A Nature Photographer's Most Useful Lens

November 2, 2010 @ 8:39PM

A Nature Photographer's Most Useful Lens

The Canon EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

This article begins a discussion of what I feel is the most important Canon lens in any serious nature photographer’s arsenal, the EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS. First, an important note: while I am a Canon contract photographer (Canon Explorer of Light), the comments here represent my own opinion and are not associated with Canon Inc. in any way.

My favorite lens

Every photographer has a favorite lens, depending on the kind of images they produce. In my case, the lens that solves the most problems is the EF 100-400mm zoom. Since 1998 I’ve used the Canon 100-400mm zoom in my quest for significant nature photographs. It replaced a Canon 35-350mm f/3.5-5.6L that I had used since 1993. The 35-350mm wasn’t the sharpest lens in my bag, but its incredible range from wide-angle to medium telephoto helped capture reasonably sharp images that otherwise would have been missed. An acceptably sharp image is always better than no image at all. The EF100-400mm was an improvement in sharpness, but has a less versatile, all-telephoto range (4X from shortest to longest focal length, versus 10X).

And did I ever use that lens! Kathy and I just published a sort of retrospective of my photographs of animals, birds, insects and marine life, Wildlife Photography: Stories From the Field (Lark Photography Books, 2010). As we worked on the book, we were amazed at how many of my best wildlife images were taken with the EF100-400mm zoom lens using Canon professional film and digital cameras. This irrefutable evidence of the lens’s contribution to my career got me thinking about just what it is that makes this particular piece of glass so important to me.

This lens keeps you ready

With outdoor photography, you have to be ready for the unexpected. When I’m in a Land Rover in Botswana, things happen in a hurry, and sometimes the subjects are close, and other times they’re off in the distance. A 4X zoom that runs from 100 to 400mm on a body (Canon EOS 1D MK IV) that gives a magnification crop factor of .3X is a very versatile combination that allows me to instantly frame (and reframe) the subject. On my most recent African photo-safaris, the two combinations that worked best for wildlife photography were a 100-400mm zoom on the MK IV and a 500mm f/4 with a 1.4X tele-extender attached to an EOS 7D. The 700mm on the 7D gave great reach for the larger subjects in the distance (elephants, hippos, zebras, giraffes), or closer small subjects that needed to be enlarged (birds).

Using the 100-400 to best advantage

Since I’ve worked so much with the EF100-400mm lens, I’ve got my tried and true techniques for optimal results. I try to always stop the lens down at least one stop. My field resolution tests have shown me that at the extreme focal lengths, resolution is marginal at wide-open apertures, but still usable; it improves dramatically stopped down to f/8. If I’m working from a tripod and shooting stationary subjects, I often stop down to f/11 where the lens performs at its optimum sharpness. When I’m in the field and photographing wildlife that is active, it’s not so easy. I always keep in mind that when I hand-hold this lens, I’m magnifying my movements. Much of the sharpness loss that many photographers complain about when using this lens is self-induced, actually a result of unrealistic expectations for hand-held results. Image stabilization is great, but it’s not magic, especially at 400mm.

What does the future hold?

As I mentioned earlier, this lens has been around for about a dozen years now. Lens technology has moved forward in that time, with new glass, better lens element coatings, and improved optic formulation using computers. So I’m looking forward to a replacement at some point from Canon, and here’s what I’m hoping for. First of all, I‘m sure that sharpness will be improved at the larger f/stops and at the extremes of the zoom range. Next, I hope the lens stays at f/4.5-5.6. Nikon has chosen to make their prime lens in this range a 200-400mm f/4. It is incredibly expensive ($5,669 at B&H), large (14.4 inches), and heavy (7 lbs. 4 oz.). With the high ISO capabilities of today’s DSLR cameras we don’t need a very fast lens in this range. We need to keep the lens light, and in a price range that mere mortals can afford. And now that we’re shooting video with our DSLRs, the current push-pull zoom needs to be replaced with a standard zoom rotating collar to facilitate smooth transitions.

