Tannin

Going to a better quality lens is always good, and when the lens in question is the outstanding 100-40 II, it's better than good. I haven't used the Tamron you have, but I have used a variety of ...

Three points to make here. (1) The OP is asking about the 100-400 Mark I. (The model with "2 mode IS". Mark IIs have three IS modes.) This picture was taken with a Mark II, a model designed and ...

It's a very good lens. Very old now and out of production for a while, but the 100-400 Mark I was popular and well respected for good reason. There are plenty of second-hand Mark Is floating ...

It does seem to lack a little feather detail. :)

Had mine since about September. No issues at all except that it makes all my other cameras seem rather inferior. A truly wonderful camera. Buy with confidence.

I agree. It's still a very useful lens. I owned two different ones and did any amount of work with them. The only reason I don't still have one is that I upgraded to the Mark II (which is ...

Just so. It's a lens that never makes you say "Wow! I don't believe how good this thing is!" the way so many others do (35/1.4, 100L macro, 100-400 II, any of the big white primes, 16-35/4, and so ...

Tokina 10-17 fisheye zoom. *Way* more versatile that I'd ever have expected, and more fun than a bucket of kittens.

There does seem to be a clear trend to better third-party lenses over the last few years. In the main, it's still fair to say that most third-party lenses sacrifice one feature to achieve their ...

I never owned one (thankfully) but the (long since discontinued) Canon 75-300 was a genuine shocker. Of lenses I've owned, I guess the old 50/1.8 plastic kit lens. It was light, incredibly cheap, ...

Because the benefits of fast glass are: (a) better depth-of-field control, and (b) ability to shoot with less noise in low light. Both of these benefits are more easily achieved by simply using a ...

I'm sure this must have been covered  any number of times before but I'm not sure where to start looking. Could some kind soul point me at a useful discussion of the best ways to travel overseas ...

Zoom is very, very handy for large birds and also mammals. But the 200-400 is too short, too expensive, and an absolute beast to hand-hold. It's not the weight, it's the balance. If you only ever ...

I suspect that there are two reasons. (1) It is probably quite expensive to manufacture. (2) It is such an all-round excellent camera that people are willing to pony up for it and Canon feel no ...

It's doubtless been said already, but let's be sure we have the basics straight: (1) There is one thing and one thing ONLY that sets L lenses apart from other products: they have a red ring on the ...

Hand-holding big lenses, BBF is very difficult, especially if you are working at awkward angles (such as from a car). For this reason I use reverse back button focus (RBBF) - set the AF-on button ...

Spot on Sir! The only reason I don't still own and use my 1D III is that it was stolen. Luckily, although the 1D X was out by then, I could still use the insurance to buy a 1D IV new to replace it ...

I have both lenses, a 500/4 Mark 1 and a 600/4 II. You get used to the weight. At first it seems like an impossibly unpleasant task, lugging one of those monsters around, but you soon adjust to it. ...

Hi all. I would welcome advice or ideas for a second tripod/head setup suitable for getting low to the ground. Currently I mainly use a Manfrotto carbon tripod with a geared head shaft, something ...

You may be thinking of the "lens drive when AF impossible" custom function found in most (all?) Canon DSLRs. That does indeed detect an inability to focus (be that because of low light or any ...