100-400mm f4.5-5.6L or 400mm 5.6?

[murwille]

I just purchased a 10D with the 50mm f1.8II, and Speedlite 550EX, and a Delkin 1Gb CF card. I have been reading posts on this forum and 3 or 4 others. I enjoy wildlife photography with an emphasis on birds. I am a high school physics instructor and try to do my homework before spending "moonlighting" money on my hobbies.
My next purchase, which I hope will come this fall, will be a telephoto lens. I was originally comfortable with purchasing the 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM. There are lots of favorable posts out there. I have looked at many sample photos by many different people. Most of them I'm not impressed with, but there are some which are wonderful. I'm sure most of what I see is due to the person operating the camera. (I know first hand how hard it it to get good photos with a large telephoto.) Then I saw people comparing ithe 100-400mm with the 400mm f5.6L USM. There is no denying the MTF charts available at Canon's website show the 400 prime's superior specs. I have seen photos demonstrating its superiority under controlled conditions like being tripod mounted, mirror locked up, and remote cable release.
I don't usually like to use a tripod, but do own a nice one. My question then, is, in the real world application, which lens should I go with? I am extremely picky about sharpness. I know I would be better off with the f2.8L IS USM, but can't afford one. I know about the 10Ds softness - I will probably end up sharpening many of my photos. (I also know software sharpening doesn't increase resolution.) I own a pair of Nikon 10 x 42 superior E's and a Swarovski 80mm HD spotting scope. I'm not found of chromatic aberration. Will the IS of the 100-400mm make up for its lower resolution capabilities?
I would enjoy seeing more sample photos and more comments from you!

[Nill Toulme]

If you're going to be handholding, then you absolutely positively want IS at these focal lengths. But if you're really as picky about sharpness as you say you are, then you're going to want to use a tripod.

I like the 100-400 a lot and think it represents an exceptional value. Don Cohen has a lot of very nice wildlife images on his site made with this lens that might make you think better of it:

http://www.dlcphotography.com/

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[CyberDyneSystems]

I have contemplated the 400mm 5.6
I liked it for the price,.. but in the end I did not get it,.. as I knew I would allways covet the other two 400mm L lenses,. with there faster apertures and "IS".

Given that,.. of the two lenses you list,. I would go for the 100-400mm. It will be more flexible as far as what you can use it for,. and it has "IS" with a 5.6 aperture at 400mm.

[Jon Borcik]

I own the 100-400mm L IS lense and simply love it. I do a lot of sports action shots and the clarity is superb. I do find that using a mono pod probably helps a lot (especially holding a heavy cameera for over an hour and a half). My vote is fro the 100-400mm. I don't believe you will be dissatisfied at all.

[PacAce]

I had a similar decision to make, except it was between the 100-400 f4.5-5.6 IS L and the 300 f4 IS L. The 400 f5.6 wasn't even a consideration for me because I needed to have IS. I finally ended up getting the 100-400mm even though I knew that 300 prime would give me sharper images at 300mm, especially at wide open aperture. What made me pick the 100-400 was the versatility of being able to use any focal length between 100 to 400 and not being "stuck" at 300 all the time.

I deliberated on this for a couple of months before making my decision and, believe me, it was NOT an easy decision to make. Currently I'm using the 100-400 lens for taking pictures of birds but I'm also going to use it for taking auto/motorcycle racing pictures and air show pictures.

Since my current interest is birds, the 100-400 has become my "everyday" lens and is mounted on my 10D all the time. It makes a perfect companion to my previous "walk-around" lens, the Canon 28-135 IS.

[Griffin]

I would differ a bit.

For lens quality-wise. EF400mm f/5.6 L USM is sharper than the zoom counter part, hands down. See this review:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml

Yes, it has no IS, but it is lighter and well, you have to turn off the IS on EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM on tripod anyway.

Also, many photographers like Mr. Michael Reichmann and Mr. Arthur Morris use EF400 f/5.6 L USM.

The only reason I have the EF100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM this lens is increaible in its flexiblity. You get the easily adjust the zoom to your needs, even it is heavier. Not to mention, it becomes a close-up lens after adding 500D and/or extension tubes.

My 2 cents.


Griffin.

