To the Zoo, with the 100-400
For a birthday gift at the end of last year, I bought the Canon 100-400 lens. It has been rather cheap lately, so I couldn’t resist getting a zoom longer than my 70-200 4L IS. Of course, my luck will be that they do wind up upgrading it later this year, but if that is the case I should be able to get a good price for mine since I bought it at a good price.
I also bought a Gitzo monopod together with the RRS tilt head. I will review these at a later time, but from experience I knew that if I wanted a sharp picture, I needed some kind of stabilization.
I’m not much for taking shots of teddy bears and diagrams in the house to test a lens. I prefer to take it in the field and give it a try.
The following are the shots I got. At the end I will give my impressions of the lens.
The one above was actually taken by my son Eitan, who at age five is already starting to surpass me. He made it very clear when we got to the zoo that he wanted to see elk. When we got there I just helped steady the monopod and camera, and he made this composition.
This is one of those “what if?” shots. If I would have just used a shorter shutterspeed so two of the birds wouldn’t be blurred from head movement, and I had composed it slightly differently to get all of the middle bird’s tail in the shot, it would have been a great shot.
My biggest lesson with my first shoot with this lens is to pay better attention to shutter speed. With the monopod, I was able to shoot at 1/40 and still have a sharp shot. Even with IS, this simply would not have been possible. However, I need to keep in my mind whether the animal is moving, and use a shutterspeed that is more appropriate with the speed of the subject.
In terms of my opinions of the lens, in general I like it. It has its disadvantages. It is by far my slowest lens at 5.6 – which takes getting used to. I am too spoiled by other lenses where I shoot often at f4 or f2.8. Autofocus is also rather slow on this lens compared to other lenses I have.
In terms of sharpness, the lens is decent. It is not as sharp as my other L lenses, but the images are usable. As long as I use a monopod and a decent shutterspeed – taking into account the speed of the subject – the pictures should be saleable. This is not the case for the large Sigma telephotos, so this is a plus.
I’m not crazy about the push pull. My wife tried the lens and hated it. I can live with the push pull, but I would prefer a standard zoom.
In general, this is a compromise lens. It cannot hold up to the larger primes, but it is much cheaper and smaller than they. The next lens up would likely be the 300mm 2.8 – which is quite a bit pricier and more expensive. Sigma does have some intermediate lenses, but given my experience with Sigma telephotos and their reputation, I would never buy one.
Therefore, given the limitations I think this is the best lens out there for the purpose. It certainly would not be my first choice given a safari to Africa or rain forest trip, but for zoos and for travel photography where wildlife is not the main focus, I think it is a decent alternative.
No related posts.
Tags: 100-400, animals, canon, photography, review, zoo
Great dramatic shots! It’s as if we’re standing inside the cages with the animals. I like the white fox photo the best. You’re son has his dad’s (photographer’s) eyes.