Wanted: Devil's advocate....

[lensmen]

No, I am a religious person here.... just that the little devil on my shoulder is telling that I should get the

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM ......

should I or should I not....

Oh, I like actions shots, nature shots, and close crop photos....

Was a Pentax film buff until I fell for the 300D DSLR, after getting sick of the S40 / 50's lack of zoom option...

Ok, the $$$ isn't easy to come by either, but I am not going into debt to get this....

So, my devil's advocate & the oppositing attoney, please state your cases....

[FlipsidE]

For the kind of action you shoot and the limitations it brings, I cannot think of a better way to use the money than the 100-400L.

FlipsidE

[Cadwell]

:lol: The EF 100-400L is a nice thing and you want it. Therefore go and buy it. Any other argument is just an excuse to justify an expensive purchase to make yourself feel less guilty. :twisted: :twisted:

[lensmen]

That is nice opening lines from the opposing attoneys.....

where da le devil's avocate(s) ?

[JZaun]

You will nto regret getting this lens!! From 100mm to 400mm its great and the IS is a real PLUS!!

JZ

[chris.bailey]

If you can afford it without getting into trouble then do it

[Scottes]

Here (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=43436) is a review I wrote comparing the Canon 400 Prime to the 100-400. It may give you some more insight into the 100-400.


This lens is not so great for action - it's slow to AF compared to others in it's price range, and doesn't do so great in low light situations. The 300 f/4, 400 f/5.6, or any of the 70-200 lenses are much better for action - though the primes lock you into one distance and the zoom is kind of short.

"Nature shots" covers a large amount of things, anywhere from bugs to birds to mountains, thus it covers every lens ever made. What type of nature shots?

"Close Crop" photos same thing. I also can say that I like nature shots and close crops, and if I apply my thinking then I look at 2 lenses - the 100-400 or a 70-200. For wildlife of *any* kind - bugs to bears - the 100-400 kicks some serious butt. The zoom range, IS, short min focus, and length of the lens are all wonderful. Get some extension tubes and this lens will do anything. The 70-200 does much of this but at half the reach - which can be a killer. But it's potential for action shots might make up for that.

I'll have to quote something that I say quite often: "If I had only one lens it would be the Canon 100-400 L IS."

You won't be unhappy with this lens unless you do low-light action.

[Andy_T]

You've asked the question in the wrong place ... :roll:

You'll only find devilish lens advocates here... :twisted:

Best regards,
Andy

[lensmen]

If you can afford it without getting into trouble then do it

Hmmm, trouble with my concion (wats that word again)...... rather. I am still single , so no finance minister (gf or wifey) to answer to . Just my bank account and the greatly reduced numbers.....

[xc611]

I got my 100-400L two month ago and I love it!!!

[roanjohn]

Hmmm, trouble with my concion (wats that word again)...... rather. I am still single , so no finance minister (gf or wifey) to answer to . Just my bank account and the greatly reduced numbers.....

...............OOHHHH!!! You don't need a devils advocate!!! You need a 100-400 L IS and a 70-200 f2.8 L IS!!!! The former for wildlife, and the latter for sports.

:twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

RO1

[ScottE]

The Sigma 50-500 is just as sharp, has a wider zoom range and costs significantly less.

The push pull zoom on the 100-400 works like some old fashioned Nikon to suck dust and moisture into the lens.


The only justification for the 100-400 is that it has image stabilization if you can't hold a camera steady and are too lazy to use a tripod.

[FlipsidE]

This lens is not so great for action - it's slow to AF compared to others in it's price range, and doesn't do so great in low light situations. The 300 f/4, 400 f/5.6, or any of the 70-200 lenses are much better for action - though the primes lock you into one distance and the zoom is kind of short.

- Personally, I don't see another option out there for watersports photograhpy unless you can just absolutely guarantee that you will have access to the boat...or maybe if you get lucky enough to have access to a tower or nice section of low-traffic bank to set up on with a very strict circuit course in front of you (like for slalom skiing especially).