[RichardtheSane]

I also have the 100-400mm after making the choice between prime and zoom.
I made the right choice.
I do a a bit of wildlife photography, and some sports (water/motor sports) and this is why I considered a 400 prime - but the lanscape photographer in me shouted 'what about me!'. Good job because the shorter focal lengths are fanastic for isolating parts of a scene that would otherwise be out of reach for me.
I have decided I will get a prime in a year or two, but for wildlife I will be looking at 500mm.
IS is a bit handy too ;)

[meckstein]

I had both lenses and after one month with the 100/400 IS I sold the 400 ƒ5.6 as I knew I woiuld never be using it again. Arthur Morris is currently carrying and using the 100/400 instead of the 400 ƒ5.6 so I guess I am in good company.

The 100/400 is quite sharp at 400mm wide open. BTW I leave the IS on when using a tripod and have experienced no problems. I have a few shooting pals who do the same.

Let me put it this way if I could have only one lens it would be the 100/400 IS. It is my most used lens and I don't leave home without it.

This taken with 1.4TC at 400mm:

http://www.fiber-net.com/pub/shcc/owlpair.jpg

This taken at 265mm:

http://homepage.mac.com/meckstein/post/tri2.jpg

[rdenney]

murwille wrote:
I don't usually like to use a tripod, but do own a nice one. My question then, is, in the real world application, which lens should I go with? I am extremely picky about sharpness. I know I would be better off with the f2.8L IS USM, but can't afford one. I know about the 10Ds softness - I will probably end up sharpening many of my photos. (I also know software sharpening doesn't increase resolution.) I own a pair of Nikon 10 x 42 superior E's and a Swarovski 80mm HD spotting scope. I'm not found of chromatic aberration. Will the IS of the 100-400mm make up for its lower resolution capabilities?
I would enjoy seeing more sample photos and more comments from you!


At 400mm, the fixed lens will outperform the zoom noticeably, if you are one of those people who looks at very large prints with a loupe.

That said, it seems to me that you have to decide if you will shoot a lot at 400mm. If the 100-400 will be racked out all the time, then you have your answer.

Thus, I'm not sure you can compare these lenses. The 300mm lens, for example, will make the same images as a 400, though you'll have to enlarge and crop, but the 400 will not make the same images as the 300. Thus, the 400 won't make very many images that are possible with the 100-400.

The lens that can make the image is always better than the lens that can't, no matter what their relative sharpness.

There is another question to consider. If you use a shorter fixed lens (like the 300) and then enlarge and crop it to the same frame as a 400, the resulting image will not be as good as you'd get with the 100-400 at 400, even though the 300 is sharper than the zoom at 300. If the zoom lens means that you will always frame precisely so that you don't have to crop off pixels on all sides, then your image will be better overall, though you might have a few images that might have been slightly better with the fixed lens.

Lanscape pros like Reichmann can afford to carry several fixed lenses, and choose the correct lens for each image. That's what I have for my medium-format stuff--a 120, 180, 300, and 500, plus high-quality 2x converter giving me 120, 180, 240, 300, 360, 500, 600, and 1000 if I bring a sufficient number of laborers. But for wildlife and other moving subjects, a person with a zoom will get the image while I'll be changing lenses.

And you know that sharpness is more a state of mind than lens resolution numbers. If you put the subject together properly and focus on the right thing, the sharpness will be there even if the lens isn't the sharpest available. I have seen many wildlife images that were not what I, as a former large-format photographer, would call really sharp. But they looked sharp.

In summary, getting the image is more important than that last bit of lens resolution. Precise framing is more important than that last bit of lens resolution. Good compositions and focusing on the right thing is more important than that last bit of lens resolution.

Rick "who notices that in every case even Reichmann says that lens X, the faults of which he is about to reveal, has produced excellent fine-art images for him in the past" Denney

[Griffin]

meckstein wrote:
The 100/400 is quite sharp at 400mm wide open. BTW I leave the IS on when using a tripod and have experienced no problems. I have a few shooting pals who do the same.

Let me put it this way if I could have only one lens it would be the 100/400 IS. It is my most used lens and I don't leave home without it.


