What else should I consider vs EF-300mm f/4.0L IS

07/08/2010 03:43:33 PM · #26

Originally posted by coryboehne:

So, does the 100-400ISL perform as poorly as the ISO chart makes it look like?

I like the lens and the range, but the dust issue and the (comparatively) poor image quality worries me..

No! I have not had any issues with dust or image quality, and the reviews I checked at the time showed tested sharpness on par with the 400 prime.

07/08/2010 04:09:05 PM · #27

I've really thought long about the 100-400 too, but I've been scared about image quality. It does fall off toward the corners a fair amount when it's wide open. But it is a very nice range.

07/08/2010 04:18:01 PM · #28

I think I might be too much of a pixel peeper (I'm horrible) for the 100-400-

Scalvert, one question, have you taken that lens to the desert and stayed around for a month or so?

I can believe that people in slightly humid environments might have many fewer problems, but in the desert there are huge issues with dust, ranging in size from clay-size (really small), to large sand, clearly once the large sand is blowing it's just time to get the hell out of dodge, but the small stuff is almost always an issue... My 28-135 already has more dust in it than I would like...

And, yes, I do wet clean my sensor every month or two... (at least... Actually one lens change on a windy day, and it's cleaning time!!)

So, I'm thinking that for the weather sealed aspects alone, IQ aside, the 70-200 might be a really good idea. Do I need a filter to make that weather sealed enough to be dust resistant, or is that more of a water issue?? - (I know the rear isn't sealed with my 50D...)..

Message edited by author 2010-07-08 16:18:26.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

07/08/2010 05:18:20 PM · #29

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I've really thought long about the 100-400 too, but I've been scared about image quality. It does fall off toward the corners a fair amount when it's wide open.

I almost always use the 100-400 wide open. Never set foot in a desert, though.

fsteddy

07/08/2010 05:59:05 PM · #30

Originally posted by coryboehne:

So, does the 100-400ISL perform as poorly as the ISO chart makes it look like?

I like the lens and the range, but the dust issue and the (comparatively) poor image quality worries me..

I also have a 100-400mm L. I love this lens and have used it at airshows, birding in Florida and around home in Wisconsin and I just got back from a trip out west driving from L.A. Cal. to Wisconsin with stops in the desert. Have never noticed any dust in my lens and its about 5 years old.

07/08/2010 06:09:53 PM · #31

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've really thought long about the 100-400 too, but I've been scared about image quality. It does fall off toward the corners a fair amount when it's wide open.

I almost always use the 100-400 wide open. Never set foot in a desert, though.

I have admittedly not used it, but the comparison site I use doesn't make it look good in the corners compared to the 400mm f/5.6

Comparison of 100-400mm @ 400mm at f/5.6 and 400mm f/5.6 @ f/5.6 These are the 1.3 CROP sensor corners. I would assume even worse on a FF sensor.

I would have been really surprised if a 4x zoom could live up to a prime L-lens. That's pretty hard to do.

Message edited by author 2010-07-08 18:12:14.

07/08/2010 06:18:57 PM · #32

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've really thought long about the 100-400 too, but I've been scared about image quality. It does fall off toward the corners a fair amount when it's wide open.

I almost always use the 100-400 wide open. Never set foot in a desert, though.

I have admittedly not used it, but the comparison site I use doesn't make it look good in the corners compared to the 400mm f/5.6

Comparison of 100-400mm @ 400mm at f/5.6 and 400mm f/5.6 @ f/5.6 These are the 1.3 CROP sensor corners. I would assume even worse on a FF sensor.

I would have been really surprised if a 4x zoom could live up to a prime L-lens. That's pretty hard to do.

I wonder how much difference I'd really see on a 1.6 crop?

07/08/2010 06:38:52 PM · #33

Originally posted by coryboehne:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've really thought long about the 100-400 too, but I've been scared about image quality. It does fall off toward the corners a fair amount when it's wide open.

I almost always use the 100-400 wide open. Never set foot in a desert, though.

I have admittedly not used it, but the comparison site I use doesn't make it look good in the corners compared to the 400mm f/5.6

Comparison of 100-400mm @ 400mm at f/5.6 and 400mm f/5.6 @ f/5.6 These are the 1.3 CROP sensor corners. I would assume even worse on a FF sensor.

I would have been really surprised if a 4x zoom could live up to a prime L-lens. That's pretty hard to do.