But, I've been through this in my head a lot as of late. I just don't think the 70-200 lenses (even with the 1.4x TC) would be long enough to capture some of the wakeboarding shots I want to capture. Watersports action usually requires a fairly large area (larger than a football field or a soccer field), and I've heard that on soccer fields, the 70-200 with 1.4x TC can still be a bit too short. While a long focal length prime would probably be ideal, the watersports world isn't going to cater to those lenses I don't think...simply because you never know when you might get an invite to get into the boat where the boarder may only be 50 feet from you. A 300mm lens at 50 feet is going to be just a bit too much. Plus, a 300mm prime may be a bit too much to fit in a boat with you.

Honestly, the cost of the 70-200 is a bit more than I want to spend. But, even after looking into this subject quite a bit recently, I've come to the conclusion that, for my purposes, slow or not, the 100-400L is really my only option.

FlipsidE

[FlipsidE]

The Sigma 50-500 is just as sharp, has a wider zoom range and costs significantly less.

- That Sigman 50-500 almost seems too good to be true. What's the catch?

The only justification for the 100-400 is that it has image stabilization if you can't hold a camera steady and are too lazy to use a tripod.

- Hmmm....in this case I must disagree. From what I understand IS is quite good when used with a monopod.

FlipsidE

[cmM]

You've asked the question in the wrong place ... :roll:

You'll only find devilish lens advocates here... :twisted:

My thoughts exactly. It's why we're all poor.... well at least I am.

[lensmen]

Well, just to show you what I'd like to do..... (big files)

...am using a 300D and I rather spend on the optics than on the 20D.....(not yet)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Snoopy88/1AsianWakeboard04-344.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Snoopy88/0IMG_2351.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Snoopy88/0IMG_1925.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Snoopy88/0IMG_2331.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Snoopy88/1AsianWakeboard04-288.jpg

Wished that I can do better and i think that the fine lines were spoilted due to my handshake....

Dun like tripod much , and I have a Manfotto monopod also....

Use PS to crop....well, that is possible. I am from the old school of film users, where cropping is an expensive option in the darkroom and are frown upon. You make every shot counts coz film is limited on site......... At least that is my self-imposed standards....

Just saw the 28-135 IS on the pre-own market .....wondering if it is also worthwhile target to eye on....then I will go on 2 meals of oats + milk daily till my bank accounts recovers....



"Nature shots" covers a large amount of things, anywhere from bugs to birds to mountains, thus it covers every lens ever made. What type of nature shots?

"Close Crop" photos same thing. I also can say that I like nature shots and close crops, and if I apply my thinking then I look at 2 lenses - the 100-400 or a 70-200. For wildlife of *any* kind - bugs to bears - the 100-400 kicks some serious butt. The zoom range, IS, short min focus, and length of the lens are all wonderful. Get some extension tubes and this lens will do anything. The 70-200 does much of this but at half the reach - which can be a killer. But it's potential for action shots might make up for that.

[lensmen]

Correct my poor english here,

but I tot devil advocates are supposed to

gun down the idea of getting the lens ?


You've asked the question in the wrong place ... :roll:

You'll only find devilish lens advocates here... :twisted:

Best regards,
Andy

[lensmen]

The catch is NO IS or it's equal.... it makes a big difference when our 300D is doing 1.6X....

And I dun want to handle a tripod, mono is as far as it goes.....


The Sigma 50-500 is just as sharp, has a wider zoom range and costs significantly less.

- That Sigman 50-500 almost seems too good to be true. What's the catch?

The only justification for the 100-400 is that it has image stabilization if you can't hold a camera steady and are too lazy to use a tripod.

- Hmmm....in this case I must disagree. From what I understand IS is quite good when used with a monopod.

FlipsidE

[Cadwell]

The catch on the Sigma 50-500mm? Mmm... well the optics aren't bad but they aren't as good as the 100-400L... no IS, and the autofocus is not as quick. It is a superb bargain in terms of price though.

As to the comment about the 100-400L sucking dust (I haven't seen it do that by the way)... well I guess that's down to the fact that it changes length to zoom, precisely the same way that the Sigma 50-500mm does... so where's the difference there?

[ScottE]

The catch on the Sigma 50-500mm? Mmm... well the optics aren't bad but they aren't as good as the 100-400L... no IS, and the autofocus is not as quick. It is a superb bargain in terms of price though.