Strange. Sometimes, the lens studders when I turn the IS on., well that could be balancing problem. Anyway, it is not the latest IS model like one on EF70-200mm f/2.8 L IS USM, which I am told it turns IS automatically off when it detects it is on tripod.

Yep same here, in the meantime, EF100-400mm L IS USM is the only lens I use on birds. :)


Griffin.

[Nill Toulme]

I have occasionally had the 100-400 go into its IS feedback loop on a tripod. There's no mistaking when it happens -- it vibrates noticeably. Then you turn off the IS.

Most of the time when I'm using it on a tripod though, I'm doing so in a more dynamic mode using the Wimberley Sidekick, aiming and shooting actively as opposed to trying to achieve perfect stillness and using remote release, mirror lockup, etc. For the former sort of use the IS is still very desirable.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

[CyberDyneSystems]

This has turned into one of the more informative threads I can remember reading :)

If there was a review section on this forum,. we could cut and paste this thread as one of the most in depth reviews of the 100-400mm IS on the internet! :D

[RichardtheSane]

Always when I look at threads like this I still have that niggling doubt as the wether I purchased the right lens.
Rick, what you said about getting the right shot makes perfect sense - and has finally convinced me that the 100-400 is the without any doubt right lens for me :) :)

[traveler]

I think that one must be very specific in realizing their application in this case. The main thing I find enticing about the 100-400L (which by the way I do own currently) is that it not only allows for a significantly flexible use as far as focal range on a jaunt, but also allows for handholding without the need for either a mono or tripod. It WILL render very sharp images even wide open (assuming you have a decent copy of course). The 400mm 5.6L strengths are indeed when one is on a mono or tripod and with decent light. If one was a "birder" I would suspect that the prime may well be a better choice. Most birders DO use mono and tripods a LOT and therefore it's not as uncommon as one might think. For my personal use I've found the zoom to be an ideal answer to when I need that extra focal length but am unsure as to just how much of it I'll need. In build and performance the 100-400L certainly deserves it's L stature AFAIAC. The prices of both lenses are extrememly fair to be sure. How can you really lose either way. :-)

[murwille]

Wow, thanks for all the great responses! You've convinced me to buy the 100-400mm L. I had already ssen some very nice photos taken with this lens; you showed me some more. I agree that the prime lens is sharper, but the 100-400mm is more versatile and the IS will allow more situations to get a photo - especially without a tripod.
I am a birder, but I will probably continue to carry my Swarovski with a tripod and my binoculars. My tripod is a Bogen/Manfrotto. I will get a quick release plate for the lens. I will be able to set the lens on it when necessary.
I did get a response on another forum that stated that the quality of the 100-400mm does vary - some were very good and some were not so good. He suggeted I purchase the lens from a source which will be willing to do exchanges. Do any of you have any comment on this? I purchased my current equipment from B & H. I plan to buy the lense from there as well. I haven't discussed this with them yet, but hope an exchange will be possible if necessary.

[traveler]

FWIW I bought all of my Canon gear from Delta International in New York. They were previously only a Grey importer of the merchandise for Canon. No problem as typically they can offer a lower price and Canon USA services the merchandise under warranty with only a sales receipt. They also provide a MACK 3 year pro lens warranty no extra charge. In the unlikely event you get a bad copy you get a replacement the NEXT day at their expense no waiting. I rather like that option.......you might consider them (877)782-9840

[Griffin]

If you go either lens, it is fine. As for mounting it on a tripod, I would strongly recommend you get also the Wimeberely Sidekick. No I don't work for this company but like many posters here, once you get it, you will be hooked (pun intended) like me. Very versatile to use. BTW, it works with all Acra-Swiss head and plates, but best with Wimberely plates. Well, that really costs. :) Did I mention also their flash brackets...

Remember, you lose AF once you add a TC. It is the limit of D30/D60/10D. Humm, I have to add this since I meet a birder who think there is a problem with his 10D and/or EF400mm f/5.6 L USM once he adds his 2x TC.


Griffin.

