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 16 Mar 2009 (Monday) 16:37
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Telephoto: 100-400, 300/4L IS, 400/5.6

 
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,388 posts
Gallery: 572 photos
Likes: 2720
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Mar 16, 2009 23:55 |  #16

Headshotzx wrote in post #7538242 (external link)
The only thing stopping me from getting the 400mm f/5.6L is the lack of IS, and the chance that canon might actually listen to its consumer base and update it with IS.

The lack of IS didnt stop me from getting the 400, its REALLY Handholdable and if you learn technique, you can shoot it handheld like it had IS, at least I did..

The reason I got a 100-400 is that I simply need the versatility more...


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Mike55
Goldmember
Avatar
4,206 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois
     
Mar 17, 2009 00:39 |  #17

ed rader wrote in post #7538965 (external link)
the non-IS will be much cheaper and the BIF guys really don't need IS?

ed rader

Why would that matter when the non-IS 400 5.6 already exists? Rooting for a lens to not get IS doesn't make much sense when the lens as you prefer it already exists.

Anyway, in-body IS will be the future so the argument won't matter in five years.


6D | 70D | 24-105 L IS | 17-40 L | 300 F4 L IS | 50 1.8 II | 1.4x II | LR5 | HV30 | bug spray | wilderness
Gallatin National Forest, Montana (external link)/Lassen Volcanic NP Campgrounds (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,317 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 532
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Mar 17, 2009 00:41 |  #18

Mike55 wrote in post #7539378 (external link)
Why would that matter when the non-IS 400 5.6 already exists?

just trying to make you angry Mike ... not like you need the help tho ;).

ed rader


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
Mike55
Goldmember
Avatar
4,206 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Chicago, Illinois
     
Mar 17, 2009 00:43 |  #19

Don't confuse my objective view of some Canon gear as anger ;) There's no anger at all in my posts here, just assertive responses.


6D | 70D | 24-105 L IS | 17-40 L | 300 F4 L IS | 50 1.8 II | 1.4x II | LR5 | HV30 | bug spray | wilderness
Gallatin National Forest, Montana (external link)/Lassen Volcanic NP Campgrounds (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Huskers69
Senior Member
Avatar
699 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2009
     
Mar 17, 2009 01:05 |  #20

John_TX wrote in post #7539017 (external link)
If I did get the 100-400, I probably would have to sell the 70-200 as it just doesn't make sense to me to have both lenses for just the convenience of a lighter lens.

I have the 100-400 and the 70-200 2.8, and I love both lenses. I got the 2.8 so I could shoot some basketball (along with the 85 1.8 ) and some nighttime football. weight wasn't an issue for me at all, just convenience.:)


flickr  (external link)
Project365 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Headshotzx
Goldmember
Avatar
4,488 posts
Likes: 133
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Singapore
     
Mar 17, 2009 03:35 |  #21

KenjiS wrote in post #7539166 (external link)
The lack of IS didnt stop me from getting the 400, its REALLY Handholdable and if you learn technique, you can shoot it handheld like it had IS, at least I did..

The reason I got a 100-400 is that I simply need the versatility more...

I understand, but for where I live, anything outside of 10 to 5, You'd need ISO 800 or more to get 1/320 or faster at f/5.6-- I understand that monopods help, but for the purpose of undomesticated animal photography, monopods really don't make the job any easier.

Perhaps when I buy the 400mm f/5.6L.. canon will update the lens 2 weeks later or something =/


Zexun | Flickr (external link) | YouTube (external link) |

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hardcorewaterfowl
Member
165 posts
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Central PA
     
Mar 17, 2009 06:27 |  #22

The two lenses are very close in price on the used market. Buy one and try it for awhile and sell it and try the other. I'm thinking of selling my 400 to help fund a 300 2.8, I would rather be able to just buy a 300 f4 and save the money though.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mattia
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
528 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Feb 2009
     
Mar 17, 2009 15:07 |  #23

I guess my priority is getting range, and good quality, in a fairly compact package.

I tried a few lenses (and the 70-200 with a 1.4 TC) at various shops today.

Ed, you're right - the 100-400 is smaller than it looks in photographs, even at full extension. It's also lighter than my 70-200/2.8 IS. I actually got along great with the 100-400's push/pull zoom, it just seems to fit. Focus was snappy in single-shot and servo (the store's in an urban environment, so I could step outside, shoot some cars coming at me, as well as pan left/right). Really enjoyed the handling on it, and the price (new) wasn't bad.

Gave the Sigma 150-500 a tryout as well, but that really is a monster of a lens - a bit too big, a bit too heavy, the zoom ring is far more annoying to use than the push-pull, and 150 is quite a bit longer. I can see myself walking around with a 100-400, but this one...heck no.

The 1.4 TC on the 70-200 gave me good length, but the zoom range isn't as much 'fun' as the 100-400. In terms of handling, the 100-400 gets the nod, by a hair, followed by the 70-200+TC.

I'll be trying the 300 on Friday,see if I get along with a prime at that focal length - I love my shorter length/medium telephoto primes, some of my best shots have been taken with those, but the 105mm (on a crop factor, admittedly) does nudge the edge of my comfort zone in terms of being a little on the long side. Took a good long while to learn to use a 170mm-equivalent prime, although I did learn to love it in the end.

