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

 
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,286 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 514
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Dec 16, 2012 16:03 |  #46

Nightdiver13 wrote in post #15374167 (external link)
:lol: Like that saying... You only have to be faster than the slowest guy, right?

That's some pretty close contact you've got going on there. I'd be freaked out to be that close. Is there something going on in their annual cycle that makes them less interested in you?

actually the fish weren't running yet at most locations we visited so if anything the bears were anxious and hungry and mostly eating vegetation. brown bears don't usually view humans as enemies or food so as long as you keep your distance you're okay. being in a group also improves your odds.

by law we got alot closer than we were supposed to and there was only one time i felt we were in danger but there were three of us. we we're sitting at the base of a fish ladder which forced a pacing sow to go around us. the pool was choked with fish that we're just about ready to make the ascent and the bear was hungry. i was relieved when she decided to go around us (with 70-200)

IMAGE: http://erader.zenfolio.com/img/s2/v1/p392771899-5.jpg

and so were they ;)!

IMAGE: http://erader.zenfolio.com/img/s8/v0/p1071351248-4.jpg

http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Scott ­ M
Goldmember
3,248 posts
Gallery: 80 photos
Likes: 342
Joined May 2008
Location: Michigan
     
Dec 16, 2012 16:07 |  #47

Great shots, Ed. On our only Alaska visit, the salmon run was late, so we did not get that type of experience. We hope to return for our 25th wedding anniversary in 2014, and I hope we have better luck.


Photo Gallery (external link)
Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
3,505 posts
Likes: 652
Joined Jan 2010
     
Dec 16, 2012 16:21 |  #48

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

You are right; a 200mm f/4 is inferior to a 400/5.6. To get 400mm from a 200mm, you'll need a 2x TC, and your maximum aperture will be at f/8, giving you more noise, less detail, and more contrast loss than not using a TC. If you crop the 200mm, you'll more noise than you'd get with the 400/5.6 with the same shutter speed and ISO.

You can't cheat the rules of light and optics.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,286 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 514
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Dec 16, 2012 16:39 |  #49

Scott M wrote in post #15374236 (external link)
Great shots, Ed. On our only Alaska visit, the salmon run was late, so we did not get that type of experience. We hope to return for our 25th wedding anniversary in 2014, and I hope we have better luck.

Thanks Scott! i want to go back too. someday :D!


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L F4 IS, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15 FE, sigma 14 f1.8 art, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dochollidayda
Goldmember
1,129 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 2077
Joined Aug 2012
     
Dec 16, 2012 16:44 |  #50

BrandonSi wrote in post #15373834 (external link)
Looks like it just missed focus to me. In my experience, the 100-400L is very sharp, even wide open at 400mm.

It certainly looks like it completely missed focus. I have been going through the sample thread and while some images seem sharper, a vast majority of them pales in comparison to what the 70-200 threads are filled with. I guess people trying to shoot it handheld must have had a lot to do with it.


flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
turkeytamer41
Senior Member
Avatar
310 posts
Gallery: 183 photos
Likes: 2304
Joined Jun 2011
     
Dec 16, 2012 17:01 |  #51

I luv my 100- 400

PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i938.photobucke​t.com …urkeytamer41/IM​G_1897.jpg (external link)
PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i938.photobucke​t.com …urkeytamer41/IM​G_1785.jpg (external link)
HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO
PHOTOBUCKET EMBEDDING IS DISABLED BY THIS MEMBER.
Photobucket sends ads instead of embedding photos from their free galleries.
Click the link (if available) below to see the image in a gallery page.

http://i938.photobucke​t.com …urkeytamer41/IM​G_8767.jpg (external link)



  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ghost68
Member
163 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Los Angeles
     
Dec 17, 2012 00:19 |  #52

If you want to use the 100-400 for wildlife/outdoor photography then hands down its the lens to get, I love mine for hiking and at the zoo... As long as you go into this with the right expectations and an understanding of the limitations of the lens then I say go for it! A couple things to keep in mind do NOT try to use UV filters on this lens as there is a very noticeable loss of sharpness. Really think about getting a *good* tripod as the lens will come alive with proper support...


Smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MikeWa
Senior Member
Avatar
879 posts
Gallery: 89 photos
Likes: 235
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Seattle Washington
     
Dec 17, 2012 19:10 |  #53

dochollidayda wrote in post #15373751 (external link)
Is that a 100% crop? If its not, that seems really bad. The pic is very dull and seems to be out of focus. I have been thinking of this lens but these kind of examples scare me.

