| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/23/2010 02:00:07 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
....I love shooting wildlife, but I would never go with the 400 prime -- it's just too limiting. The type of wildlife I shoot, I really need the ability to zoom in and out. I would have missed many shots if I had gone prime. When you're shooting people, you can tell them to wait while you move in and out to use the prime. Wildlife doesn't work that way. |
You have made an important point. And, I certainly agree that zooms are more convenient (at the expense of some acuity at both extremes of the focal range). The poor man's "zoom equivalent" is to use a prime "L" series lens and move your feet. Usually works out fairly well, as the best light and shot angle are rarely where you first observe the subject. It pays to move around. It's actually pretty rare that I'm too close to properly frame a subject. But, that does happen and most of the time I carry a set of prime lenses and will have time to switch focal lengths, as the situation demands.
Message edited by author 2010-09-23 14:02:00. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 03:30:19 PM · #27 |
| I'm a fan of the 100-400. This image of mine here //www.dpchallenge.com/image.php?IMAGE_ID=841781 was taken with this lens, and SIGNIFICANTLY cropped to boot. No matter what 400 you get, it takes a certain amount of practice to achieve the kind of steadiness required to get sharp shots. With this lens, it is DEFINITELY possible though. And you can't beat the versatility. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 04:10:16 PM · #28 |
I'll weigh in, I like the 100-400L IS, it's a good-enough lens, sure there are better, but in the price range it cannot be beat.
 <--Note ISO 1600 on a 50D (not a good thing, and still sharp) |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 04:17:38 PM · #29 |
| My 400mm f/5.6L is tack sharp and I've even get sharp images with my 2x extender on it. Love that lens. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 04:20:08 PM · #30 |
I have the Sigma 150-500mm, no problems at all. I also had the Pentax mount version before, again no problem. Using Kenko converters allows AF on any lens. Can't add a lot more than that.
Message edited by author 2010-09-23 16:20:17. |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 04:32:07 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I'll weigh in, I like the 100-400L IS, it's a good-enough lens, sure there are better, but in the price range it cannot be beat.
<--Note ISO 1600 on a 50D (not a good thing, and still sharp) |
What are the better lenses? Primes? |
|
|
|
09/23/2010 04:44:26 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by coryboehne:
I'll weigh in, I like the 100-400L IS, it's a good-enough lens, sure there are better, but in the price range it cannot be beat.
<--Note ISO 1600 on a 50D (not a good thing, and still sharp) |
What are the better lenses? Primes? |
Yep. Specifically the 300 f/2.8 and 600 f/4
Message edited by author 2010-09-23 16:56:19. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 03:44:21 AM · #33 |
All sorts of options! A quick look at BHPhoto though tells me that the 300mm f4 is the same price as the 400m f5.6, with the extender I'm up to the same price as the 100-400L.
Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma? My current 70-200 is a Sigma and I have to say that I am a fan - I even have a service centre within reach for that all important post-purchase calibration! I wouldn't be considering it if the 100-400 had the same reputation as the other canon L lenses, but I am just a little concerned by the reports on it.
Suddenly I am no closer to a decision - although if I had to put my money on the table now, it would probably be between the 400 f5.6 prime, for IQ, or the Sigma for affordable zoom qualities. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 08:20:15 AM · #34 |
| I wish my 100-400 would go from 100 to 800, and have a wider aperture. It would be so much better for my spy work. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 08:43:01 AM · #35 |
Just get the prime. You won't regret it.
R. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 11:55:04 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Just get the prime. You won't regret it.
R. |
Ditto. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 12:09:27 PM · #37 |
| my opinion prob wont help much, but I do have to say that I have the Sigma 28-300 and while I would not say its my fav lens by any stretch, it is a good lens for the price ($300 new, although i bought it used for $90). Somewhat soft on the focus but a great walking around lens with the range. I guess what I am trying to say is, as a brand, sigma seems like a good choice. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 12:18:52 PM · #38 |
Instead of a high dollar zoom, buy a less expensive prime, and another camera body. That way you can carry one with the 400 prime, and the other with your current zoom, and have the bases covered.
|
|
|
|
09/24/2010 12:39:23 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
Instead of a high dollar zoom, buy a less expensive prime, and another camera body. That way you can carry one with the 400 prime, and the other with your current zoom, and have the bases covered. |
Don't forget the cost of the chiropractor bills... ;) |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 12:53:49 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
my opinion prob wont help much, but I do have to say that I have the Sigma 28-300 and while I would not say its my fav lens by any stretch, it is a good lens for the price ($300 new, although i bought it used for $90). Somewhat soft on the focus but a great walking around lens with the range. I guess what I am trying to say is, as a brand, sigma seems like a good choice. |
I too am pleased with my only sigma lens. (12-24mm)
However, it bears mentioning that while it is not a Canon lens, it still was an expensive piece of glass, and the image quality is no where near my EFS 15-85mm
Message edited by author 2010-09-24 12:55:37. |
|
|
|
09/24/2010 02:17:08 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by FrankRobinson:
All sorts of options! A quick look at BHPhoto though tells me that the 300mm f4 is the same price as the 400m f5.6, with the extender I'm up to the same price as the 100-400L.