The weird thing here is there seems to be a relative glut of 300 F/4 lenses on the used market (5 with IS, 1 without at last count on one equipment buy/sell site, none on the two bigges craigslist equivalent sites), while the 100-400 is in far, far shorter supply (1 currently going, for a price that's so close to the new price I wouldn't bother...)


5DII | 300D | 30D IR | 17-40L | 24-105L IS | 70-200/2.8L IS | 100-400L IS | 15 FE | 35L | 50/1.8 mk I | 135L | Sigmalux 50/1.4 | Sigma 105/F2.8 Macro | C/Y Planar 50/1.4 | C/Y Distagon 35/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KenjiS
"Holy crap its long!"
Avatar
21,388 posts
Gallery: 572 photos
Likes: 2720
Joined Oct 2008
Location: Buffalo, NY
     
Mar 17, 2009 17:05 |  #24

Headshotzx wrote in post #7539901 (external link)
I understand, but for where I live, anything outside of 10 to 5, You'd need ISO 800 or more to get 1/320 or faster at f/5.6-- I understand that monopods help, but for the purpose of undomesticated animal photography, monopods really don't make the job any easier.

Perhaps when I buy the 400mm f/5.6L.. canon will update the lens 2 weeks later or something =/

Ah I can see your dilemma then and definately understand

I also acknowledge that while I managed to get 1/60 and 1/30 on a 400 f/5.6L in a store, that I didnt figure I could in a real world situation with an acceptable keeper rate, tracking a target, concentrating on composition and all the other things you're going to be doing when shooting will lower your stability..as well as with animals its often a case of frame and fire as fast as you can because the buggers love to move (one reason to love digital, 900 shots on a card, I never worry about blowing through exposures to nab that perfect shot...)

But see. this is why Canon gives you so many choices after all :) Guaranteed a telephoto in their range that suits your needs... (The 400 DO would probubly be fantastic for you from the sounds, Although a tidge pricey)


Gear, New and Old! RAW Club Member
Wanted: 70-200. Time and good health
Deviantart (external link)
Flickr (This is where my good stuff is!) (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Mar 18, 2009 04:19 |  #25

KenjiS wrote in post #7543503 (external link)
(The 400 DO would probubly be fantastic for you from the sounds, Although a tidge pricey)

Hmmm, obviously 'tidge' is an American word meaning 'massively huge amount'. :)


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Mar 18, 2009 07:39 as a reply to  @ hollis_f's post |  #26

I LOVE the IS on my 100-400. I shoot deer just before sunrise and I find myself at 400mm, f/5.6, ISO1600 and 1/60s. The IS helps me get fairly sharp shots and I hate lugging a monopod around (actually don't own a monopod :lol: )

Had the prime had IS, I might have gone that route but I'm happy with my zoom.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rgfrison
Senior Member
Avatar
890 posts
Gallery: 167 photos
Likes: 2296
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Oregon
     
Mar 18, 2009 08:20 |  #27

The 100-400L compliments the 70-200 2.8 quite nicely. With those and the 1.4tc I am covered for most any situation. The 100-400L is my favorite of all the lenses I own. I keep telling myself to quit posting in these threads, because they are all the same. You really have to make up your own mind, there are pages and pages of arguments for each of these lenses, and they all have their own niche, but only you know what you are going to use it for.


Randy

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
westernminnguy
Goldmember
Avatar
2,079 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jun 2006
Location: Western Minnesota
     
Mar 21, 2009 09:19 |  #28

Mike55 wrote in post #7538846 (external link)
Why root for the 400 5.6 to not get IS?

What Ed said.

the non-IS will be much cheaper and the BIF guys really don't need IS?

ed rader


I'm not rooting for the 400 f5.6 not to get IS...that isn't what I said. I said I don't see the point.

If the 400 f5.6 came out with IS...great. I probably wouldn't buy it for the reasons I mentioned in my original post and also for the reasons Ed stated.

Plus, Canon already gives you three 400mm options with IS.

100-400 IS USM

400 f2.8 IS USM

400 f4.0 DO IS USM


:)


IMAGES (external link)

VIDEO YouTube (external link)

VIDEO Vimeo (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yokotas13
Senior Member
558 posts
Joined Oct 2006
Location: myrtle beach, south carolina
     
Mar 21, 2009 09:30 |  #29

man if hte 100-400 came in a 2.8 id buy one in a heartbeat


-Grant
[URL=http://photograph​y-on-the.net/forum/showpost​.php?p=7493258&postcou​nt=1706]Gear List
check the blog- www.wagonofdoom.wordpr​ess.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Roy ­ Webber
Goldmember
3,186 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Nov 2006
Location: Corralejo, Fuerteventura....Canary Islands Spain
     
Mar 21, 2009 10:08 |  #30

yokotas13 wrote in post #7568203 (external link)
man if hte 100-400 came in a 2.8 id buy one in a heartbeat

Yes, me too...but at what cost and how darn heavy?;)


Canon 7D, 40D,100-400 IS L, EFS 15-85 IS, EFS 10-22-With Faulty USM, 055XPROB+488RC2, 430 & 580 II Flash, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8-:cool:
Photos (external link)

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

3,898 views & 0 likes for this thread
Telephoto: 100-400, 300/4L IS, 400/5.6
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 Zochor
876 guests, 259 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.