[murwille]

Griffin,

I plan to purchase the Canon TC II 1.4X. I have read that AF does not work below f8, but I have also read that this can be overcome by taping one or more of the contacts on the TC. I have also heard that it doesn't work well in low light conditions. Am I incorrect on these?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Murwille,

That sounds like you have done your research,... :)

[Rudi]

murwille wrote:
Griffin,

I plan to purchase the Canon TC II 1.4X. I have read that AF does not work below f8, but I have also read that this can be overcome by taping one or more of the contacts on the TC. I have also heard that it doesn't work well in low light conditions. Am I incorrect on these?

No, you're not incorrect. You will most probably find out that with the 10D you will end up focusing manually most of the time with that combo. Manual focusing is not necessarily a bad thing, though.

My 10D doesn't like focusing with the 300mm f/4L and 2x Extender II, but it still makes a great manual-focus 600mm f/8L... :)

[carls]

I bought the 400mm 5.6 on Friday after going to the link that Roger provided (thanks Roger). The 100-400mm was not really an option as I bought my 10D with a 70-200 4.0 L but the 100-400/D60 that a friend has is incredible and prompted my change to Canon a couple of weeks ago. We took bird pictures with our respective lenses yesterday, I'm keen to see how they come out.
Carl

[meckstein]

Rudi wrote:
murwille wrote:
Griffin,

I plan to purchase the Canon TC II 1.4X. I have read that AF does not work below f8, but I have also read that this can be overcome by taping one or more of the contacts on the TC. I have also heard that it doesn't work well in low light conditions. Am I incorrect on these?

No, you're not incorrect. You will most probably find out that with the 10D you will end up focusing manually most of the time with that combo. Manual focusing is not necessarily a bad thing, though.

My 10D doesn't like focusing with the 300mm f/4L and 2x Extender II, but it still makes a great manual-focus 600mm f/8L... :)

I have taken close to a thousand images with my 10D and taped Canon 1.4TC and my 100/400 IS lens. Auto Focus works very well for me.

Example: This was just a grab shot as I saw the bird out of the corner of my eye.

http://homepage.mac.com/meckstein/post/peli4.jpg

Another Example:

http://homepage.mac.com/meckstein/post/flight.jpg

[defordphoto]

Do I love my 100-400L IS? Let the pictures speak:

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/SprintBoats/June2003/TheRace/index.htm

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/Friday/index.htm

http://racefamily.racinglines.com/Galleries/2003/CART/Portland/Saturday/index.htm

Also note that every single one of these photos was shot large JPEG and were not processed whatsoever. This is exactly how they came directly out of the camera. I am post-processing these photos for re-display to correct white points and add some sharpness.

To say the least, I am extremely pleased with this lens and highly recommend it. It's a great value!

[rdonson]

Jim, those are some great images!!!

[NILOLIGIST]

RFMSports,

In the Portland Saturday race is that Tom Cruise? It looks like him and I remember reading somewhere that he races.

As usual great shots!!

NiL,

[murwille]

Jim (RFMSports),

I had seen some of your images as linked from the (Sony) Mavica Information Exchange. They represent, in my original post, some of the wonderful images I have seen made by the 100-400mm L. (BTW I changed my username - it was originally "murwille") There is no doubt now that I plan to buy this lens! My next task is to sell some stuff on e-bay! I have a Besseler 23CII XL with dichroic head, stablized power supply, 2 Nikon lenses, 35mm and slide holders - all in great condition. I also have an Oympus OM-4 with motor drive, Olympus flash and bounce with connecting cables, 50mm f 1.8 Zuico lens, and a Tamron 500mm SP f8 catadioptric lens + 2X TC with adaptall adapter for the OM-4 - again all in great condition. I'm thinking about waiting until fall to post them on e-bay with the theory more people will see these items after vacation time has ended. Does anyone have suggestions here?
I have another question and perhaps it belongs on a different thread - it does pertain to my "homework" on the 100-400mm though. I just got my 10D on Friday and worked 12 hours yesterday helping a friend build an observatory. I got a chance to transfer some pictures to my computer this morning and look at them there.
I think that some of the picture posts taken by the 100-400mm I was unimpressed with were due not to the lens and in some cases, not by the operator/photographer, but how they were resized/resampled for viewing on a website. Up until Friday I was shooting with a Sony Mavica FD97 2.1 MP camera. I am finding that pitcures viewed on my computer from that camera can appear to be sharper - although I know its really not. I quickly found out that my monitor setting of 800 x 600 was not going to cut it while viewing images with the 10D! I bumped it up to 1024 x 768 - that helped, but I found the next step up to be even better. (Higher resolutions above that might be even better, but my monitor is vintage 1995 and I didn't want to push it. My video card is much newer and quite powerful - that wouldn't be the limitation.)
My observation seems to be that in order to get the images resized to a size they can be seen in their entirety at say 800 x 600 or 1024 x 768, you lose some much in getting them there that they don't look that impressive any more. They don't seem that sharp. I am currently on a laptop with 1024 x 768 resolution and Jim's pitures looked great! Jim, how do you resize your photos for webpages and make them look so good? I want nice sharp photos as viewed on a webpage, but I don't want file sizes to get too big - unless I provide a separate link. I have Adobe Photoshop at my disposal, but haven't used it much. I'm much more comfortable with PaintShopPro 7.
Sorry for my rambling. This is a wonderful forum and I am enjoying the chance to learn from all of you.

