Author | Thread |
|
07/04/2008 01:28:00 PM · #1 |
I'm looking for a high quality zoom lens ... I will be doing nature photography, mostly birds. Any thoughts on the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS ?? Realistically, is this a walkaround lens, or is it too big? I've never seen it.
I'm a bit split between this one and the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS ... The second one is much lighter, but only $300 less. And I lose half of the mm..
Any suggestions much appreciated.
Edit: I should add... I don't want to drop more than $1,300
Message edited by author 2008-07-04 13:28:28. |
|
|
07/04/2008 01:42:51 PM · #2 |
IMHO my 70-200 f/4L (USM only - no IS) is just on the edge of a "walkaround" lens. IS is going to add some weight as well. I can't imagine lugging a 100-400 around the field.
Have you considered the 70-200 f/4L combined with a 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter to use when you really need the length? The 1.4x will preserve AF with the f/4 lens, otherwise you're MF only if you go with the 2.0x converter. $1k for the 70-200 f4/L IS plus about $300 for the converter (a bit less for 1.4x) and you're still in budget. Plus you've still got the length while giving yourself the flexibility of a much lighter setup in the field. |
|
|
07/04/2008 01:43:58 PM · #3 |
My understanding is that 200mm is genreally too short for birding. Otherwise the 70-200 is a great lens. I've never used the 100-400, but I've heard it's great too. If birding is your goal, you will really appreciate the reach. |
|
|
07/04/2008 01:50:18 PM · #4 |
I have the 70-200mm f/4L, non IS version, and it's not long enough for serious birding. I had the 1.4X converter for a while but i took it back; it wasn't helping much, and it made the lens really hard to hand-hold.
I have used the 100-400mm and it's a hell of a lens, but it IS bulky. If you want serious reach in a high-quality zoom, you are gonna have to accept that it is going to come at the expense of weight and bulk, and learn to live with it.
R.
|
|
|
07/04/2008 01:55:57 PM · #5 |
What Robert said... also, be aware that the 100-400 is a "push-pull" zoom design. Some like it, some don't.
I had a chance to handle one the other evening; as far as bulk, it's bigger than the 70-200/4, but not as heavy and not quite as bulky as my 70-200/2.8. |
|
|
07/04/2008 02:15:10 PM · #6 |
(available for both Nikon & Canon)
Sigma 50-500mm f/4.0-6.3 EX DG HSM
Dell currently has it for $999.99, then on checkout, they apply a $100 instant savings. (May want a monopd too as it weighs 4.1 lbs)
Here's a good review of it: Sigma 50-500mm f/4-6.3 EX DG HSM Lens Review
Message edited by author 2008-07-04 14:29:57. |
|
|
07/04/2008 02:56:08 PM · #7 |
I was afraid the 70-200 f/4L might not really cut it.. I have thought of the teleconverter, but I'd almost be leaning to just get over it and buy the 400mm Canon lens... I think I will need to go to the store and see how big it really is... The birding season is here, there is so much waterfowl at our local pond, and I find myself being able to spend the $, so I need to get this ASAP :):):)
I'll look into the Sigma though. |
|
|
07/04/2008 03:26:21 PM · #8 |
I got the 100-400 a year ago, and it is far and away my used lens. I absolutely love it, and can't recommend it highly enough, especially for the wildlife enthusiast. I have hardly ever used it with the tripod, and regularly take it on six-seven mile walks; that said, I tend to stick it on my shoulder, and probably wouldn't want to walk more than ten miles with it. You will build up some muscles, but it is perfectly managable as a walkaround, providing you are prepared to sacrifice a little comfort! All my FS photos from this year have been taken with it. |
|
|
07/04/2008 03:34:09 PM · #9 |
I have the 100-400. It is heavy but I've walked around with it for a few hours at a time.
Nothing a few times per week to the gym can't resolve. ;o) |
|
|
07/04/2008 03:37:48 PM · #10 |
I love my 100-400 and again it is my most used lens. I walk about with it everywhere and bought an Optech strap - which helped enourmously with the comfort.
I rarely use a tripod (I'm too tired carrying the lens :) ) and did I mention that I love it ? :- )
A variety of shots I've taken with it
I would say that it is essential to hold before you buy though. I actually went in to get the 70-210 F2.8 and was convinced by the 100-400 instead.
Love it |
|
|
07/04/2008 03:46:58 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Eisbaer: I'm looking for a high quality zoom lens ... I will be doing nature photography, mostly birds. Any thoughts on the Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS ?? Realistically, is this a walkaround lens, or is it too big? I've never seen it. |
The lens has an overall rating of 9.1 at Fred Miranda: Canon 100-400mm EF IS USM Lens Review
|
|
|
07/04/2008 03:51:06 PM · #12 |
This one has an overall rating of 10.0 on Fred Miranda. ;)
|
|
|
07/04/2008 04:04:16 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Mick: This one has an overall rating of 10.0 on Fred Miranda. ;) |
I'll put in my order tomorrow... ;¬P |
|
|
07/04/2008 04:10:41 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by SaraR: Originally posted by Mick: This one has an overall rating of 10.0 on Fred Miranda. ;) |
I'll put in my order tomorrow... ;¬P |
Cool! Get me one too while you're at it. I promise I'll pay you back ASAP. :)
|
|
|
07/04/2008 04:12:44 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Mick: This one has an overall rating of 10.0 on Fred Miranda. ;) |
When you pay that much you have to say it's good - probably through gritted teeth : ) |
|
|
07/04/2008 04:12:50 PM · #16 |
Probably the best advertisment for it I have seen.. great pics there matey. |
|
|
07/04/2008 04:48:41 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Simms: Probably the best advertisment for it I have seen.. great pics there matey. |
Kind words indeed . . but there are so many stunning shots with this lens on DPC - 100-400 |
|
|
07/04/2008 05:03:32 PM · #18 |
Just get a prime. The 300mm F4 L IS or 400mm F5.6 L coupled with a 1.4x converter is a nice set-up. These are all with 300mm lens. Some with 1.4x
Message edited by author 2008-07-04 17:40:09.
|
|
|
07/04/2008 05:23:04 PM · #19 |
100-400 hands down, I have some problems with carrying or just walking for that matter & I have no problem carrying it around. |
|
|
07/04/2008 05:25:27 PM · #20 |
Well, I think you guys pretty much sold me on the 400mm F4 L IS.
Of course I can always sell all my belongings and buy the 800mm, hehe.
|
|
|
07/04/2008 05:30:04 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Eisbaer: Well, I think you guys pretty much sold me on the 400mm F4 L IS.
Of course I can always sell all my belongings and buy the 800mm, hehe. |
The 400mm L prime is 5.6 and no IS. The 300mm IS L is a 4.0. My previous post kinda misinformed. I edited it to read correctly
Message edited by author 2008-07-04 17:41:06. |
|
|
07/04/2008 06:09:51 PM · #22 |
tx, you know what I meant! I meant the 400mm L IS one!!
Originally posted by NstiG8tr: Originally posted by Eisbaer: Well, I think you guys pretty much sold me on the 400mm F4 L IS.
Of course I can always sell all my belongings and buy the 800mm, hehe. |
The 400mm L prime is 5.6 and no IS. The 300mm IS L is a 4.0. My previous post kinda misinformed. I edited it to read correctly |
|
|
|
07/04/2008 06:27:26 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Eisbaer: tx, you know what I meant! I meant the 400mm L IS one!!
|
I'm not sure you're sure. The only 400mm L with IS is a 2.8 prime and it's like $6000 or something. Do you mean the 100-400 F4.5/5.6L IS. I'd hate to see you buy something that wasn't what you really wanted or thought it was.
|
|
|
07/04/2008 07:15:24 PM · #24 |
This one: Canon EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS |
|
|
07/04/2008 07:19:52 PM · #25 |
add my vote for the 100-400 i wouldn't even consider the sigma don't buy a teleconverter for a 1-4 you won't like the results oh is is a plus |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/17/2024 02:23:01 PM EDT.