Does anyone have any experience with the Sigma? My current 70-200 is a Sigma and I have to say that I am a fan - I even have a service centre within reach for that all important post-purchase calibration! I wouldn't be considering it if the 100-400 had the same reputation as the other canon L lenses, but I am just a little concerned by the reports on it.
Suddenly I am no closer to a decision - although if I had to put my money on the table now, it would probably be between the 400 f5.6 prime, for IQ, or the Sigma for affordable zoom qualities. |
Read back three posts:) |
|
|
|
10/09/2010 05:15:49 PM · #42 |
| Hell - I just went to visit Jacobs and had a play with a canon 100-400 on my 50D. The push pull, which I thought I would hate, I can really see the benefit of single handed zoom and focus, simultaneously. And as for the old, dodgy IS, I took a few snaps in the shop, and got one hand held keeper (actually not a keeper, since it was of a poster!) at 1/30 at 400mm! So the search is still on. They are getting a Sigma in for me to have aplay with, so we'll see how that goes... |
|
|
|
10/10/2010 07:50:43 AM · #43 |
The 400mm prime is AMAZING. I agonized over whether to get the 100-400mm zoom or the prime. Ultimately I chose the prime because it is super sharp. I dont regret it.
Message edited by author 2010-10-10 07:51:23. |
|
|
|
10/10/2010 09:19:41 AM · #44 |
I can't believe there is a post on this and I have missed it up to now !
I'm firmly in the 100-400 camp and a great big raspberry to all those prime lovers :- )
Seriously guys, I have no doubt or question that the primes are good lenses, but for most mortals the ability to bang on the IS and crop in Camera to keep up with any action or movement is worth everything.
400 mm Prime is a pretty darn specialist lens - you stay at one point relative to any action, pop it on the tripod and wait for stuff to come through your field of view.
My 100-400 I have used for portraits, nature, weddings, air shows, sport - hey you name it - and all hand held.
You want more proof ? Go onto the Equipment page and compare both the number of owners of the two lenses (fixed and zoom) and the type of shots they have taken.
You will find there are just over 100 prime owners (including some eye watering prices) against 600 plus zoom owners. The prime shots are (not surprisingly) mostly static, while the zoom shots cover the whole spectrum
For me any differences that a lab can detect in ultimate sharpness are far outweighed by everyday usability
edit for spelling
Message edited by author 2010-10-10 09:20:29. |
|
|
|
10/10/2010 10:14:36 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Jedusi:
....
400 mm Prime is a pretty darn specialist lens - you stay at one point relative to any action, pop it on the tripod and wait for stuff to come through your field of view.
...
You will find there are just over 100 prime owners (including some eye watering prices) against 600 plus zoom owners. The prime shots are (not surprisingly) mostly static, while the zoom shots cover the whole spectrum
... |
Canon USA hosted a Pro Equipment day at the Denver Zoo about two weeks ago. They provided an opportunity for us to connect our camera bodies to the 400 and 600mm "fast glass" L lenses. (They didn't bring a 500mm L lens that day, which is the lens I'm interested in.) They didn't bring zooms, although they let the public borrow camera bodies with zoom lenses for the day. I sort of think that's how they see the market segmentation. There are new 600 and 500 L lenses under development now, which are to be released next summer. These new lenses will be lighter and more technologically advanced, according to the Canon rep. I'll probably wait until June 2011 to see.
Overall, the existing fast glass supertelephoto lenses are heavy and bulky. For the kind of hiking into the wilderness that I do, they wouldn't go along. But, my 400mm f/5.6L goes with me everywhere. I continue to think this lens works very well for wildlife photography. When I hike into the backcountry for landscape or wildlife photography, I generally carry only two lenses. I carry the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM and the 400 f/5.6L. That covers the waterfront. Only very rarely is the 400mm too much lens. I do own the 135mm f/2L and 200mm f/2.8L. I love those lenses, too, but they don't go hiking with me. Those primes are more for people/street/candid/wedding photography.
Yes, I understand the convenience and economy of a zoom lens that covers all those lens focal lengths. But, well, you know the trade-off. Image quality at all focal lengths drove me to the prime lenses. If faced with the purchasing decision again, I'd buy the same line-up. I will probably add the 500mm L lens next summer, but it won't replace anything I currently have.
