should be taking at least 500 photos every day....so maybe you aren’t going to take 500 everyday, but you get the idea.....

By the way just because the 100-400 is rated as a 4.5 -5.6 lens, doesn’t mean that you have the ability to be at 4.5 at 400.  The more you zoom from 100 out to 400, the minimum aperture also changes from 4.5 rising to 5.6.   That is just the physics of how that lens works.

The 200-400 zoom lens is a constant f4 over the zoom range,but then that lens is much larger and heavier than the 100-400 because of the larger glass in it, but then it also costs a bunch more too!

Herb wrote:

The beauty of auto ISO! You can begin to get a better feeling of how you can set aperture as well as shutter speed and let the auto ISO figure that for you. So while you will be in manual, you won’t really be because the camera is setting the ISO.

I do keep it on auto ISO most all of the time. There have been a very few times that I fiddled with it, but the camera usually knows better than me.

so try taking some photos in these cold months before you get back out...work in manual and get a better feeling for different settings in aperture and speed noting what happens with the ISO setting. I once attended a seminar by a professional photographer. He made a comment that has stuck in my head. He said photography is like a professional sport. You have to work at your craft everyday to get really good at it. So if you want to be better, you should be taking at least 500 photos every day....so maybe you aren’t going to take 500 everyday, but you get the idea.....

I agree with that idea. Teaching high school doesn't allow as much practice as I would like, but I am working on it.

By the way just because the 100-400 is rated as a 4.5 -5.6 lens, doesn’t mean that you have the ability to be at 4.5 at 400. The more you zoom from 100 out to 400, the minimum aperture also changes from 4.5 rising to 5.6. That is just the physics of how that lens works.

That REALLY helps to know. I guess I have been spoiled to the 70-200 f/2.8 II is L taking shots at f/2.8 when zoomed at 200mm and still looking great. This is why I needed to ask questions of those who are already using these lenses.

The 200-400 zoom lens is a constant f4 over the zoom range,but then that lens is much larger and heavier than the 100-400 because of the larger glass in it, but then it also costs a bunch more too!

That lens in on my dream list!

Thanks again Herb!

-- hide signature --

Herb Turner

Herb wrote:

The beauty of auto ISO! You can begin to get a better feeling of how you can set aperture as well as shutter speed and let the auto ISO figure that for you. So while you will be in manual, you won’t really be because the camera is setting the ISO.

so try taking some photos in these cold months before you get back out...work in manual and get a better feeling for different settings in aperture and speed noting what happens with the ISO setting. I once attended a seminar by a professional photographer. He made a comment that has stuck in my head. He said photography is like a professional sport. You have to work at your craft everyday to get really good at it. So if you want to be better, you should be taking at least 500 photos every day....so maybe you aren’t going to take 500 everyday, but you get the idea.....

By the way just because the 100-400 is rated as a 4.5 -5.6 lens, doesn’t mean that you have the ability to be at 4.5 at 400. The more you zoom from 100 out to 400, the minimum aperture also changes from 4.5 rising to 5.6. That is just the physics of how that lens works.

The 200-400 zoom lens is a constant f4 over the zoom range,but then that lens is much larger and heavier than the 100-400 because of the larger glass in it, but then it also costs a bunch more too!

Herb, great advise. I shoot manual 90% of the time with auto ISO. I go full manual if the light does not change. (overcast or indoor sports).

The more you use your camera the better your skills will be. Not only that but you learn more about your camera. If you have to think about how to change your cameras settings then you need more practice.

Casey

I am now retired....retired at 59.....35 years in engineering and most of that time in management.  My wife told me that I wouldn’t want to spend the money later, that I should get the gear I wanted before I retired.....so I went on a tear!  800, 200-400, 400, 300, 200...all big whites, the fastest lens I could buy.

i had bought the 800 at a really great price and was able recentlyto sell it at a slight profit since I really hadn’t used it.  The 200-400 lens I grab a lot and use.  I really like the versatility.  The 400 hasn’t seen much use whereas the 300 has as well as the 200.  The 200 f2 IS is really an awesome lens for use with people....

like I tell a good friend that is about 18 years behind me and whose sons are either in or just getting ready to go to college, your time will come.  I was fortunate, my two kids were born when I was 20 and 24.  My daughter was in my arms at graduation from college.  I was pretty poor for most of my adult life, then a divorce, two kids in college at the same time, two weddings, and finally paying off the ex.  I met a women that really taught me to save and invest.  It’s that invest thing that got me going and enabled me to retire early and be very comfortable.  Your time will come too!

Adorama has a coupon code available right now that brings down the price of the 100-400 to $1699. I bought mine via CanonPriceWatch a few weeks ago for $1779 and that felt like a bargain, so this is an excellent price!!

1Dx4me wrote:

Blokfluitist wrote:

Adam2 wrote:

Sandyld7 wrote:

I am looking for input from those of you shooting sports and/or wildlife. I am at the ALMOST point of ordering the 100-400 II to use on my full frame camera (Canon 5D Mark III) for sports and wildlife. I have rented it a couple of times over the past 2 years to use in the national parks for wildlife and really liked it. I need more reach than my 70-200 f/2.8L II has. I have been shooting youth sports for the past couple of years as well, and would love that extra reach. I do worry about night lights in a stadium (faced that with a playoff game) but the 400mm and up with f/2.8 is NOT in my budget. So, here are a couple of other choices I have been considering as well. I am hoping those of you with more more experience and knowledge can offer your input.

ok

1. What about using the 1.4 extender on the 70-200? That would give me almost 300, but not sure if that will enough, but what a huge price difference!

You could, but I doubt that you’ll be as happy with the IQ

Actually... I've read that the IQ with this combination is excellent, so don't discount it unless you really need the extra length.

Rose

+1

i have heard that even the TC 2x combo produces a decent output with this lens!

The only problem is that teleconverter will push the lens from 5.6 to beyond 8....and that will be a problem on a camera such as 5DIII.

Sandyld7 wrote:

I am looking for input from those of you shooting sports and/or wildlife. I am at the ALMOST point of ordering the 100-400 II to use on my full frame camera (Canon 5D Mark III) for sports and wildlife. I have rented it a couple of times over the past 2 years to use in the national parks for wildlife and really liked it. I need more reach than my 70-200 f/2.8L II has. I have been shooting youth sports for the past couple of years as well, and would love that extra reach. I do worry about night lights in a stadium (faced that with a playoff game) but the 400mm and up with f/2.8 is NOT in my budget. So, here are a couple of other choices I have been considering as well. I am hoping those of you with more more experience and knowledge can offer your input.

1. What about using the 1.4 extender on the 70-200? That would give me almost 300, but not sure if that will enough, but what a huge price difference!

2. Another option suggested to me is the Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG OS HSM. That has more reach, but I think that I will need the extra light on the Canon 100-400 more, and more often?

3.I know I am going to look like an idiot for asking this, but I am going to anyway. Can the extra reach help lessen the need for larger apertures when shooting action shots? For example, if I am having to zoom at 200 mm on my 70-200 and it is needing f/2.8 to get a shot that I then crop in to, will it lessen the demand any if the lens is taking me "there" where the subject is at 400mm?

4. Any other suggestions to consider?

Really appreciate any advice you care to give!

Sandy

I have the 5D3 and 100-400Mk2 and the combo is fantastic

The only problem you will encounter ( in time) is the relatively low fps of 5D3

70-200ISMK2+TC1.4 (I have them) doesn’t beat the 100-400MK2

I have also Sigma 150-600S and while has more reach doesn’t focus as fast as the Canon

the TC1.4 will slow the combo and degrade the image

I hope it helps