Until these wishes come true, I’ll keep using my old workhorse EF100-400 to capture images like the ones I’ve posted here. Contrary to some published opinions, the present lens is excellent; I just want it to be updated, incorporating Canon’s latest, greatest lens technology.

What do you think?

What’s your experience with the Canon EF100-400 f/4-5.6 L IS lens? One of the reasons I use Canon gear exclusively is that they’ve always been responsive to photographers’ needs, resulting in fine equipment that helps me to capture significant images. If you have similar interests and additional comments on this lens (or others like it) add a note below.

Comments

Alton Marsh

1 year ago

I noticed this lens is now on sale with a $110 rebate, making it $1,500, and I am wondering if this means Canon is clearing out supplies to make way for a new one. Your comment that the lens is 12 years old reinforces that. I had one, but it made the suitcase so heavy I never took it on trips, so I sold it and now I am planning on repurchasing, especially after seeing your article.

GlenF

1 year ago

...and according to canonrumours.com we should see a replacement 100-400mm next year. I don't own one at the moment but with the new IS system currently in the 70-200mm it would appear to potentially provide a significant (though maybe expensive) improvement.

Jose Antunes

Pixiq Expert

1 year ago

I could not agree more with you George. Iam on my second lens of this fantastic all-round piece of equipment. My flower photography eBook (check http://www.joseantunes.com/livros/ebooks/135-flowers-the-way-i-see-them....) has lots of images taken with this lens (and I've learned a lot about flower photography reading you since 1991 in OP), and I've used it for everything from photographing planes at airshows to wildlife, landscape a.s.o. In fact I tend to use very much two lenses - 17-40 and the 100-400, with a 100mm macro (the oldest EF model still) for some work, and also the old 50mm 1.8. But the 100-400mm is my choice for a lot of things and I carry it everywhere. Iam planning to buy the new one if it's as good as this one.

Great article. Thanks

Larry Rosenstein

1 year ago

I rented this lens last year for a day trip to see the elephant seals at Ano Nuevo on the California coast. One of my favorite shots from that day is here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/catsincharge/4359771211/

Alton Marsh

1 year ago

Nice shot.

Dena Proctor

1 year ago

IAt lunch today I started reading George's new book Wildlife Photography: Stories from the field. It is super !! I couldn't put it down. I was intently looking at all of the captions telling what lens was being used for each shot. I was amazed to see how much George was using the 100-400. It made me feel good to see a professional using a lens that is also the primary lens I use at this time, when photographing wildlife!

Edward Crim

1 year ago

This is one of the two lenses I used most frequently during my year-long expedition in St. Louis' Forest Park ( http://www.forestpark365.com ) I had it on a 1D MkII and the 24-105 f4 IS on a 1Ds MkII. These two lenses cover almost everything I do. I've also used it extensively for my tribute to US State Capitols ( http://www.50-nifty.com ). It's great for showing architectural details (inside and out) that would otherwise be hard to show. And it's so much smaller and lighter than the 400 f2.8!

dale beckman

1 year ago

The 7D is my first DSLR, so I have far more questions then comments. How does the 100-400 perform for action and sport photography?

Alton Marsh

1 year ago

If you are talking sports, it will get you close, although sports photogs might be more inclined to use a fast, expensive 300mm or longer plus a shorter lens when the action gets close. But a 100-400 would definitely get you close. As far as action, boost the ISO if you don't have the shutter speed. I was shooting lion cubs at the zoo with the 100-400mm at ISO 400 or so and getting 1/1200 of a second. Cubs are always in motion. This particular one is only 1/400 of a second. (f/5, ISO only 200,at 135mm, but remember the crop factor, and I was 10 or 15 feet away, 100-400mm lens)

Kathy & George Lepp

1 year ago

The 100-400mm isn't the best for sports because the autofocus is slow compared to other long L lenses. The push pull feature is also a bit of a problem and I do hope is changed in the next version, whenever that is. The focal length range is what's important. I also hope that the next version stays with the f/5.6 speed so that it's not too big and not too expensive. The Nikon 200-400mm f/4 is fabulous, except that it's heavy and very expensive. I hope Canon doesn't go there.