I wonder how much difference I'd really see on a 1.6 crop?

Less. ;)

NiallOTuama

Google Pixel 2

07/08/2010 07:06:30 PM · #34

Originally posted by coryboehne:

It's not a problem until I run out of cash! :)

Well I'd sure like a macro lens!
Cheers!

07/08/2010 07:17:37 PM · #35

Originally posted by NiallOTuama:

Originally posted by coryboehne:
It's not a problem until I run out of cash! :)

Well I'd sure like a macro lens!
Cheers!

Seems you're just a touch too late.. I'm all out! ;)

I think I'm going to do something radical and order a couple of lenses...

The EF-S 15-85 IS looks like a great walk around lens, and while it's not fast, the IS should make for a fun walk around do-it-all..

The second lens I think I'll get is the 100-400, god knows I clean my sensor enough anyway, so what's a bit more dust... I'm more worried about image quality, but I think the cropped sensor will help - and the massive range is a nice thought..

So, for about $2350 that will effectively cover the 15mm-400mm range with IS and reasonable optics, not bad, not bad at all. (ouch..) :)

NiallOTuama

Google Pixel 2

07/08/2010 07:21:07 PM · #36

And for a total of $3000 you can also satisfy your happy Irish man with a nice macro lens...

07/08/2010 07:42:04 PM · #37

Originally posted by NiallOTuama:

And for a total of $3000 you can also satisfy your happy Irish man with a nice macro lens...

But,,,, I'm all out?!! :)

Besides, if I wasn't you just know I'd be springing for that new 8mm Sigma..

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

07/08/2010 07:50:11 PM · #38

Originally posted by NiallOTuama:

And for a total of $3000 you can also satisfy your happy Irish man with a nice macro lens...

You could try doing what I did - find a broken lens of the right style mount, then disassemble, and glue the ring to the front of the lens, viola! instant cheap and effective Macro..

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/08/2010 08:40:25 PM · #39

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Curious, how many people that you you sold prints to have inspected the corners of your photographs with a magnifying glass?

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

07/08/2010 10:09:11 PM · #40

Originally posted by yanko:

Curious, how many people that you you sold prints to have inspected the corners of your photographs with a magnifying glass?

I get annoyed at the corners all the time. Don't you think the difference is pronounced? The 17-40 used to bug me like that, but I wasn't sure what was lens issues and what was distortion from the WA.

I must have a more discriminating clientele than you. ;P

The review of the lenses on that site does give one some comfort no matter which way they go:

The big question is always - which lens should I buy/rent? The Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS USM Lens plus the Canon Extender EF 1.4x (420mm f/5.6 IS), the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens or the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens? This is not an easy question to answer, but I'll attempt to give some suggestions.

First, the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens wins the versatility category hands down. It is by far the most popular of the three lenses. It is very close in sharpness to the two primes when shot wide open at identical focal lengths and better than the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4x combo. It shows more distortion (pincushion) and more vignetting. The weights of these three comparable lenses and lens combinations are similar but the 100-400 will remove more weight from your wallet than the two primes.

If you already own a Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS L Lens, you might not need the 100-400's versatility as much. In this situation, one of the primes might make more sense for you.

The Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS USM Lens wins for widest aperture and native (without 1.4x) smallest/lightest physical size.

A big advantage over the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens is the Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS USM Lens and Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens' image stabilization. These two lenses also have the largest out-of-the-box magnification capability - .24x and .2x respectively vs. .12x for the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens (delivered at the relatively long minimum focus distance of 11.5' / 3.5m).

Message edited by author 2010-07-08 22:18:28.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/08/2010 10:41:04 PM · #41

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Or maybe my clients are too captivated with what is central in my photos that they never reach the corners. ;) In all seriousness, the difference from one L glass to another only matters to the photographer. My concern would be does this lens allow me to get the shot? If the answer is yes then that's all that matters. No customer is going to point at a photo shot with and say it's not sharp enough to purchase.

Message edited by author 2010-07-08 22:46:49.

MattO

Nikon D4

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

07/08/2010 10:47:44 PM · #42

Just an FYI you can usually pick up a second hand 70-200F2.8 IS for $1400 or so on Fredmiranda.........I picked mine up on there for that.....and it's sharp.

snaffles

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

07/09/2010 05:15:44 AM · #43

Anyone mind if I pimp Ryan's (

Magnumphotography) latest portfolio images of the osprey? Taken with the 400mm...just fyi.

