[besyry]

Have you used it before (in similar conditions) without it fogging up? Maybe you can send it in?

[popo]

I'm using it more often in ever wetter weather, which I think is the main cause of this. I have no reason to believe the lens is operating other than it should be. In particular there are no claims at all on the 100-400L being weather resistant. Besides it is rather old now so all I'd be doing is paying for an inspection telling me what I already know.

[Brightcolours]

Canon specifically mentions rain forests and extreme conditions with this lens, so I am pretty sure it will perform fine in rainy circumstances. Besides that, optically it shows to be a great lens. If funds allow in may in future get it myself.



Only drawback for me is the focus breathing... I use my 200mm very often for close up photography (70-200mm f4 L USM). The focus breathing of this 70-300 will give me almost exactly the same magnification. So in that sense, it will not be a step forward.



But for 300mm tele, it will be a nice addition.



On fredmiranda.com in the reviews section there is an owner who has used it several times in rain showers, and finds it to be fine.

[popo]

Based on the Photozone full frame tests (in order to directly compare with 100-400L) I did note it is about the same at 300mm so I'm not concerned there. Focal length shrinkage is also not an issue for me, since I'd only really need the long end when the subject is relatively far away. As long as the short end doesn't shrink too much too...



Rain showers I'm not too worried about, it is the more persisting rain that is pushing the 100-400L over its limit I think.



Right now I'm probably going to get one at low priority. I've more or less decided to sell the 70-300DO and maybe the 300/2.8 also since I done really use it often enough to keep around.

[decltype]

[url="http://www.canonrumors.com/reviews/ef-70-300-f4-5-6l-is-review/"]canonrumors' review[/url] of the lens mentions getting it completely soaked 3-4 times without malfunction - as illustrated in the lead image.

[joachim]

Hi Popo



Not sure how helpful this is and i am really not keen to start a brandwar.. Canon might not be the right brand to do persistent rain. Have you considered Olympus or Pentax? I know they have their issues, but in particular for Oly one reads many good stories about using them in rain. J.

[popo]

I'm not adverse to consider changing systems, but I'm not sure anything other system right now gives any benefit. I guess I should emphasise that rain use is not that frequent for me, but it does happen.



Olympus SLRs are a dead system. I wouldn't buy it new at this point, and since no one else did previously they're not common used either. I used to have their 4/3 70-300 lens and from memory that didn't appear to have any particular sealing either. Don't recall there being anything else in that area?



Pentax WR lenses didn't seem that big a choice last time I looked. Doesn't appear to be anything on the longer end.



I have even thought it might be an option to buy a 2nd 100-400L as they're not bad priced on the used market. While it wouldn't be sealed either, I would effectively double my rain exposure tolerance! And it never hurts to have backup... but I think the advantages of the 70-300L being smaller means I'd get slightly different capability at other times.

[Guest]

[quote name='popo' timestamp='1308998551' post='9513']

Olympus SLRs are a dead system. I wouldn't buy it new at this point, and since no one else did previously they're not common used either. I used to have their 4/3 70-300 lens and from memory that didn't appear to have any particular sealing either. Don't recall there being anything else in that area?

[/quote]

Not that it would be of any help with your decision, but Olympus has the Standard, Pro, and Top Pro lines of lenses. Only the Pro and Top Pro lenses are sealed, which is why your 70-300 were not. The 90-250/2.8 and the 50-200/2.8-3.5 should both be sealed.

[popo]

[quote name='ThomasD' timestamp='1309026856' post='9524']

Not that it would be of any help with your decision, but Olympus has the Standard, Pro, and Top Pro lines of lenses. Only the Pro and Top Pro lenses are sealed, which is why your 70-300 were not. The 90-250/2.8 and the 50-200/2.8-3.5 should both be sealed.

[/quote]

Fair enough, I knew although overpriced the 70-300 wasn't a high end lens. If the 50-200 takes a 1.4x that would do, although I don't fancy getting an Oly body to match it... so none of those really are more cost effective than getting the 70-300L.

[joachim]

[quote name='popo' timestamp='1308998551' post='9513']

Olympus SLRs are a dead system. I wouldn't buy it new at this point, and since no one else did previously they're not common used either. I used to have their 4/3 70-300 lens and from memory that didn't appear to have any particular sealing either. Don't recall there being anything else in that area?



[/quote]



The 70-300 is a consumer line lens. You need the better lines. The 50-200 would fit your bill. How much life is left in the system is indeed a question. So far only the lower bodies have been discontinued. The E-5 and the lenses are available from new. There have rumours about an E-30 update earlier this year, but so far nothing much has been announced.



For Pentax the DA* lenses are typically also sealed. The DA* 60-250/4 might be of interest. Klaus seems very fond of it.