| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/14/2005 08:55:42 AM · #1 |
Recently I have been getting discouraged with photography in general, or at least my version of it. A lot of my images turned out soft and required a lot of editing to make them presentable. A tripod helped, but its hard to use a tripod in most situations. The lenses I had were soft (consumer grade - cheap - old canon lenses for my 28-300 range). I had taken to using my 17-35mm and my 100mm macro for as many shots as I could. Also, my left arm is rated at 46% due to surgery and shoulder dislocations.
So I bit the bullet and went and bought a Canon 100-400L IS. I have 30 days to test it so that's what I have been doing.
And I am amazed. The lens weighs about 3 times what my 75-300 weighed. But the images are clearer and sharper. Amazingly so. The IS is supposed to give you 2-3 stops. I got way more than that. Granted, the images here are not the best, but I wanted to see how far I could push it. And it went far. 1/40s at 100mm. I couldn't do that with my old lens at 1/3 the weight.
My whole point is don't underestimate the power of good glass. My choice was between a 20D or the 100-400L. Figured with the lenses I had, the 20D wouldn't make a difference. The 100-400L IS has.
 
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 09:12:07 AM · #2 |
Good For You!!!!
You have officially learned one of the most important lessons in photography. Glass counts more than pixels!!!
Your sensors can only represent the light that is being shown to them.
If that light is diffused or confused, unsaturated etc, etc..guess what happens to the images?
Plus, glass tech changes less frequently than camera tech. That nice glass will be something you will use over many, many camera bodies. That 20D will only get more affordable with each passing day and, when you do move to the 20D or whatever model, you will have nice glass to show off all those pixels. :-D
Message edited by author 2005-11-14 09:12:24. |
|
|
|
11/14/2005 10:10:20 AM · #3 |
Awesome, glad you like it...now you can back me up when I tell people not to get the 75-300 f/4-5.6 and save for an extra couple months for some decent glass.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 10:27:46 AM · #4 |
I hear ya! I just got my first L lenses and I am SO surprised at the difference they make!
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 06:18:43 PM · #5 |
Okay. I'm not taking it back. I went out today and did some test shooting. 3 hours carrying the lens on my camera with a monopod plus a 20 lb. camera bag. My arm hurts but it was worth every moment.
I was really worried about the lens not performing so I used manual settings so the shutter speed would not go below 1/250. What a mistake! I did do a few shots below that and they all came out great.
Since I may use one of what I got for the free study, I can only post one that I know I won't use. This is a 1/9 center crop at 400mm at 1/320s. 400mm with a 1.6 factor means it should have been handheld at 1/640s. Not sure how many stops down I got, but I know I could have gone lower with a smaller aperature.
See, its not me. Its my camera. :) But I no longer have an excuse. :)
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 06:51:54 PM · #6 |
just shoot at the widest aperture, and bump the iso if you have to...those lenses are made to shoot wide open...whereas the lower-quality ones aren't, and you have to stop them down some.
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 07:32:04 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
Okay. I'm not taking it back. I went out today and did some test shooting. 3 hours carrying the lens on my camera with a monopod plus a 20 lb. camera bag. My arm hurts but it was worth every moment.
I was really worried about the lens not performing so I used manual settings so the shutter speed would not go below 1/250. What a mistake! I did do a few shots below that and they all came out great.
Since I may use one of what I got for the free study, I can only post one that I know I won't use. This is a 1/9 center crop at 400mm at 1/320s. 400mm with a 1.6 factor means it should have been handheld at 1/640s. Not sure how many stops down I got, but I know I could have gone lower with a smaller aperature.
See, its not me. Its my camera. :) But I no longer have an excuse. :)
|
dahkota, that is a great shot and if that is cropped 1/9th of the frame can you imagine that glass at 1/2 frame or better!
It just is hard to imagine until you shoot with good glass how much difference it makes. You can even screw up some and the bokeh is so nice (gradiation from center to outside) is so good that it makes bad shots better!
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 07:45:31 PM · #8 |
Thanks! Another thing it does is relieves me from worry. With my Canon 75-300 I constantly had to worry about not taking it out to 300mm, keeping the shutter speed up, making sure nothing (including me) is moving,and knowing the shot will be soft and have to be edited...By the time I thought through everything, the shot was gone. Now, I can take the shot without thinking about all that. Its going to be fun again!