Why yes it is cropped and down sampled for posting. Thanks for noticing.
Mike


Mike...G9; 7D; 7D Mark II; EF-S 10-22mm; EF-S 18-135mm IS STM; EF 28-300mm F3.5-5.6L; EF 70-300mm IS USM; EF 70-200mm F2.8L IS-II; EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS; EXT 1.4-II & 2.0-III; The more I learn the less I know.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sbumps
Senior Member
Avatar
473 posts
Likes: 13
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Evansville,IN
     
Dec 17, 2012 19:14 |  #54

What about the Sigma 50-500 OS?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dmitrj
Member
92 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2
Joined Oct 2009
Location: Komi Republic, Sosnogorsk
     
May 11, 2013 15:41 |  #55

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7452/8729903182_8c14e8c9d2_n.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dsuhotinov/8729​903182/  (external link)
_05G6013 (external link) by DmSuhotinov (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7315/8729902488_c2aa181a58_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/dsuhotinov/8729​902488/  (external link)
_05G6018 (external link) by DmSuhotinov (external link), on Flickr

1D X/1DMKIII/30D/350D/
50 f/1.4 16-35L F/2,8 II 24-105L F/4 IS 100-400L F/4.5-5.6 IS 70-200L f/2,8 II 135L f/2 85L f/1.2 580EX II

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
effstop
Senior Member
810 posts
Joined Nov 2007
Location: San Diego
     
May 11, 2013 18:17 |  #56

ghost68 wrote in post #15375818 (external link)
If you want to use the 100-400 for wildlife/outdoor photography then hands down its the lens to get, I love mine for hiking and at the zoo... As long as you go into this with the right expectations and an understanding of the limitations of the lens then I say go for it! A couple things to keep in mind do NOT try to use UV filters on this lens as there is a very noticeable loss of sharpness. Really think about getting a *good* tripod as the lens will come alive with proper support...

I concur on using a cheapo UV filter and was shooting some surfing a while back and when I was going thru the edits noticed the shots w/ and w/out the cheapo filter were horrendous. The hood provides plenty of protection and threw the filter away after that session.


5D MKI | 1D MKII | 24-70mm 2.8 L | 80-200MM 2.8 L | 400mm 5.6 L |50mm 1.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
John ­ Sheehy
Goldmember
3,505 posts
Likes: 652
Joined Jan 2010
     
May 12, 2013 05:38 |  #57

effstop wrote in post #15922373 (external link)
I concur on using a cheapo UV filter and was shooting some surfing a while back and when I was going thru the edits noticed the shots w/ and w/out the cheapo filter were horrendous. The hood provides plenty of protection and threw the filter away after that session.

I have been taking photos for up to 10 years with my current DSLR lenses, and taken probably close to a million photos in that time, and dropped the filters about a month into it. I don't have a single scratch or scuff on any of my lenses. I wouldn't use a UV/clear protection filter unless there was gravel flying around, literally. All they do is interfere with the optics, and present a surface more likely to get illuminated if dirt or smudges are on it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
15,545 posts
Gallery: 168 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 5530
Joined Dec 2008
Location: from Pennsylvania, now in Washington state, road trip back and forth a lot, with extensive detouring
     
May 12, 2013 11:46 |  #58

JeffreyG wrote in post #15371283 (external link)
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.

I thought it was 1/4.
One half the horizontal plane, and one half the vertical plane, means that the field of view is 1/4 that of the 200mm. Or am I missing something?


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
BigAl007
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
8,038 posts
Gallery: 547 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1637
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Repps cum Bastwick, Gt Yarmouth, Norfolk, UK.
     
May 12, 2013 14:38 |  #59

Correct 1/2 × 1/2 = 1/4. Half the angular view is a quarter of the area.

Alan


My Flickr (external link)
My new Aviation images blog site (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
15,545 posts
Gallery: 168 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 5530
Joined Dec 2008
Location: from Pennsylvania, now in Washington state, road trip back and forth a lot, with extensive detouring
     
May 12, 2013 17:04 |  #60

^ ^ ^
Which means that 400mm is way, way, way different than 200mm.

drzenitram wrote in post #15371345 (external link)
Well, I guess for me it still doesn't seem that significantly different. Then again, I never need longer than 200.


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

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

9,209 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 ShawnsyOP
893 guests, 284 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.