Mark Urwiller

[defordphoto]

Niloligist: No that's not Tom Cruise. I think that's Oriel Servia your referring to.

rdonson: Thanks. The lens speaks for itself.

murwille: Thank you! I was so thrilled to see these photos for the first time myself. And honestly, those galleries above are some of the best photos I have shot in my life. They are definitely THE best sports shots I have produced to date.

And yes, granted the lens could be faster, but on a sunny day, which is what I shoot 99% of the time, the 4.5-5.6 is PLENTY fast enough for shooting even 200-plus mph cars and 0-80 in three-seconds sprint boats.

And yes, I did run into having to wait for the buffer to clear a couple of times (twice I think with the Champ Cars), but it was not a big deal and I didn't lose any once-in-a-lifetime shots over it.

As for the creation of the gallery, that was done with BreezeBrowser and it does actually provide some sharpening to the photos. But in both the boats and Champ Cars there was some periods of cloudiness and you see the gray cast over some of the pictures. I am in process of re-doing those photos.

Also, learn PhotoShop Pro. PSP7 can't do what PhotoShop can. Eventually you will using actions, etc. and they only work with PhotoShop. It's not really that hard once you get into it.

[Griffin]

murwille wrote:
Griffin,

I plan to purchase the Canon TC II 1.4X. I have read that AF does not work below f8, but I have also read that this can be overcome by taping one or more of the contacts on the TC. I have also heard that it doesn't work well in low light conditions. Am I incorrect on these?


Ahh, I see you have got all the answers already! :D


Griffin.

[mpwvp]

This topic pumped me up so much.. I just ordered a 100-400 L lens today.

Some times these message boards can be dangerous...

Thanks for the great imput from you guys that own this Lens

[RichardtheSane]

Welcome to the club ;)

[pcho]

Well, I have just done the opposite and I too procrastinated for over a month. I ended up purchasing the 300F4 and the 400F5.6. This is only based on what I have read from reviews and at different forums:-

1. Primes are sharper than zooms
2. On most ocassions we tend to shoot at maximum focal length
3. I also read the 400mm prime focuses alot faster as well (thus less chances of missing critical shots)

So my decision was based on above reasons. If I needed 300mm I will use 300mm prime and if I needed 400mm I will use 400mm prime. Generally when using telephoto lens, it is nearly always never long enough so why have a 100-400 lens when we will be generally shooting at 400 anyway. I know the zooms are much more practical and judging by some of the pics on this forum I sometimes wonder I made the right decision.

I only ordered my lenses on monday so I can tell you how the they are.

[Rudi]

Welcome, Perry! :)

Don't worry, you made the right decision...

[pcho]

Thanks Rudi,

Glad you think so. BTW you are popping up everywhere

[Rudi]

No mate, it's YOU who's popping up everywhere... *I* am too dignified to "pop"... :D

[defordphoto]

pcho: Yes, primes are shown to be sharper than zooms. That's a gimme. But, are they really THAT much sharper? I'm sure there's a side-by-side somewhere. Does become a beta vs. VHS argument?

But, that still will not change my mind. I love my 100-400L and am completely satisfied with the results. It's the perfect lens for my situation.

