100-400L sample shots required....

[Marty_Oz]

Hi,
I really like the range of the 100-400L but just need to see a sample image.
My main use will be surfing shots and candid portraits from a distance.
Could anybody help and post images of the lens at 400mm without cropping the image. I am interested in how much the frame is filled at full zoom.
Also if you could give an estimate of distance from the subject, like at the waters edge or closer on rocks.
All images or info will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks

[MAD DOG]

Sorry Marty_Oz.

I wish I had this lens to post a pic for you.

I must say I'm a little dismayed that you have had a response from any other members.

Come on guy 'n' gals, help him out. I'd rather like to see some too, so that I can dream.

[Andrew Pratt]

Go to pbase and do a search on that lens or view the wildlife forum here...its full of 100-400L photo's

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Um, well, here's one that I found posted by another member.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=75488

There are plenty more out there though. Peeps use this lens a lot. Just look around, and while your doing so hopefully some peeps will start posting their 100-400L pics here. :-)

[Turbowolf]

Everything on my website was done with the 100-400. It was that or the kit lens and all I shoot is wildlife, well, maybe the occasional mountain or volcano, but 99.28943% of the time it's wildlife. So for me the kit lens is nothing more than a paperweight on my desk.

So you want examples? Check out my website.
http://academic.evergreen.edu/s/stidav22/

[RbrtPtikLeoSeny]

Turbowolf, all I have to say is WOOOOAAHHH!!!!!! I have never seen so many fantastic wild life shots in my life! Most pics I see are taken at the zoo! These are amazing! I am sooooo envious! I've never seen a bald eagle, a wild bear or wolf, not even a hawk up close. You, you've taken brilliant pictures of them all! That is just so cool!

[condyk]

If you click through a number of shots are in captivity, at least the ones I looked at: wolf and bears.

Dave, I assume they are generally cropped and taken at 300-400mm primarily. Could you kindly give an indication if that's the case (or not) so people appreciate what length zoom (or prime) is useful to get decent non captive wildlife shots. There is no EXIF data to go one or I'd have checked it.

Also, be interest to know if you use a tripod or monopod, or whether the IS is good enough for most situations.

[lordjim]

I rented a 100-400L for a week end. It is an amazing lens, some of the pics in the links attached on pbase (nature gallery) were taken handheld with a 100-400L at 400mm. It was a really dark day and still I find the results great (considering I am still a beginner in photography). I would recommend that you try to rent it before buying as it is significant expense. It is an heavy lens and some people dislike the push-pull zoom. I found it convenient but far from perfect (the blocking ring is annoying as you need your two hands to use it). Also, I have read that some people had issues with the IS and USM motors so I would recommend that you make sure that the lens is covered by a good warranty before buying it. Unfortunately, I have never tried the Sigma 50-500 or the new Tamron 200-500 which are supposed to be the "affordable" alternatives to the 100-400 so I can not compare. Hope that helps. Good luck.

[Boudreaux]

Here is a picture using the 100-400mm, taken at 400mm. IS0 800. Just realized that I didn't clean up the noise in these pics. :o

http://kfalcon.smugmug.com/gallery/544750/3/22603405

The pics in the latter part of the gallery are using the 100-400. Early pics are using the 70-200mm IS

Hope this helps.

[scottbergerphoto]

http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/image/20905204.jpg
More at: http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/faces_in_the_park

[dannym]

Here you go. Little critter was moving about 30mph, handheld, @ 400mm with IS on. You can't go wrong with this lens. Hope this helps.

http://www.pbase.com/image/43867736.jpg

[flyfishnj]

This is another great lens. Here is a sample shot when I bought it for myself for christmas.


Handheld
1/60 sec
f 5.6
135 mm
iso 400
flash fired

The push pull zoom does not bother me in any way. I personally have no problems with it and find no transitional problems switching from convetional turn zoom lenes and this lens.

[Mycroft]

Here you go. Little critter was moving about 30mph, handheld, @ 400mm with IS on. You can't go wrong with this lens. Hope this helps.



Hah! a T-Maxx!

