Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 15 Dec 2012 (Saturday) 18:00
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

100-400 discussion

 
Romax12
Member
189 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2012
     
Dec 15, 2012 18:00 |  #1

Hello all.
Right now i only have one lens - the 18-135
Since i want more reach i decided my next lens will be telephoto.
I was thinking about the 70-200 f4 IS but today i was shooting with my 135 and it turned out to be really far away from my subjects. I cant afford buying an 2.8 telephoto and i want both versatility and reach. So i thought about the 100-400, but i don't know if the image quality will be extreme.
1. Is the image quality of the 100-400 any better than my 18-135?
2. What about autofocus? How does it compared to the one in the 70-200?
3. Does this lens also work for portraits?


Canon t3i
--- EF-S 18-135 f3.5-5.6 IS --- EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS usm ---
600ex-rt and yn-622c (2x)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ghost68
Member
163 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Los Angeles
     
Dec 15, 2012 18:12 |  #2

100-400 is probably a bit much on a crop for portraits and the 4.5-5.6 apertures will make it tough to get shots indoors... Don't get me wrong its a GREAT zoo lens but I would strongly suggest the 70-200mm f/4 IS instead. The 70-200 was my first L and even today it has the best IQ of any of my zooms (I also have a 17-40, 24-105 and 100-400). There is magic in that lens and one I don't think I'll ever sell (unless I manage to get a 2.8 II to replace it)


Smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Romax12
THREAD ­ STARTER
Member
189 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2012
     
Dec 15, 2012 18:15 |  #3

But dont you think that ill be missing the reach? I can sacrifice a bit of image quality but i need af


Canon t3i
--- EF-S 18-135 f3.5-5.6 IS --- EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS usm ---
600ex-rt and yn-622c (2x)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
magoosmc
Senior Member
Avatar
980 posts
Gallery: 80 photos
Likes: 487
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Keuka Lake NY
     
Dec 15, 2012 18:26 |  #4

Romax12 wrote in post #15371183 (external link)
But dont you think that ill be missing the reach? I can sacrifice a bit of image quality but i need af

Go with a Sigma 50-150 2.8 and a Kenko 1.4. You will have the best of both worlds without sacrificing anything.


https://www.flickr.com​/photos/22055591@N05/a​lbums (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ghost68
Member
163 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Los Angeles
     
Dec 15, 2012 18:32 |  #5

What do you need the reach for? 200 on a crop is closer to 320mm but a 400mm acting like a 640mm @ f/5.6 will make getting sharp shots indoors MUCH harder even with IS...


Smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,539 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 608
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Dec 15, 2012 18:36 |  #6

The IQ of the 100-400 is very good. The AF is also fast. It's not quite in the league of the supertelephoto primes, but it is certainly fast enough for field sports.

As for portraits, you can shoot people with super long lenses. In fact, I love these kinds of shots. It's perhaps too long for classic posed portrait work, but it does do a nice job of shooting people in situations where the reach gives a different look.

Here are a couple sports shots


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,539 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 608
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Dec 15, 2012 18:38 |  #7

As I said, I like shooting people with this long lens. But this is not classic portrait work for the most part. I usually use the lens when I'm outside shooting in situations with lots of room. It's not so much a posed portrait lens.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tanglefoot47
Goldmember
Avatar
2,413 posts
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Tulalip WA about 40 miles north of Seattle
     
Dec 15, 2012 18:42 |  #8

1-400 kills the 18-135 AF is pretty good, and I have taken many portraits with the lens




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drzenitram
Senior Member
824 posts
Joined Aug 2012
     
Dec 15, 2012 18:48 |  #9

For less, you can get the sigma 70-200 2.8 os. The difference in 200mm and 400mm is less than youd think.


Edit: 400mm is double the zoom of 200mm, but to me it doesn't appear to be all that significant of a difference.

I'm a portrait photographer, though, so take what I say about super telephotos with a grain of salt.