You compared a different pair of lenses than I did then. The two I compared were so close it was hard to tell the difference and at longer focal lengths the Sigma may have been slightly sharper. I was using a loupe on film with a limited number of shots but my conclusion was that as far as useful photos they were almost the same.

Remember, this thread asked for a devil's advocate. All I've seen are a bunch of "me too" replies from people with big L's in their eyes, or maybe a big L in one eye and big $ in the other.

[DocFrankenstein]

What? He has money and still thinking about that lens? :?

I'm thinking if I shoudl overdraw another CC to get my next lens.... :D

[lensmen]

Do appreciate this note.....

I hoped to hear more from those who would persuade me otherwise....




Remember, this thread asked for a devil's advocate. All I've seen are a bunch of "me too" replies from people with big L's in their eyes, or maybe a big L in one eye and big $ in the other.

[Jesper]

Ok, the $$$ isn't easy to come by either, but I am not going into debt to get this....

So, my devil's advocate & the oppositing attoney, please state your cases....

:twisted: Hey, pssst, listen up..... you only live once.... you just gotta have fun before it's too late.... so get it! Do you want to have a nice toy to play with or do you just want to stare at a number on a piece of paper (your bank statement....) :twisted: :lol:

[lensmen]

Hahhhaa....this is neuturally very good....

there goes the downpayment for my apartment next year....


:twisted: Hey, pssst, listen up..... you only live once.... you just gotta have fun before it's too late.... so get it! Do you want to have a nice toy to play with or do you just want to stare at a number on a piece of paper (your bank statement....) :twisted: :lol:

[chris.bailey]

Hahhhaa....this is neuturally very good....

there goes the downpayment for my apartment next year....


:twisted: Hey, pssst, listen up..... you only live once.... you just gotta have fun before it's too late.... so get it! Do you want to have a nice toy to play with or do you just want to stare at a number on a piece of paper (your bank statement....) :twisted: :lol:

You cant take pictures with an apartment though!!!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Get the 100-400mm IS :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: <== devils :wink:


I have owned and used the Sigma 50-500mm extensively. I had a VERY GOOD copy of that lens and it was muy "main lens" for the better part of a year before it was replaced with a 500mm Prime.

I highly recomned this lens to those looking for 500mm at an affordable price...

But it is no Canon 100-400mm IS!

Put simply,. I don't own the 50-500mm anymore,. and I DO have a 100-400mm IS.


As for action and focus speed,... Scottes is correct that the 100-400mm focus tracking is not as fast as some other lenses.. but I woul like to point out the lenses tracking limitations seem to be isolated to very small subjects (like birds in flight)

I have not felt the 100-400mm is too slow to focus on moving objects of much larger size. (like people or cars)

[lensmen]

Gosh...I think I will have to discharge the devil's advocate for failing to perform it's duty.... seems that the opposing attonery had the final say.....

yup, the 50-500 Bigma was the next choice, but for the sake of IS & possibly my dream "L" lens that I had been drolling since my school days of the Canon F-1 and the FD-L lenses, guess it is about time I make this dream comes true....

thanks to all for their feedback and comments, I really enjoyed it.

Nope, this topic is NOT closed yet, until the lens reached my hands in exchange for a lighter wallet.....

cheers

[joeseph]

Just as well it isn't closed - I ordered one yesterday!

Let me think, reasons not to buy it: <blank> oh alright, price.

reasons to buy it: versatility, quality, weight, IS, size, colour etc...

I had toyed with the idea of a 35-350 but decided I needed the IS, and besides I can always get another L to fill the hole between 16-35L and the 100-400L


can you tell I don't have children?

:P

[lensmen]

Well, I also would like to tell you that I am still single and available....

:lol:

Such is the freedom of choice that we have.....

gosh I am at a loss of what to do......... :wink:


can you tell I don't have children?

:P

[lensmen]

That does it..... end of discussion for me on this lens.... :idea:

I can feel the smooth & round body of the white lens barrel ,

with the envy of those near me

blinking an eye of respect,

that I have the ultimate tool on hand.
Ouhhhh...... it is pure orgasim of the image kind....

Soon, she will be mine.... muahahahahaa/.....