And yes, I know L glass and IS are not fullproof but they do make it a heck of alot easier. :) I can trust my camera again...
|
|
|
|
11/14/2005 08:45:57 PM · #9 |
| Thanks. This thread helped me get off the fence, and I just ordered the EF 100-400 L IS about ten minutes ago. Now, I just have to wait 3-5 days. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 02:00:12 AM · #10 |
I would say glass is the most important hardware one has when shooting any type of photography. Better glass is costly, but there are good lower cost alternatives. One could go with primes, which tend to be fairly inexpensive and provide plenty of sharpness because of the simpler design.
the 85 1.8, 50 1.8, 35 2.0, and 100 2.8 macro are all good lenses around 500 dollars and under (some well under), and will produce great results even wide open.
That all being said, the most important thing is to justify your expenses. I am paid for my photography, so I can justify buying the expensive stuff, because it is an investment. If I were not a photographer by trade, I could see myself being happy with consumer and enthusiast grade equipment.
And be sure to read up on equipment. I mentioned Canon lenses primarily, but third party manufacturers make very competitive lenses.
The Tamron 28-75 receives good reviews on its quality. Sigma makes excellent macro's (actually, it's hard not to make a good macro), and if you want an all in one solution, Sigma offers a 100-300 f/4 which is a great range and aperture for under 1,000 dollars. They also make the infamous "Bigma", 120-300 2.8, which brings zoom and 2.8 to the 300mm focal length. That is simply a technological marvel, and while there can be downsides, it's hard to get that range and aperture (though I hear it's really more liek 270mm than 300) for 2k and under.
Hope I've helped somehow
Max |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 02:07:57 AM · #11 |
If you have issues with supporting the gear due to surgery, a decent option maybe to use a monopod. It does limit the movement of the camera but not as much as a tripod and would definitely help support the camera for a steadier shot.
Also, remember, good glasses tend to be faster so you can use faster shutter speeds and decrease the chance of camera shake.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 02:16:15 AM · #12 |
| speaking of glasses, are Fujinon glasses good? |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 03:05:41 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by simonsez:
speaking of glasses, are Fujinon glasses good? |
That would depend on the Fujinon lens you had in mind. That's like asking "Is Canon glass good?"
Message edited by author 2005-11-15 03:06:51. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 03:19:57 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
That would depend on the Fujinon lens you had in mind. That's like asking "Is Canon glass good?" |
In general? I'd say Canon glass is good in general, the same for Leica, Carl Zeiss... But Fujinon, I'm not familiar with. Thanks
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 03:44:41 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by simonsez:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
That would depend on the Fujinon lens you had in mind. That's like asking "Is Canon glass good?" |
In general? I'd say Canon glass is good in general, the same for Leica, Carl Zeiss... But Fujinon, I'm not familiar with. Thanks |
I've had some K-mount Fujinon glass that was crisp. |
|
|
|
11/15/2005 03:54:32 AM · #16 |
The Fuji MF glass is fantastic. Don't know about any of their other glass.
|
|
|
|
11/15/2005 04:06:54 AM · #17 |
Thanks guys. I just wanted to see if Fujinon are known for their glass and lenses, and got the answer from your replies!
|
|
|
|
11/27/2005 01:17:25 PM · #18 |
Just an update. This thread helped me decide to buy the EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS and I wanted to post some of the first shots.
         |
|
|
|
11/27/2005 01:31:52 PM · #19 |
These are AWESOME shots! I am looking to upgrade in the spring, and was thinking of getting away from my point and shoot, and going dslr. These are just the types of shots I like to take. How about some links to this Canon?
Rose
|
|
|
|
11/27/2005 02:00:52 PM · #20 |
Rose, Here is the DPC link to the Canon Rebel. Its been a very good camera for me. I'll be buying lenses and accessories for about two more years and then upgrading to a professional Canon model. Best photographic investment I've made so far.