[quadphoto]

This image was taken 1/400 sec @ f5.6 hand held with the image stablizer on,
I thoroughly recommend this lens the image quality is first class. ( Quadphoto )

[Turbowolf]

If you click through a number of shots are in captivity, at least the ones I looked at: wolf and bears.

Dave, I assume they are generally cropped and taken at 300-400mm primarily. Could you kindly give an indication if that's the case (or not) so people appreciate what length zoom (or prime) is useful to get decent non captive wildlife shots. There is no EXIF data to go one or I'd have checked it.

Also, be interest to know if you use a tripod or monopod, or whether the IS is good enough for most situations.


Correct ... most shots are between 300-400mm. I don't use a tripod or monopod as a habit, though I own both. I have found that the IS is more than enough for my normal style of shooting. The few times I have used either 'pod' has been for bird nests, like the Ospreys.

I started shooting in zoo's at between 200mm to 400mm, and since last May when I came across a fox on Mt. Rainier, I have tried to exclusively shoot wild animals - once you see them wild it's never the same seeing them in captivity.

Below is a 100% size image followed by one which is cropped to my normal standard.
EXIF info as follows: 1/500, f/8, 360mm
Distance to animals was approximately 1/8 of a mile.

Hope this helps.

[digitaltourist]

Hi,
I really like the range of the 100-400L but just need to see a sample image.
My main use will be surfing shots and candid portraits from a distance.
Could anybody help and post images of the lens at 400mm without cropping the image. I am interested in how much the frame is filled at full zoom.
Also if you could give an estimate of distance from the subject, like at the waters edge or closer on rocks.
All images or info will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks

Mexican Grey Wolf pics, all with the 100-400
http://coppermine.digitalwind.net/thumbnails.php?album=1

Great White Egret, all with the 100-400
http://coppermine.digitalwind.net/displayimage.php?album=6&pos=3

[Marty_Oz]

Thanks for all the replies.
I think I will hire the lens for a weekend and give it a try before I buy.
Marty

[ghocking]

Once you try you will buy, its a fantastic lens.

[condyk]

Correct ... most shots are between 300-400mm. I don't use a tripod or monopod as a habit, though I own both. I have found that the IS is more than enough for my normal style of shooting. The few times I have used either 'pod' has been for bird nests, like the Ospreys.

I started shooting in zoo's at between 200mm to 400mm, and since last May when I came across a fox on Mt. Rainier, I have tried to exclusively shoot wild animals - once you see them wild it's never the same seeing them in captivity.

Hope this helps.

Brilliant ... it does, thanks.

I agree with you entirely about shooting wild-wildlife. It's also really useful to see how important length is once we leave the comfort of our own garden and venture out :lol:

[Turbowolf]

I forgot to add the primary reason I do not usually use a tripod.

For some strange reason, out in the woods, there is an abundance of improvised supports.
Place the back of the right hand up against a tree, and voila, instant monopod. Lay the lens barrel on any handy branch - almost as good as a tripod.

Or throw a beanbag down on a rock.

Improvise, adapt, overcome ... and 90% of the time a tripod is unneeded.

[loebas]

Posted two photo's in the nature forum earlier this week.
Photo's taken with a 100-400 Exif see thread.

Distance to deer ca 100 meters (rather dark)
Distance to boar ca 40 meter
shttp://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=75050

[mvonditter]

I forgot to add the primary reason I do not usually use a tripod.

For some strange reason, out in the woods, there is an abundance of improvised supports.
Place the back of the right hand up against a tree, and voila, instant monopod. Lay the lens barrel on any handy branch - almost as good as a tripod.

Or throw a beanbag down on a rock.

Improvise, adapt, overcome ... and 90% of the time a tripod is unneeded.

Sounds like fromer SF. By the way, did you take some of your shots at NW Trek?:)

[Turbowolf]

Sounds like fromer SF. By the way, did you take some of your shots at NW Trek?:)

I've had some training.

Good eye on picking out that some of my stuff was shot at NW Trek, then again it may have been the header on my newest photo's page that gave it away, which really isn't so new now that I'm back from Yellowstone.
http://academic.evergreen.edu/s/stidav22/NWTrek042205.html