Made a mistake buying the Canon 100-400mm!!

Totality · 16 May 2008 at 10:16

Bought this a week ago and didnt realise just how much light it needs to keep the shutter speed up until I used it recently

Was hoping to use it for baseball and outdoor sports as well as wildlife but seems I need a faster lens for the sports side of things.

Do you think it's worth selling it for £750 and getting the 70-200mm F2.8? What are other people's experiences of this?

philio16 · 16 May 2008 at 10:19

I had the 100-400 before selling it and buying the 70-200 2.8 IS and 2x extender which gave me the same setup at length but better at closer range.

The 100-400 is a great wildlife lens, but it doest take a lot of getting used to! I used it for wildlife, and got some cracking pictures from it. The reason behind the sale was I was beginning to do wedding work and it didn't work too well indoors (at all in fact...).

So I would give it some patience for a couple of weeks and see if you can get used to it! I think in food terms, its like marmite!!

Messiah Khan · 16 May 2008 at 10:28

Could also consider a 300mm f2.8 or f4 with converter?

SDK^ · 16 May 2008 at 10:38

It's useless for indoor sports but should be good for outdoor stuff.

NinjaBill · 16 May 2008 at 10:39

Totality said:
Bought this a week ago and didnt realise just how much light it needs to keep the shutter speed up until I used it recently Was hoping to use it for baseball and outdoor sports as well as wildlife but seems I need a faster lens for the sports side of things.

Do you think it's worth selling it for £750 and getting the 70-200mm F2.8? What are other people's experiences of this?

Will 200mm be long enough for you? the 70-200 2.8 is a fantastic lens, but, if its not long enough for what you want, it wont be much good

gt_junkie · 16 May 2008 at 10:43

If you don't need the zoom i'd consider the 300mm f4 IS as Khan mentions.

Relatively cheap and by far the sharpest lens i've used - even wide open.

Another bonus is the lightning fast USM focussing.

Only downsides are the ye olde IS. It's fairly clunky and noisy and only really helps gain a stop or so.

and what SDK says:

SDK^ said:
It's useless for indoor sports but should be good for outdoor stuff.

gt

Totality · 16 May 2008 at 11:01

Yeah I used the 300mm F4 a few weeks back and thought it was great. I'm looking to do indoor stuff too though so need the extra F-Stop really.

Was thinking of the 70-200mm with 1.4x extender for when its really needed. Would LOVE the 300mm 2.8 but dont think my kidneys are worth that much on the black market due to all the drinking I did in the uni days

Messiah Khan · 16 May 2008 at 11:02

Totality said:
Yeah I used the 300mm F4 a few weeks back and thought it was great. I'm looking to do indoor stuff too though so need the extra F-Stop really.

Was thinking of the 70-200mm with 1.4x extender for when its really needed. Would LOVE the 300mm 2.8 but dont think my kidneys are worth that much on the black market due to all the drinking I did in the uni days

What's your budget?

Totality · 16 May 2008 at 11:06

If I can sell the 100-400mm then £1K is the budget. Failing that then I cant afford to get another lens!

Messiah Khan · 16 May 2008 at 11:22

Totality said:
If I can sell the 100-400mm then £1K is the budget. Failing that then I cant afford to get another lens!

Then a second hand 300mm f2.8 and 1.4X converter is within your budget.

Edit; As is a 70-200mm f2.8 infact.

NinjaBill · 16 May 2008 at 11:24

Where can you get a 300 2.8 for a grand from?

Totality · 16 May 2008 at 11:33

NinjaBill said:
Where can you get a 300 2.8 for a grand from?

I'd love to know this too! I thought they were over 2k?

Messiah Khan · 16 May 2008 at 11:43

NinjaBill said:
Where can you get a 300 2.8 for a grand from?

I got mine for £650 from the TP members market.

sid · 16 May 2008 at 12:03

sigma not the canon yeah??

gt_junkie · 16 May 2008 at 12:10

I did see a battered 300mm f2.8 canon once which was close to 1k but it was in a pretty sorry state.

If you need speed then a 70-200 f2.8 would be good. Sigma's is very decent and quite affordable. It would then allow you to pick up something like the 300mm f/4 as well.

That way you'd have a tool for each job.

gt

SDK^ · 16 May 2008 at 12:33

Sigma 120-300 F2.8 for the win

New they are approx £1600, but you can pick them up 2nd hand for about £800-£1000.
I've just sold mine for £1k including a 1.4x convertor.

gt_junkie · 16 May 2008 at 12:37

SDK^ said:
I've just sold mine for £1k including a 1.4x convertor.

What you replacing it with?

gt

Messiah Khan · 16 May 2008 at 12:44

sid said:
sigma not the canon yeah??

Yup. But still a very competent lens. And if i had to choose between a Canon 100-400mmL or a Sigma 300mm f2.8, I would go with the Sigma every time I think.

Johnny|lucidcomposure · 16 May 2008 at 13:14

sdk you sold the 120 -300?

SDK^ · 16 May 2008 at 13:48

gt_junkie said:
What you replacing it with?

Fstop11 said:
sdk you sold the 120 -300?

Yup I sure have.
I used the sale as part payment for an expensive mountain bike - Specialized Enduro SL Pro Carbon : http://ocukmods.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11656416&postcount=4061.

The Sigma 120-300 is a stunning lens but it's something I don't use often so I'll hire one for £90 a week when required.