If I were shooting sports or wildlife, I'd want an 800mm.


| Bodies - 5D Mark II, T2i | Lenses - Helios 44-2, Sigma 35mm 1.4, Sigma 85 1.4, Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, Tamron SP AF 1.4x TC | Lights - 430ex ii x2, Random 3rd party strobes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
JeffreyG
"my bits and pieces are all hard"
Avatar
15,539 posts
Gallery: 42 photos
Likes: 608
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Detroit, MI
     
Dec 15, 2012 18:53 |  #10

drzenitram wrote in post #15371271 (external link)
For less, you can get the sigma 70-200 2.8 os. The difference in 200mm and 400mm is less than youd think. It's not double the amount of zoom.

It's precisely double the amount of 'zoom' inasmuch as 2 x 200 = 400.

In practical terms, the field of view of a 400mm lens will be half that of a 200mm lens.


My personal stuff:http://www.flickr.com/​photos/jngirbach/sets/ (external link)
I use a Canon 5DIII and a Sony A7rIII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
drzenitram
Senior Member
824 posts
Joined Aug 2012
     
Dec 15, 2012 19:13 |  #11

Well, I guess for me it still doesn't seem that significantly different. Then again, I never need longer than 200.


| Bodies - 5D Mark II, T2i | Lenses - Helios 44-2, Sigma 35mm 1.4, Sigma 85 1.4, Sigma 70-200 2.8 OS, Tamron SP AF 1.4x TC | Lights - 430ex ii x2, Random 3rd party strobes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
SiaoP
Goldmember
Avatar
1,406 posts
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Bay Area
     
Dec 15, 2012 19:20 |  #12

I am personally not impressed by the image sharpness of the 100-400mm. The aperture is horrible too. It is hitting on kit-lens territory but that's because you get such a large focal zoom range. Realize that with your t3i you will have to be pushing your ISO a lot to shoot at 400mm at f/5.6 to get a shutter speed above 1/640th or so (1/800 to be safe). That isn't trivial and your images will end up looking as noisy as if you threw sand over them.

I recommend the 70-200 alternatives over the 100-400mm. 200mm on a crop APS-C sensor is already really far. What do you plan on shooting? If it's portraits, family, candids, street, occasional sports like baskeball or hockey then the 70-200 are great. You need 400mm for extremely far stuff such as football, soccer, birds, wildlife, etc...


My Flickr (external link) | Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Dec 15, 2012 19:21 |  #13

Romax12 wrote in post #15371130 (external link)
Hello all.
Right now i only have one lens - the 18-135
Since i want more reach i decided my next lens will be telephoto.
I was thinking about the 70-200 f4 IS but today i was shooting with my 135 and it turned out to be really far away from my subjects. I cant afford buying an 2.8 telephoto and i want both versatility and reach. So i thought about the 100-400, but i don't know if the image quality will be extreme.
1. Is the image quality of the 100-400 any better than my 18-135?
2. What about autofocus? How does it compared to the one in the 70-200?
3. Does this lens also work for portraits?

I agree with the others, the 100-400 is very sharp and useful for sports, wildlife, zoo and other shots.
I even use mine for portraits !

XSi (450D)
Canon 100-400
400mm
f6.3

IMAGE: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8075/8264036293_bf14a5c3bd_c.jpg



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,505 posts
Gallery: 63 photos
Likes: 4002
Joined Jul 2012
Location: Portland OR USA
     
Dec 15, 2012 19:29 |  #14

100-400 is a fantastic lens. Sorry, but to compare it to a kit lens is laughable. When I went from my 70-300 non-IS to the 100-400 the difference was dramatic.


Sam
5D4 | 6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ghost68
Member
163 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Los Angeles
     
Dec 15, 2012 19:31 |  #15

Location is definitely key with the 100-400, indoors - forget about it but take it outdoors with bright sunlight and it will shine. The max aperture of 4.5 mixed with a long focal length for a crop will make it tough to work with without going nuts on the ISO as listed above... Note that all the pictures above are *outside* I have some amazing zoo shots with my 100-400 and you can get shots like the above all day long but I have yet to get anything noteworthy indoors...


Smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,979 views & 0 likes for this thread
100-400 discussion
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Croxie
481 guests, 234 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.