Mark Armstrong

1 year ago

I rented this lens last spring to shoot an air show. It was remarkable for just that. I got some great shots and loved using this lens. That's my only counterpoint to this article, the push-pull is awesome for tracking fast moving objects. I was able to frame a jet moving 350 mph and keep it in my frame with just a trombone motion. Perfect for it. I recently purchased this lens as I plan to shoot more air shows and car races with it. Can't beat it.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_armstrong/sets/72157623954397395/

Paul

1 year ago

Mr. Lepp - thanks for the great article. I have enjoyed your articles in OP for a long time (even though some of them are over my head!) and appreciate how helpful you are to fellow photographers.

Regarding this particular lens, I rented it once back in 2003 as I wanted to try it out for a college football game. I also rented the 10D for this game back in the day when these digital cameras were more expensive (or I was poorer!). I can only say that I really liked it for college football (this was an outdoor game - it would probably be too slow for a dome game).

My usual lens prior to this was a 200 F2.8 L lens, which has done (and still does) me well, even with a 3rd party 2x teleconverter. I also rented a 300 f2.8 lens for a game once. I can't compare the focusing ability of the 100-400 vs the 200 or 300 prime lenses, but I got a lot of usable photos with the 100-400. This of course could also be due to the reach of this lens, in combination with the crop factor of the 10D, but (I believe) that focusing with this tighter action would be slower than with the 200 f2.8 (a wide angle would focus faster than a 600 F4.0 for a given scene) and this would offset some of the advantage of the tigher shot. Regardless, I was happy with the photos from the 100-400 for this game, and have wanted this lens for future games for a while (just too much $ for me).

Here are a few of my shots from that game using the 100-400:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/88031594@N00/265590463/in/set-7215762299516...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/88031594@N00/265602211/in/set-7215762299516...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/88031594@N00/271745294/in/set-7215762299516...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/88031594@N00/293469009/in/set-7215762299516...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/88031594@N00/266264145/in/set-7215762299516...

I don't believe that any of these photos had work done on them except cropping (I don't know if I even sharpened them). I hope you like them. In summary, I found the lens to be good enough for me for an outdoor football game, but of course I would have loved a 400 2.8 or 500 4.0 instead (if I had much much more money).

Paul

Marianne

1 year ago

I couldn't agree with you more. This lens is my all time favorite. I take a lot of photos of animals in zoos, and with my 100-400 zoom, handheld, I can count the whiskers on the tiger. It also enables me to shoot past the baracades and fencing, and focus on just the animal. I have had this lens on three bodies so far, starting with my EOS A2 film camera 10+ years ago, then the 5D, and now the 5DII. It's been in the shop once. I've also used it at air shows; it tracks across the sky well, and I came away with some dynamite photos, thanks to the IS. When I converted to a digital, I chose a camera with a full sensor, just so I could make full use of this lens. I'd say about 80% of my photos are taken with the 100-400.
http://www.pacificaarts.smugmug.com/

hsteeves

10 months ago

Nikon has had the 80-400 VR in its line-up for many years so you don't have to purchase the 200-400/f4 if you don't need it. As well, and perhaps the best of the bunch, Sony has a 100-400 in its line-up. Although it does not have a form of image stabilization, Tokina make a very small 80-400 and Sigma makes an 80-400 OS. There are lots of options out there for this very useful zoom range

Marcus Vinicius

2 weeks ago

My name is Marcus and I live in Rio de Janeiro and I am studying photography of nature there are two, since I bought my Canon 7D and 100/400mm.
I would, first, to congratulate you on the site, I learned the atavés Fotodigital (Jose Antunes).
I agree with you, absolutely, to say that the Canon 100/400mm lens is the most versatile when it comes to nature photography.
I use my camera almost 100% of the images I do.

http://flickeflu.com/photos/43414779 @ N05

Again, congratulations on the site and congratulations!
Greetings from Brazil!