| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/04/2004 12:17:15 AM · #1 |
With 2 X Sigma converter ,total focal lenght 640 mm |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 12:19:39 AM · #2 |
No offense, but can't we find better things to take zoomed pictures of...maybe like cats....;-)
Squirels are just glorified rats..just like pigeons.
Nice shapeness though. Was it handheld?
Message edited by author 2004-03-04 00:20:43.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2004 12:29:40 AM · #3 |
This one is handheld
 |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 01:01:55 AM · #4 |
400 mm handheld here !
 |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 07:27:02 AM · #5 |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 07:32:24 AM · #6 |
| Really nice Kosta, makes me even more anxious to get mine! |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 11:04:27 AM · #7 |
I think image stabilizator is bunch of bull and advertisement ploy!
You will pay arm&leg for something you will not use! Why?
Because those lenses are damn heavy!
Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM is 4.3 LBS !!!!
In order to use this handheld you have to be 300 LBS athlete!
You need a tripod for those lenses because of the weight and there is no shaking whit tripod!?
Canon 200 mm f 2.8 is only 1.5 lbs for 630 $ you have great lens and believe me that is also heavy for handheld,but I can handle it!
Message edited by author 2004-03-04 11:07:08. |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 11:10:19 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
I think image stabilizator is bunch of bull and advertisement ploy!
You will pay arm&leg for something you will not use! Why?
Because those lenses are damn heavy!
Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM is 4.3 LBS !!!!
In order to use this handheld you have to be 300 LBS athlete!
You need a tripod for those lenses because of the weight and there is no shaking whit tripod!?
Canon 200 mm f 2.8 is only 1.5 lbs for 630 $ you have great lens and believe me that is also heavy for handheld,but I can handle it! |
It's called practice. I'm only 185 and I can hand hold my 500 f4 "IS" in a pinch. I use to use a Mamiya RZ system hand held. You shouldn't be hand holding in the first place. If you take a sample of the same shot hand held vs tripod vs "IS" and magnify that puppy. You'll see wich one is "truely sharp" ;D |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 11:20:48 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
I think image stabilizator is bunch of bull and advertisement ploy!
You will pay arm&leg for something you will not use! Why?
Because those lenses are damn heavy!
Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM is 4.3 LBS !!!!
In order to use this handheld you have to be 300 LBS athlete!
You need a tripod for those lenses because of the weight and there is no shaking whit tripod!?
Canon 200 mm f 2.8 is only 1.5 lbs for 630 $ you have great lens and believe me that is also heavy for handheld,but I can handle it! |
From what I have read, Image Stabilization works, it works well, and can be a real benefit when using long lens. I still plan on buying a lens without IS, but that is really a monetary reason, not a technical one.
You can make use of IS on a monopod, which would seem to be an ideal combination for sports photographers - I always see them using monopods on the sidelines, presumably to get out of the wayy in a hurry :-)
Message edited by author 2004-03-04 11:28:49. |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 11:26:06 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
I think image stabilizator is bunch of bull and advertisement ploy!
You will pay arm&leg for something you will not use! Why?
Because those lenses are damn heavy!
Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM is 4.3 LBS !!!!
In order to use this handheld you have to be 300 LBS athlete!
You need a tripod for those lenses because of the weight and there is no shaking whit tripod!?
Canon 200 mm f 2.8 is only 1.5 lbs for 630 $ you have great lens and believe me that is also heavy for handheld,but I can handle it! |
I used the Canon 400mm f/5.6L for an entire day handheld. Granted it's just under 3lbs, but it wasn't a problem and the images came out great.
I'm not trying to say that IS isn't worthwile, I'm saying you don't need to be a 300lb football player to use a large lens without IS or a tripod/monopod.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2004 11:32:06 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by tfaust:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
I think image stabilizator is bunch of bull and advertisement ploy!
You will pay arm&leg for something you will not use! Why?
Because those lenses are damn heavy!
Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM is 4.3 LBS !!!!
In order to use this handheld you have to be 300 LBS athlete!
You need a tripod for those lenses because of the weight and there is no shaking whit tripod!?
Canon 200 mm f 2.8 is only 1.5 lbs for 630 $ you have great lens and believe me that is also heavy for handheld,but I can handle it! |
I used the Canon 400mm f/5.6L for an entire day handheld. Granted it's just under 3lbs, but it wasn't a problem and the images came out great.
I'm not trying to say that IS isn't worthwile, I'm saying you don't need to be a 300lb football player to use a large lens without IS or a tripod/monopod. |
What? 3.1 lbs on the end of the camera is not heavy?How long you can hold that,where are the samples?How many people on this site can hold 3.1 lbs lens handheld for more than one photo?