And, I definitiely do not shoot most of the time at 400. A lot of the times yes, but not all. I think my boat shots were almost all at 400 however ;). That was my first outing with the lens and then I was at 400 much less for the ChampCars.

The thing is when I need less than 400? Just a slight pull on the lens and I was there. I don't have the slightest desire to haul around a prime 400 and 300 and when what if you need something less than that? Another lens? Yikes, that's both alot of money and alot of lenses to haul around.

And I have NO complaints on the speed of the focusing. I ran the entire weekend(s) at AI Servo and did not miss one shot. I had absolutely no focusing issues whatsoever shooting both the fast cars and boats.

Those primes will be sweet and I'm sure you'll get some fantastic, hang-on-your-wall shots out of them. Under different circumstances I would go the same route as you did, but personally I think the 100-400 is one of THE best lens values out there right now.

[pcho]

Hi RFMSports

Yes I don't disagree with everthing you said. My heart was really torn between primes and the flexibility of zooms. I have the 24-70 and 70-200 IS so I do know the quailty of zooms as well. The difference is I guess marginal. I just develop what you called L prime sickness.

Well I might still end up getting the 100-400 if I find the primes too inflexible. I did take advice from a chap at freds forum (frances from hawaii) and he indicated the views I listed in the earlier post.

Most importantly we are all having fun, whatever the lens we pick

[CyberDyneSystems]

pcho,

Aaah HAA!

You have stumbled across the BEST solution!

Get both and have the best of both worlds..... :D



//....... oh lord,.. more gear to carry :(

[pcho]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
pcho,

Aaah HAA!

You have stumbled across the BEST solution!

Get both and have the best of both worlds..... :D

//....... oh lord,.. more gear to carry :(

Hi CyberDyneSystems,

You have hit the nail on the head. Thats basically what I did. I know I am overlapping but I tend to be a perfectionist and close enough is not good enough for me. As Frances said on his emails to me and on Fred’s forums the 400 F5.6 is optically sharper and more importantly focuses much faster than 300F4 + 1.4x extender. So I decided I buy both. If I needed 300mm focal length I will use the 300mm F4 and if I needed 400mm focal length I will use 400mm F5.6 lens. If I want to shoot in low light and needed IS then I always have the 300mm F4 IS. So I thought that’s was a good decision. I also have the 1.4x extender as well, so if I want to carry light I can use the 300mm + 1.4x extender and if I want zoom, I will use the 70-200 f2.8 IS + 1.4 extender (even though it only becomes 280mm but still very sharp).


I live in a country town and I am not far from home, plus basically I generally know what I want to shoot anyway and true I might miss some of the closer shots but who cares as long as we are all having fun. I also found that with primes, even if the subject is too close and if I take a 1/2 or 3/4 body shot they tend to have their own beauty. Basically what I am trying to say is everything doen't have to fit the frame to be a good shot.

So weight is not that much of a problem. I have 2 sons to carry for me too :)

[defordphoto]

pcho wrote:
Hi RFMSports

Yes I don't disagree with everthing you said. My heart was really torn between primes and the flexibility of zooms. I have the 24-70 and 70-200 IS so I do know the quailty of zooms as well. The difference is I guess marginal. I just develop what you called L prime sickness.

Well I might still end up getting the 100-400 if I find the primes too inflexible. I did take advice from a chap at freds forum (frances from hawaii) and he indicated the views I listed in the earlier post.

Most importantly we are all having fun, whatever the lens we pick



Well, with the other lenses you have, you have about everything covered. I do want to get more L glass (addicted yes!), but I'm pretty happy with what I got right now and it works well with what I am shooting. I am definitely not through buying glass (peeks over shoulder, looking for wife) and I'll probably get that super fast 70-200 2.8 and then something super wide.

Having fun? You bet! I'm looking forward to seeing some of your pics with that new 300/400 prime combo you have coming. WOW! Very cool!

[pcho]

RFMSports wrote:
I am definitely not through buying glass (peeks over shoulder, looking for wife) and I'll probably get that super fast 70-200 2.8 and then something super wide.

Having fun? You bet! I'm looking forward to seeing some of your pics with that new 300/400 prime combo you have coming. WOW! Very cool!

