| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/28/2009 04:05:32 PM · #1 |
I'm looking to get a quality telephoto lens because my passion is wildlife and birds so this is what I mostly want to shoot. I have it narrowed down to these two but I keep flip flopping back and forth and can't figure out what I want to do. I think about getting the prime because I figure most of the time I would be pushing the zoom out to 400 mm anyway. Then I think that the zoom would be a much more versatile lens and wonder if I might miss some shots if I had the prime.
I was just wondering if anyone has any helpful thoughts or opinions. (Sorry if this has been discussed, I did a search and didn't find anything specific to my question.) |
|
|
|
01/28/2009 04:12:41 PM · #2 |
I went back and forth on these two for a bit before buying the 100-400IS. My reasoning was the IS and the versatility. The IS is a HUGE Benefit on a long lens, when I turn it off is is ridiculous the difference it makes on the long end of the lens. The other factor is the range ability, from 100-400 covers quite a bit and you will back off from time to time when your wildlife subjects get too close. The trade off is a bit of sacrifice on Image quality(though the 100-400 is super sharp and I hardly find it a major trade off, jmo.) Just my thought process and I've never looked back on my decision.
Message edited by author 2009-01-28 16:14:24. |
|
|
|
01/28/2009 04:26:26 PM · #3 |
I own the Canon EF 400mm f/5.6L lens. It is a very reliable workhorse and is my favorite lens. I almost always use it on a tripod for wildlife shots, as it is not terribly fast glass. But, it is exceptionally sharp and is fast to acquire auto focus. Provides a very pleasant bokeh. I use it now on my Canon 5D (full frame sensor), but I enjoyed it on my previous camera, Canon 10D with APS-C sized sensor. I do not know anything about your other option lens. In general, a prime lens is sharper than a zoom.... especially at the shortest and longest zoom focal lengths. The images below are some of my favorites with the 400mm f/5.6L. I would be lost without this lens.
  
  
I think the lens works very well when I'm at a distance away from the wild animal which allows the animal to feel comfortable with my presence. I'm sure money can buy faster, longer focal length lenses. But, I've never really felt like I needed that 600mm big gun. (Although, it is in my future dream goals/plans.) |
|
|
|
01/28/2009 04:43:50 PM · #4 |
I love my 100-400! The versatility is just awesome, as sometimes I don't quite need all the reach of a 400mm. Is is less sharp than the prime? Of course, but whether you will actually notice it that much is debatable, as it is a sharp lens.
Here are two of my favorite shots with that lens, one at 400mm and one at 250mm:
//photography.lifeafter2am.net/albums/userpics/10001/20080430--2.jpg
//photography.lifeafter2am.net/albums/userpics/10001/20080430-%7E0.jpg
Message edited by Manic - please keep images under 500px and 30kb, or post links or thumbs instead. |
|
|
|
01/29/2009 10:21:48 AM · #5 |
Thank you for your help everybody. I am still not sure what I'm going to go with because each lens has its advantages, but I will figure out which will suit me best.
For Hahn23- I have been admiring your photos taken with your 400mm prime. They are awesome and are actually the main inspiration that caused me to look at this lens. Keep up the great work! I have two questions for you - have you used it with the 1.4x teleconverter and how far away from the animal are you typically when you take your shots (for example how far in some of the photos you posted)?
Thanks again everyone! |
|
|
|
01/29/2009 10:39:06 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by scottieham:
...For Hahn23-.... I have two questions for you - have you used it with the 1.4x teleconverter and how far away from the animal are you typically when you take your shots (for example how far in some of the photos you posted)? ... |
I have the 1.4x converter. And, it does "work" on the f/5.6L 400mm. But, and it's a big deal, one loses the auto focus feature of the telephoto lens. The 1.4x converter works on faster lens with f/2.8 or faster glass. On lenses slower than f/2.8, you can still manual focus. But, that's not an equivalent replacement for the AF. Furthermore, the 1.4x converter plus any of my lenses degrades the image one notch and slows the glass by a full camera stop. So, I guess I don't recommend the 1.4x converter. I'm sure results will vary.
I think most of my favorite wildlife shots are about 50' to 120'. At that distance, the subject fills the frame.... the best way to compose and capture maximum detail. Also, that 400mm lens at f/5.6 produces a very desirable blurred background, with the subject in good sharpness. In low light conditions, I will almost always use ISO 400 and wide open aperture. Tripod with shutter release cable. If windy, I'll weight down the tripod with my camera bag. In full light, it is possible to shoot handheld. But, I really want that shutter speed to be 1/1500s or faster for handheld shots. My best handheld shots have been at 1/2500s or faster.