All you guys "show me the samples" ! |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 11:36:36 AM · #12 |
IS isn't just for hand-holding. There can be significant camera shake even when on a sturdy tripod. On a 600mm lens even very minor vibrations can affect image quality. IS is always a good thing to have on a long lens.
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Originally posted by tfaust:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
I think image stabilizator is bunch of bull and advertisement ploy!
You will pay arm&leg for something you will not use! Why?
Because those lenses are damn heavy!
Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM is 4.3 LBS !!!!
In order to use this handheld you have to be 300 LBS athlete!
You need a tripod for those lenses because of the weight and there is no shaking whit tripod!?
Canon 200 mm f 2.8 is only 1.5 lbs for 630 $ you have great lens and believe me that is also heavy for handheld,but I can handle it! |
I used the Canon 400mm f/5.6L for an entire day handheld. Granted it's just under 3lbs, but it wasn't a problem and the images came out great.
I'm not trying to say that IS isn't worthwile, I'm saying you don't need to be a 300lb football player to use a large lens without IS or a tripod/monopod. |
What? 3.1 lbs on the end of the camera is not heavy?How long you can hold that,where are the samples?How many people on this site can hold 3.1 lbs lens handheld for more than one photo?
All you guys "show me the samples" ! |
|
|
|
|
03/04/2004 11:54:49 AM · #13 |
| Anyway,my original message was, it's not worth it extra 1 lb and extra 1000$,unless you have extra money! |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 12:07:15 PM · #14 |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 12:19:21 PM · #15 |
You are missing the point again!
My Rooster is taken handheld with 800$ lens+tele ay 1.5 lbs and yours are "less" sharp taken with 1450$ lens at 3.1 lbs!
You don't need 4000$ lens and donkey to cary it to take decent photos!
I'm done with this thread...
Message edited by author 2004-03-04 12:20:48. |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 12:21:10 PM · #16 |
Personally I think tfaust's are significantly sharper...
Originally posted by pitsaman:
You are missing the point again!
My Rooster is taken handheld with 800$ lens+tele ay 1.5 lbs and yours are "less" sharp taken with 1450$ lens at 3.1 lbs!
You don't need 4000$ lens and donkey to cary it to take decent photos! |
|
|
|
|
03/04/2004 12:21:39 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Anyway,my original message was, it's not worth it extra 1 lb and extra 1000$,unless you have extra money! |
whoohoo backing out already?
You said and I quote "I think image stabilizator is bunch of bull and advertisement ploy!"
I could always say that EOS 1Ds is nothing but a load of crap just because I cant afford it!
Message edited by author 2004-03-04 12:23:37.
|
|
|
|
03/04/2004 12:32:00 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Personally I think tfaust's are significantly sharper...
Originally posted by pitsaman:
You are missing the point again!
My Rooster is taken handheld with 800$ lens+tele ay 1.5 lbs and yours are "less" sharp taken with 1450$ lens at 3.1 lbs!
You don't need 4000$ lens and donkey to cary it to take decent photos! |
|
Agreed - and to keep the facts clear, that lens is selling for $1099 at B&H, not $1450. $1019 if you are willing to buy the imported version.
The weights seem to be misrepresented too - 200mm f/2.8 + kenko 2x converter = 2.08 lbs, not 1.5. So you are only talking about a 1lb difference. That is significant, but not the back-breaking weight-lifting event it is being made out to be. |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 12:38:52 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by richterrell:
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
Personally I think tfaust's are significantly sharper...
Originally posted by pitsaman:
You are missing the point again!
My Rooster is taken handheld with 800$ lens+tele ay 1.5 lbs and yours are "less" sharp taken with 1450$ lens at 3.1 lbs!
You don't need 4000$ lens and donkey to cary it to take decent photos! |
|
Agreed - and to keep the facts clear, that lens is selling for $1099 at B&H, not $1450. $1019 if you are willing to buy the imported version.
The weights seem to be misrepresented too - 200mm f/2.8 + kenko 2x converter = 2.08 lbs, not 1.5. So you are only talking about a 1lb difference. That is significant, but not the back-breaking weight-lifting event it is being made out to be. |
I said I'm done with this thread!
But for liars here os the facts:
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (Image Stabilizer) USM Autofocus Lens Our Price: $ 1,389.95
Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS (Image Stabilizer) USM Autofocus Lens Imported Our Price: $ 1,299.95
Ad shipping or taxes here! |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 12:44:15 PM · #20 |
Pits, that lens is more expensive than the 400mm I mentioned, and the price Rich quotes is correct for that lens.
