Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Canon 100-400mm lens for sale

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    2,581

    Canon 100-400mm lens for sale

    Hey guys, I'm selling my Canon 100-400mm L-series lens. As many of you have met me on here know, I take very good care of my gear and the lens is in excellent condition. I have the hood, both front and rear caps, carry case (bag), and original box and papers. If you're interested please PM me.

    Steve
    Steve Furst

    View my work @

    Furst Edition Photography
    JetPhotos.net

  2. #2
    Senior Member megatop412's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Philadelphia(south Jersey, actually)
    Posts
    3,277
    Wow, that's a pretty useful lens for aviation shooting- what will you be using instead?

  3. #3
    Senior Member NIKV69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    IFP, ISP, JFK, IGM, SAN, VCV, LGA, LAX, SEE, LAS
    Posts
    4,258
    My guess would be 70-200 2.8.
    'My idea of a good picture is one that's in focus and of a famous person doing something unfamous.' Andy Warhol

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    2,581
    Nick would be correct. I'm upgrading to a 70-200 and 2x teleconverter. The 70-200 will benefit me in many more ways than the 100-400 will right now and I need to sell it to fund getting the 70-200.
    Steve Furst

    View my work @

    Furst Edition Photography
    JetPhotos.net

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    632
    Having shot with a 70-200 and a 2x converter, one thing to watch out for is shooting heavies at the mounds. You'll really wish for that extra 40mm on the wide end!
    Phil Gengler - NYCA's "other Phil"

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    2,581
    Quote Originally Posted by pgengler View Post
    Having shot with a 70-200 and a 2x converter, one thing to watch out for is shooting heavies at the mounds. You'll really wish for that extra 40mm on the wide end!

    That's where my second body with 24-105mm comes into play
    Steve Furst

    View my work @

    Furst Edition Photography
    JetPhotos.net

  7. #7
    Senior Member NIKV69's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    IFP, ISP, JFK, IGM, SAN, VCV, LGA, LAX, SEE, LAS
    Posts
    4,258
    I like what you are doing Steve!
    'My idea of a good picture is one that's in focus and of a famous person doing something unfamous.' Andy Warhol

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    2,581
    Quote Originally Posted by NIKV69 View Post
    I like what you are doing Steve!
    Yeah, the 70-200 f2.8 is far superior in terms of quality than the 100-400 even with the teleconverter on it. And having that allows me to shoot other areas of interest for me as well. This will allow me to shoot racing at night now better than I could with the 100-400 and allowme to start shooting local concerts as well with more funtionality than just using the nifty-50 which limits the types of shots you can get. All in all, this will be a better, more versatile addition to my bag than the 100-400.
    Steve Furst

    View my work @

    Furst Edition Photography
    JetPhotos.net

  9. #9
    Senior Member Zee71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Posts
    4,348
    I shoot mostly with my 70-200mm f/2.8 lens with and without a 1.4X teleconverter and the IQ is still outstanding. For me it's a great combo for the mounds, Costco, and Bayswater. Depending on how far out departures are out at HoBe it may or may not give you adequate reach.

    Steve.....good choice and well worth it!
    Mark
    Queens, NY

    My website: http://mbsphotography.smugmug.com
    My photos at: JetPhotos and ANet

  10. #10
    Senior Member seahawks7757's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edgewood, Washington, United States
    Posts
    1,241
    I have actually been thinking about doing this same thing.
    http://brandonsaviationblog.blogspot.com/ My continuing updated Aviation Blog
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawks7757/ My continuing updated photostream from BFI and sometimes SEA

  11. #11
    Senior Member megatop412's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Philadelphia(south Jersey, actually)
    Posts
    3,277
    Also thought about switching to a 70-200 2.8 with teleconverters, but inherent in using them is giving up more and more wide angle as you ramp up the magnification ratio. Also, my guess would be that once you get to the 1.7x and 2x your IQ (not to mention speed) drops to where a consumer zoom with a more practical range would offer comparable image quality in good light. I did use two bodies once at an airshow, but the 2nd was attached to a superwide for static shots

    Steve I don't know how good the Canon version is but everyone raves about portrait and concert work with the 70-200 2.8 Nikkor.

  12. #12
    Senior Member seahawks7757's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edgewood, Washington, United States
    Posts
    1,241
    I hear canon one is fantastic. My issue is how slow the 100-400 is with the 7D
    http://brandonsaviationblog.blogspot.com/ My continuing updated Aviation Blog
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/seahawks7757/ My continuing updated photostream from BFI and sometimes SEA

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Nashville, TN
    Posts
    2,581
    Quote Originally Posted by megatop412 View Post
    Also thought about switching to a 70-200 2.8 with teleconverters, but inherent in using them is giving up more and more wide angle as you ramp up the magnification ratio. Also, my guess would be that once you get to the 1.7x and 2x your IQ (not to mention speed) drops to where a consumer zoom with a more practical range would offer comparable image quality in good light. I did use two bodies once at an airshow, but the 2nd was attached to a superwide for static shots

    Steve I don't know how good the Canon version is but everyone raves about portrait and concert work with the 70-200 2.8 Nikkor.
    With all the reviews I have read abotui the 70-200 f2.8 IS II mated with the Extender III 2x teleconverter, I feel very good about this upcoming purchase. I have not read one bad thing yet and everybody I have talked to who has used the 100-400 and then switched to the setup I am going to has said that the little bit of degredation in image quality from the 2x converter still blows the 100-400 away and the newer Extender III teleconverter is much faster than the older Extender II model. Besides, even if the AF speed were to slow down from using the 70-200 by itself, it will still be faster than using the 100-400. haha.

    In regards to quality for portrait and concert shots.....that is one reason why I am making this upgrade

    Quote Originally Posted by seahawks7757 View Post
    I hear canon one is fantastic. My issue is how slow the 100-400 is with the 7D
    I couldn't agree more..
    Steve Furst

    View my work @

    Furst Edition Photography
    JetPhotos.net

  14. #14
    Senior Member Aviation.High.Guy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    1,042
    Since we are on the L series topic, I have a question. I have the Canon L 100-400mm. It has accumulated a few
    pieces of dust or lint beneath the front element. Bugs the crap out of me that I can't clean it. I know this lens
    is more prone to internal dust because of the push-pull zooming design. Has anyone else experienced this and if so,
    is it worth paying to have the lens taken apart for a professional cleaning? Thanks, Don

  15. #15
    Senior Member Joe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    about 700 feet west of runway 14-32 in Farmingdale
    Posts
    299
    Quote Originally Posted by Aviation.High.Guy View Post
    is it worth paying to have the lens taken apart for a professional cleaning? Thanks, Don

    The answer would be if it were affecting your images or not. If it is only minor or a few specs, I wouldn't worry about it. It would most likely have to be severe in order to affect your images. Just my 2 cents.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •