Hmm it is big and white :)
- Thread starter Andy90
- Start date
Permabanned
another cup? 
Soldato
Nicee. Is that the 4 or 2.8?
Associate
that looks rather large, i often see white camera lenses like these on TV at sports events, so i'm guessing this is some fast glass?
Looks like the 100-400 5.6
I'm guessing you thought it was the 70-200, the f/4 is a lot slimmer though and even the f/2.8 is not as fat.
yup, looks it, the zoom "ring" is the giveaway.
Soldato
Ah right yeah.. lol. I automatically assumed it was a 70-200
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,302
its the 100 - 400.
Isnt the push pull system not obvious? lol
Isnt the push pull system not obvious? lol
It's not very big at all. Infact in the world of telephotos it's about as small as 400mm gets!!!
It's not fast either. It's f/5.6!!!
Most of the people at the sports have 200mm f/2, 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, 500mm f/4. These guys are four or five times bigger.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 9,302
And they cost a few 000s extra too.
Nice lens mate. I had it myself. Fully regret selling it.
Caporegime
Congrats, nearly bought one myself once, lovely bit of kit 
Big?
You really don't want to get into a willy-waving contest with it
But is is a fabulous lens. It is what brought me back into photography after a 20 year break.
They guys down at lensesforhire rent more of the 100-400 than anything else. Last I heard, they had 20 of them. And they are still out of stock over the next couple of months.
Andrew
You really don't want to get into a willy-waving contest with it
But is is a fabulous lens. It is what brought me back into photography after a 20 year break.
They guys down at lensesforhire rent more of the 100-400 than anything else. Last I heard, they had 20 of them. And they are still out of stock over the next couple of months.
Andrew
Soldato
What does one of these set you back, if you don't mind me asking?
Soldato
Thanks. Seems to take an excessive jump up to get to 400mm or higher. I'd be interested to see the quality of the 100-400 - if it is decent I'd consider once again getting rid of my 70-200 2.8 IS.
Associate
thanks. i guess it's hard to guess how big it is when you see it without a camera attached.
nice photo's by the way, they look nice and sharp. 100-400mm must give a nice range, i quite like using a 55-200mm and it must be nice to have that extra reach of a 400.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Sep 2009
- Posts
- 324
They make 3 400mm primes (all L)
400mm - 2.8 IS - 5370g - £6660
400mm - 4.0 DO IS - 1940g - £5550
400mm - 5.6 - 1250g - £1120
The 5.6 lens seems ideal for birding and such, no IS is maybe a bit iffy at this range considering how dark the lens is but its super sharp. Getting the shutter speed 2 stops faster is the main benefit of the 2.8, but thats going to be pretty handy if your shooting sports.
Not to mention the BG blur.- it's a huge difference between f/2.8 & f/4. Then another huge leap to f/5.6.