Regarding your assertion that with a prime lens one stays at one point relative to any action. That may be true for SportsIllustrated types on the sidelines or courtsides, but couldn't be further from the truth for the wildlife photographer. One of the things i stress in my field seminars is to "move your feet". Moving closer to or further from the subject and circling to achieve best light angle is an important part of wildlife photography. I move a lot. And, 99% of my image captures are from a tripod mounted camera. The reality of wildlife photography is that 400mm lens focal length is almost never too much lens.
eta: I do have a 1.4x TC and I do use it once in a while, but image quality degrades for me with the TC attached. Point is... a lens with TC is not equal to a prime unburdened by the extra layers of glass.
Message edited by author 2010-10-10 10:57:54. |
|
|
|
10/10/2010 12:29:32 PM · #46 |
Richard - you have some great shots - and I guess when you choose a lens as pricy as this a lot of it comes down to personal style
You say you go out in the woods with two lenses, a 24-105 IS, a 400mm f5.6 prime, and clearly a tripod as 99% of your shots are from a ' tripod mounted camera'
I also go out in the woods with a 24-105 IS, but then I have a 100-400 f4.5/5.6 IS and no tripod. So I have the benefits of continuous focal cover from 24-400 in two lenses, plus continuous IS and I don't have to lug a tripod about :- )
Two different sets up for two different people.
I do own a couple of smaller primes but the lack of flexibility frustrates me - and I have yet to be convinced that most people can visually look at any shot and say 'This was taken with a prime - but that was just a zoom' |
|
|
|
10/10/2010 12:49:23 PM · #47 |
One thing to keep in mind when people give testamonials is that psychology dictates that owners will tend to underreport the downsides of their equipment if it is expensive. In other words, they will like it because it's expensive, not necessarily because it's good. (not saying that any of these lenses are bad. In an experiment where people watched the same movie but were charged different prices, the group that paid more liked the movie better than the group that paid less.
Another thing to keep in mind is often people will not have had the other piece of expensive equipment to compare experiences. For example, I've owned the 300mm f/4L and would have good reports, but I've never owned the 100-400mm.
Just stuff to keep in mind. I'm not saying anybody isn't being helpful here. |
|
|
|
10/10/2010 02:03:39 PM · #48 |
Yes, personal opinions about one's own equipment are certainly anecdotal. Lens reviews by others can be informative. Many opinions on Canon lenses are always helpful.
eta: It's true that my photography style involves a tripod mount for almost all shots. That evolved from capturing landscape and wildlife images in low light conditions. I routinely shut off IS for almost all of my nature and landscape photography. I do use IS on the 24-105mm f/4L for hand-held wedding/people images. For that purpose, the IS is valuable and the tripod is not.
Message edited by author 2010-10-10 14:41:01. |
|
|
|
10/11/2010 07:02:35 AM · #49 |
Originally posted by Jedusi:
400 mm Prime is a pretty darn specialist lens - you stay at one point relative to any action, pop it on the tripod and wait for stuff to come through your field of view. |
Respectfully, I think that might be more a feature of how you would use that lens, rather than the lens itself. I don't use a tripod for the majority of the time the 400mm prime in on my camera, nor do I just sit there and "wait for stuff" to appear in the viewfinder - you make anyone using a prime lens sound positively lazy.
Yes, there's certainly a sacrifice in flexibility when you move to primes (although I'd personally argue that's no bad thing for creativity - try going out for a days shooting with just one prime lens and see how it changes how you photograph) - but the benefits are there too.
Unlike most people in this debate I've actually used both lenses in anger; the 100-400 is undeniably more flexible but it's not as sharp, it's slower focusing and personally I found it awkward to handle. I'm blessed with a steady enough hand that the IS is no more than a "nice-to-have".
Originally posted by Jedusi:
I have yet to be convinced that most people can visually look at any shot and say 'This was taken with a prime - but that was just a zoom' |
Well obviously it's not just down to prime vs. zoom. My Tamron 28-75 is the second sharpest lens in my bag and will easily outclass every prime I have - apart from the 400mm.
Specifically putting the 100-400 against the straight 400, if you can get a good copy of the zoom (which can be a little variable...) then they are very, very close - certainly close enough that if zoom or IS is important to you, you're probably better off with the 100-400. If, like me, you tend to use zooms at one end or the other of their range 90% of the time, are blessed with steady hands, and consider the faster focus of the prime to be an important factor (which, when it comes to wildlife, it really is), then the prime is a no brainer.
Best bet is to rent both for a week and shoot your socks off. |
|
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: 10/05/2025 07:57:12 AM EDT.