George

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

07/09/2010 09:00:00 AM · #44

//www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/canon/

Message edited by author 2010-07-09 09:00:06.

Jedusi

07/09/2010 12:44:28 PM · #45

I have to say that for me the 100-400 wins on versatility comfortably - the others are too specialised at that size and price. Great for what they are, but that's the thing - they are what they are. at least with the 100-400 you have a whole range, and teamed with the 24-105, you have just two lenses that cover a huge focal range.

I have owned my big white for about 4-5 years now - no issues with dust, carry it everywhere with me, used it from portraits, nature, events etc etc and never stopped to look at a picture and worry that the corners are not quite sharp enough. To be honest I've never even looked at the corners in that sort of detail.

Funnily enough I set off to purchase the 70-200 originally and came out with the 100-400. The only time I've ever questioned my decision is when I need the extra speed - but you know if you've got the speed but only half the focal length that might stop you getting the shot anyway . . besides the 100-400 is cheaper :- )

07/09/2010 02:30:28 PM · #46

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by yanko:
Curious, how many people that you you sold prints to have inspected the corners of your photographs with a magnifying glass?

I get annoyed at the corners all the time. Don't you think the difference is pronounced? The 17-40 used to bug me like that, but I wasn't sure what was lens issues and what was distortion from the WA.

I must have a more discriminating clientele than you. ;P

The review of the lenses on that site does give one some comfort no matter which way they go:

The big question is always - which lens should I buy/rent? The Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS USM Lens plus the Canon Extender EF 1.4x (420mm f/5.6 IS), the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens or the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens? This is not an easy question to answer, but I'll attempt to give some suggestions.

First, the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens wins the versatility category hands down. It is by far the most popular of the three lenses. It is very close in sharpness to the two primes when shot wide open at identical focal lengths and better than the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4x combo. It shows more distortion (pincushion) and more vignetting. The weights of these three comparable lenses and lens combinations are similar but the 100-400 will remove more weight from your wallet than the two primes.

If you already own a Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 IS L Lens, you might not need the 100-400's versatility as much. In this situation, one of the primes might make more sense for you.

The Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS USM Lens wins for widest aperture and native (without 1.4x) smallest/lightest physical size.

A big advantage over the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens is the Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS USM Lens and Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS USM Lens' image stabilization. These two lenses also have the largest out-of-the-box magnification capability - .24x and .2x respectively vs. .12x for the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM Lens (delivered at the relatively long minimum focus distance of 11.5' / 3.5m).

I've been meaning to add you to my favorite photographers for a while now... This post was the impetus.

Really, thanks for such a great response, you (along with the others..) really helped me make my decision.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

07/09/2010 02:34:33 PM · #47

Thanks again to everyone,

I've purchased the 100-400 (dust be damned, that's a great range with good optical quality) and the new little EF-S 15-85, which - from what I can tell - should be a great walk-around lens...

Delivery should be Tuesday, we'll see if the performance is what I need, although I suspect I'll be quite pleased.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

07/09/2010 02:51:28 PM · #48

I'm with MattO on that one.

Go look around on FredMiranda. You say you are spending $2350... I would be very surprised if you couldn't have some tremendous fun with a Canon 10-22 and a 70-200 f/2.8L IS.

If you wanted the length, you COULD use the 1.4x and still "get by" for most stuff with the 70-200.

Yes, it will be a compromise, but unless you are hardcore telephoto nut, you are going to see a LOT more situations come by that will make you VERY glad to have the 70-200 in your bag.

One major reason I say that is that your profile lists the 80-200 f/4.0-5.6. I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say that this is one significant factor in your desire for a better mid-range telephoto.

At least you know what to expect with the focal range.

Honestly, if you are looking at the 15-85 to allow you to go a bit wider, why not go for something really wide?

The 10-22 is loads of fun. Compared to the 17-55 f/2.8IS, it's so much wider, it's not even funny. It would be the same with the 15-85. You are still going to find that 15mm just isn't that wide on APS-C.

It would cost less and give you more fun to go that route. Especially if you shop 2nd hand.

Make sure your bases are covered, and when you feel a need to jump to something really long, then you can be free to go with something like the 300mm L and get the quality that you want.

I've got a friend who uses that for surfing shots and it's a beast!

ETA: oops, looks like I was just a few minutes slow with this one.... had an odd browser problem...

Message edited by author 2010-07-09 14:52:25.