Hi Jim,

I am having same problem. Most of my deliveries are sent to my office :). I only just recently purhcase the 85 F1.2 L and the 135 F2 L so I got to be careful too. Luckily I always had one black lens and one white lens, so all my lens look the same to me wife :)

Thats it. I am not buying anymore.

I will post some pics when I get lens.

[Rudi]

pcho wrote:
Thats it. I am not buying anymore.


...Yeah, right!... :)

[pcho]

Rudi wrote:
pcho wrote:
Thats it. I am not buying anymore.


...Yeah, right!... :)



Rudi Haha - you stay out of this one :)

[excessnoise]

I don't have any L lenses yet, sigh, but it doesn't stop me from researching. Don't slam me too hard but I haven't seen anyone mention Sigma's 50-500 EX lens as a viable option. I've read a lot of reports and talked to a few that have it and they like it as well if not better than the 100-400L

Don't shoot, I'm just curious so I can narrow down my choices.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Haha,.. I'm not sure the Sigma 50-500mm belongs in THIS thread with THIS crowd! :D :D

I own that lens and LOVE it :D

It is by far the most economical and flexible way to get into the 500mm neighborhood. You can even use it manual focus with a 1.4 extender. (don't bother trying it with the 2X though,.. it works bad)

But the big boys here are oozing cash on "L" Primes!!!!

I can only dream :)

I haven't actually used the Canon 100-400mm IS,.. but I tell you what. The day I can afford a 500mm Prime,.. ANY 500mm prime,. I will sell the 50-500mm and get the 100-400 IS instead :) It isn't really any brighter. (they are both f/5.6 at 400mm) but with the IS and Canon glass the 100-400 surely performs better.

If you ar looking to jump into the long lens game early and not put out too much money but still have a decent lens. Go for that Sigma. Even If I can replace it someday,. I won't regret having owned it. Besides a 500mm Prime will set me back at least $3500.00 So it will be a looooong time before I part with the 50-500mm. Like YEARS!

[Rudi]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
I haven't actually used the Canon 100-400mm IS,.. but I tell you what. The day I can afford a 500mm Prime,.. ANY 500mm prime,. I will sell the 50-500mm and get the 100-400 IS instead :) It isn't really any brighter. (they are both f/5.6 at 400mm) but with the IS and Canon glass the 100-400 surely performs better.

CyberDyneSystems,

I believe that the Sigma is f/6.3 at the long end. It "lies" to the camera to still get AF, but is in reality slower.

[kbhagat]

meckstein wrote:
Rudi wrote:
murwille wrote:
Griffin,

I plan to purchase the Canon TC II 1.4X. I have read that AF does not work below f8, but I have also read that this can be overcome by taping one or more of the contacts on the TC. I have also heard that it doesn't work well in low light conditions. Am I incorrect on these?

No, you're not incorrect. You will most probably find out that with the 10D you will end up focusing manually most of the time with that combo. Manual focusing is not necessarily a bad thing, though.

My 10D doesn't like focusing with the 300mm f/4L and 2x Extender II, but it still makes a great manual-focus 600mm f/8L... :)

I have taken close to a thousand images with my 10D and taped Canon 1.4TC and my 100/400 IS lens. Auto Focus works very well for me.

Example: This was just a grab shot as I saw the bird out of the corner of my eye.

http://homepage.mac.com/meckstein/post/peli4.jpg

Another Example:

http://homepage.mac.com/meckstein/post/flight.jpg


I have the 2x extender. I cannot get the AF at all with 100-400 combination. which contacts did you tape up to make the AF work?

[henkbos]

Do I miss something here? The guy is a birder and admitted to be extremely (neurotic? LOL) picky about sharpness. That should have answered the question: primes, a sturdy tripod and the Wimberley Sidekick.

You only realize what sharp is when you see it!!

[Rudi]

henkbos wrote:
Do I miss something here? The guy is a birder and admitted to be extremely (neurotic? LOL) picky about sharpness. That should have answered the question: primes, a sturdy tripod and the Wimberley Sidekick.

You only realize what sharp is when you see it!!

Yep. Agreed!

... BUT... you can't *make* the guy buy the primes if he doesn't want to listen to your advice... :)