Most wildlife, if aware of the presence of the photographer, will allow a comfortable distance of about 100'. At that point, they know they are "safe enough" to flee, if threatened. And, if patient, the animal will pose with both eyes showing. Timing is everything. I don't try to get too close with the camera, as it will almost always result in a posterior shot, as the animal flees. I act like a 200# boulder. If I must move for better position, I'll move my feet laterally.... never providing a greater risk to the animal's feelings of security. Sun on the back of my shoulders produces the best eye catch lights. The 400mm f/5.6L is excellent at capturing eye catch glint. Hope this helps. |
|
|
|
01/29/2009 11:13:33 AM · #7 |
| I meant to add the comment that one can be too close to the subject/action with the 400mm lens. 14 months ago, I was photographing bighorn rams bashing heads in the Big Thompson Canyon. I was set up with my 400mm lens on my 5D. The action was very dramatic and the sound echoed through the canyon. The animals started up on the mountainside, but soon were right in front of me.... about 30' away. 30' is a good distance for squirrels and coyotes, but the larger mammals are a different story. My 200mm and 135mm lenses were in my pickup about 500' away. I didn't have a second camera body and lens.... and I should have been smarter in anticipation. With two beautiful bighorn rams dueling right in front of me, I couldn't fit the scene into the frame. I couldn't back up far enough, with the river behind me. I'll always remember hwo frustrating that was. In that situation, it would have been good to have the 100-400 zoom for flexibility. |
|
|
|
01/29/2009 11:24:47 AM · #8 |
| Thanks hahn, you have been very helpful. I am glad that you added that last comment as well. I know that the majority of the time I am going to want to be at the full 400mm. I also know that there will be situations where I can get super close to the action, and my biggest concern is that the 400mm will actually be too long and I'll miss a good opportunity. In the end I think I am going to sacrifice a little bit of image quality and go with the zoom for now (although i may still change my mind. ;-)) |
|
|
|
01/29/2009 11:26:19 AM · #9 |
| FWIW, many reviews show the 100-400mm to be similar in sharpness to the 400mm prime, but with the added flexibility of zoom and image stabilization. Autofocus is faster on the prime, but for me the decision was a no-brainer. |
|
|
|
01/29/2009 11:39:06 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
FWIW, many reviews show the 100-400mm to be similar in sharpness to the 400mm prime, but with the added flexibility of zoom and image stabilization. Autofocus is faster on the prime, but for me the decision was a no-brainer. |
...and to add, the 100-400 is a bit faster.
|
|
|
|
01/29/2009 12:08:16 PM · #11 |
I agree with all the previous comments. Points well taken. There are a couple sites I've found helpful for the prospective lens buyer:
//www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/best_canon_eos_lenses.html
//www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/canon_lenses.shtml
The flexibility of a zoom lens is indisputable. No question about it. If you are going to be shooting with one camera body and one lens, then you improve your ability to compose through the viewfinder with a good zoom lens.
My strategy has been slightly different (not better, nor worse). I do have the 24-105mm f/4L zoom. And, it is my "always on" lens. It's my "landscape" lens and my "portrait" lens. For handheld shots, the IS is very helpful. For landscape shots, I always turn off the IS assist, because I'm almost on the tripod. I think some of the new lenses with IS are tripod "smart", but my lens is not one of those. Images degrade with IS on and mounted on tripod.
I do enjoy carrying an arsenal of lenses to meet the field conditions/situations. (135mm, 200mm, 400mm) That is a luxury, but it does make me think, rather than just zoom. I also find that having a fixed length focal length lens in place causes me to "move my feet". Shifting right or left a few feet or a few yards.... or backing up or approaching the subject forces one to concentrate on composing through the viewfinder. I've noticed about myself, that when I have my zoom on, I am static in position.
The downside of multiple prime lenses versus a zoom lens is the sensor dust intrusion from changing lenses in the field. I clean my sensor as often as necessary, depending on the conditions. Sometimes once a week.... sometimes once a month.
I do concede that I am fortunate and spoiled to be able to own a set of primes and a good wide angle zoom. When I upgrade to a new camera, I will likely keep my 5D body as a second. Then, if I have to move away from my camera backpack, I can have two lenses with me. A crucial part of my strategy is the Tamrac Expedition 7 backpack. It goes everywhere with me. //www.tamrac.com/5587.htm
Message edited by author 2009-01-29 12:14:23. |
|
|
|
04/02/2009 08:34:13 AM · #12 |
I am know in the same position (400 vs 100-400) so I thought I'd resurrect the thread.
 hahn23, you mentioned earlier that you use the 400mm with a tripod. Do you do this all the time? I want to get the prime but the one thing that worries me is I don't like hauling a tripod with me everywhere. I will use it with a monopod but will that be enough? If the 400mm had IS it would be a no-brainer for me.
If anyone else (not just hahn23 ) has any opinions, thoughts feel free to chime in.
Message edited by author 2009-04-02 08:34:49. |
|
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: 08/12/2025 11:56:11 PM EDT.