Canon Rebel 300D |
|
|
|
11/27/2005 04:14:36 PM · #21 |
HHmmmmm, is there much difference between this canon (Canon 100-400L IS) and the 300D? OR is this 100-400 just a lens for it? (sorry, I'm a bit green). I am thinking of the 300D for myself actually. If there isn't much difference, I think the 300D is probably the one for me.
Rose
Message edited by author 2005-11-27 16:16:37.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2005 04:40:48 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
HHmmmmm, is there much difference between this canon (Canon 100-400L IS) and the 300D? OR is this 100-400 just a lens for it? (sorry, I'm a bit green). I am thinking of the 300D for myself actually. If there isn't much difference, I think the 300D is probably the one for me.
Rose |
The 100-400 is a lens that can be mounted on the 300D (0r any other Canon Digital SLR). It provides much more telephoto "reach" than the lens commonly sold with the 300D, but it does ont do wide angle (it's purely a telephoto zoom).
If you do decide to move to DSLR, you need to assume tht ventually you will spend much more on lenses than you do on the body. Good glass is necessary to get the most out of today's DSLRs. BTW, I'd strongly recommend the 350D (Rebel XT) over the 300D.
|
|
|
|
11/27/2005 04:42:44 PM · #23 |
I want one! A 100-400 that is, not a 300D. I already have one of those, a 300D, not a 100-400!
Damn, I'm confused.
Steve |
|
|
|
11/27/2005 06:38:11 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
HHmmmmm, is there much difference between this canon (Canon 100-400L IS) and the 300D? OR is this 100-400 just a lens for it? (sorry, I'm a bit green). I am thinking of the 300D for myself actually. If there isn't much difference, I think the 300D is probably the one for me.
Rose |
The 100-400 is a lens that can be mounted on the 300D (0r any other Canon Digital SLR). It provides much more telephoto "reach" than the lens commonly sold with the 300D, but it does ont do wide angle (it's purely a telephoto zoom).
If you do decide to move to DSLR, you need to assume tht ventually you will spend much more on lenses than you do on the body. Good glass is necessary to get the most out of today's DSLRs. BTW, I'd strongly recommend the 350D (Rebel XT) over the 300D. |
And what is the cost of this lens? Also, the lens that comes with the 300 OR even the 350D, what is the zoom length, let's say in footage? I have a window to my backyard and about 50 feet or so in is forest with a LOT of wildlife. Cardnals, Blue Jays, Wood Peckers, Squirrels, snakes, etc. I am having a BIT of trouble getting any good shots with my lousy 6x zoom on my fuji 3800 point and shoot; hence wanting to upgrade. Does the zoom that comes "with" these cameras - will they be of any help?
Rose
|
|
|
|
11/27/2005 06:40:50 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Rose8699:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Rose8699:
HHmmmmm, is there much difference between this canon (Canon 100-400L IS) and the 300D? OR is this 100-400 just a lens for it? (sorry, I'm a bit green). I am thinking of the 300D for myself actually. If there isn't much difference, I think the 300D is probably the one for me.
Rose |
The 100-400 is a lens that can be mounted on the 300D (0r any other Canon Digital SLR). It provides much more telephoto "reach" than the lens commonly sold with the 300D, but it does ont do wide angle (it's purely a telephoto zoom).
If you do decide to move to DSLR, you need to assume tht ventually you will spend much more on lenses than you do on the body. Good glass is necessary to get the most out of today's DSLRs. BTW, I'd strongly recommend the 350D (Rebel XT) over the 300D. |
And what is the cost of this lens? Also, the lens that comes with the 300 OR even the 350D, what is the zoom length, let's say in footage? I have a window to my backyard and about 50 feet or so in is forest with a LOT of wildlife. Cardnals, Blue Jays, Wood Peckers, Squirrels, snakes, etc. I am having a BIT of trouble getting any good shots with my lousy 6x zoom on my fuji 3800 point and shoot; hence wanting to upgrade. Does the zoom that comes "with" these cameras - will they be of any help?
Rose |
The zoom that comes as the kit lens for most SLRs will be less than adequate for the shots you mention. You'd need to get an additional lens. The kit lens is for wide angle shots.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/21/2025 03:50:13 PM EDT.