Edit: Being clearer, the 400mm lens is different than the 100-400mm lens.
Message edited by author 2004-03-04 12:44:39. |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 12:49:33 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
My Rooster is taken handheld with 800$ lens+tele ay 1.5 lbs and yours are "less" sharp taken with 1450$ lens at 3.1 lbs! |
I find it odd that you think you can determine the sharpness of a lens by looking at a 640-pixel post-processed downsample.
I have a hard time believing that your 2X teleconverter is not noticeably degrading your image quality (which is why I asked for 100% crops in a previous thread where I thought I saw some CA).
Even the vaunted 70-200/2.8L IS with the matching Canon 2X teleconverter can't compete with the Canon 100-400. See here for comparison. "The results don't need much interpretation. What we see is that wide open, at f/5.6, the 100~400mm lens is quite a bit sharper than the 70~200mm and 2X combination. "
And for the record, I have shot for hours using my 70-200/2.8L IS, which weighs 3.2 pounds, and I'm not a 300 pound athelete. I'm a weak computer geek with a bulging waistline. And that wasn't just the 10D, that was also the 10D, 550EX and BG-ED3 grip loaded with 2 batteries... luckily, the Op/Tech Pro-Strap is a well-designed device that helps deal with the weight of a setup of that caliber.
Message edited by author 2004-03-04 12:55:44. |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 01:05:03 PM · #22 |
I completly agree whith pitsaman, those are excellent images for that price, big lenses (talking about money) is for
a) Richmen's hobby (status)
b) Profesional who live from it (real need)
For us the common poor people, those kind of cheaper gadgets have more than enough cost-value benefit.
IMHO
|
|
|
|
03/04/2004 01:16:54 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by ramevi:
I completly agree whith pitsaman, those are excellent images for that price, big lenses (talking about money) is for
a) Richmen's hobby (status)
b) Profesional who live from it (real need)
For us the common poor people, those kind of cheaper gadgets have more than enough cost-value benefit.
IMHO |
I don't think that those who have an avid interest in photography and do not making a living at it necessarily care one bit about "status". I think it is all about getting the absolutely best lenses that you can afford. I would snap up the 400mm F/4 DO instead of the F/5.6 in a heartbeat if I could afford it - but I can't. There are those that can, however, and I certainly don't begrudge them that. Envy maybe :-)
I would also submit to you that anyone who can afford a Canon Digital SLR and "L" lenses of any kind pretty much removed themselves from the "poor people" category :-) |
|
|
|
03/04/2004 01:22:26 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by richterrell:
Originally posted by ramevi:
I completly agree whith pitsaman, those are excellent images for that price, big lenses (talking about money) is for
a) Richmen's hobby (status)
b) Profesional who live from it (real need)
For us the common poor people, those kind of cheaper gadgets have more than enough cost-value benefit.
IMHO |
I don't think that those who have an avid interest in photography and do not making a living at it necessarily care one bit about "status". I think it is all about getting the absolutely best lenses that you can afford. I would snap up the 400mm F/4 DO instead of the F/5.6 in a heartbeat if I could afford it - but I can't. There are those that can, however, and I certainly don't begrudge them that. Envy maybe :-)
I would also submit to you that anyone who can afford a Canon Digital SLR and "L" lenses of any kind pretty much removed themselves from the "poor people" category :-) |
LOL, you are so right!........
We all are overacting here.
;)
|
|
|
|
03/04/2004 03:17:55 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Originally posted by tfaust:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
I think image stabilizator is bunch of bull and advertisement ploy!
You will pay arm&leg for something you will not use! Why?
Because those lenses are damn heavy!
Canon EF 400mm f/4 DO IS USM is 4.3 LBS !!!!
In order to use this handheld you have to be 300 LBS athlete!
You need a tripod for those lenses because of the weight and there is no shaking whit tripod!?
Canon 200 mm f 2.8 is only 1.5 lbs for 630 $ you have great lens and believe me that is also heavy for handheld,but I can handle it! |
I used the Canon 400mm f/5.6L for an entire day handheld. Granted it's just under 3lbs, but it wasn't a problem and the images came out great.
I'm not trying to say that IS isn't worthwile, I'm saying you don't need to be a 300lb football player to use a large lens without IS or a tripod/monopod. |
What? 3.1 lbs on the end of the camera is not heavy?How long you can hold that,where are the samples?How many people on this site can hold 3.1 lbs lens handheld for more than one photo?
All you guys "show me the samples" ! |
I was hand holding for like 20 frames... |
|
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: 09/10/2025 02:11:53 PM EDT.
