| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/12/2005 01:27:48 PM · #26 |
I agree with this and would actually love to have the 400mm 5.6L. I guess I was exaggerating to make my point about IS
Originally posted by rich:
There are photographers that would disagree with you there - one that especially comes to mind is Art Morris, a well known bird photographer, who gives a fairly rave review of the 400mm F/5.6L as a handheld lens.
I think handholding a 400mm without IS has a lot more to do with the type of photography you are doing and of course how much available light you have. Panning shots of birds in flight on a relatively bright day for example would seem to suit the 400mm F/5.6L well. |
|
|
|
|
08/12/2005 03:13:30 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by yido:
The Sigma 80-400 is another option, but according to Pop Photo, it get's soft beyond 300. |
A bit, yes, but so does the 100-400, and both are sharper than 70-200+2x TC. Your only way around that is to pick up a prime, which has its own drawbacks.
|
|
|
|
08/18/2005 08:37:59 AM · #28 |
It's probably worth remembering that the Rebel is a 1.6x crop conversion. Someone who shoots an 80-400 which gets soft at 300 must apply the 1.6. This still provides you with 128-480 before it gets soft and allows you that extra little bit up to 640mm...
|
|
|
|
08/18/2005 09:01:18 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
It's probably worth remembering that the Rebel is a 1.6x crop conversion. Someone who shoots an 80-400 which gets soft at 300 must apply the 1.6. This still provides you with 128-480 before it gets soft and allows you that extra little bit up to 640mm... |
I think that was assumed. :-)
|
|
|
|
08/19/2005 10:40:14 AM · #30 |
Yeah, I know that it was assumed, I just mentioned it because I noticed that a lot of guys were commenting on the 100-400 as being short or long but weren't necessarily using the same crop factor.
ie, a FF cam shooting a lens that is soft at 300 but still gets by for wildlife could easily be compared the to 70-200 with a 1.4x TC plus 1.6x crop which might get soft at around 350mm+ in FF equiv.
I know that those discussing this know these things, but the original poster is using a 300d and I don't know his background, so might not have thought deeply enough to do that math. I wasn't trying to release groundbreaking news, I just intended to make a little reminder to pay attention to crop factors on those posting. Sorry if it sounded stupid. |
|
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: 09/18/2025 06:01:30 PM EDT.
