| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/09/2005 05:57:57 AM · #1 |
Hopefully in a month and 1/2 or so, I'll be able buy a long lens (e-bay'd my 70-200 F4L a couple months ago). I want 400mm, but I'm struggling to decide how.
Option 1 and 2 would enable me to get a 100mm macro as well, but option 1 has lower image quality, and option 2 isn't very useful in any situation except birding/wildlife. I'm not sure I'll like the push/pull design of option 3 ... and option 4 is the most expensive :)
Am I missing a lens (I don't wish to buy anything other than canon ... perhaps an unfounded fear, but it is what it is)? Any and all opinion or experiences are appreciated :) |
|
|
|
05/09/2005 06:06:19 AM · #2 |
I just bought the sigma 70-200mm 2.8 EX and the 2.0 Teleconverter. The combination makes 420mm at F5.6 I have not taken any shots with that combination yet expect my handheld test shots.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2005 06:36:36 AM · #3 |
Of those 4 options I'd go for 2, but that's just me.
Why did you select 400 and not 300 or 500? What kind of shooting are you planing to do with your 400mm? Do you need IS? Or are you going to be using a tripod most of the time?
You have put yourself in a fairly restricted position by considering only Canon lenses. Some of your options are fairly old designs. Considering all brands would give you additional options of equal quality with perhaps more versatility or less cost.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2005 06:37:42 AM · #4 |
If you're not requiring the lens to be IS...
I would definitely consider some of Sigma's higher end lenses as well. I've heard excellent comments on a few. |
|
|
|
05/09/2005 06:57:03 AM · #5 |
from what i've read, anything over 400 becomes tripod only and gets VERY expensive. 400 seems to be the max for affordable and hand holdable (all of which is debatable)
Shooting mostly birds and small animals. There are several red tailed hawks around me ... and I'd love to find an owl or two.
Regarding only using canon, I agree, I've restricted myself. I've read too much regarding very slow focus, needing rechipping, and extreme quality control issues between 2 of the exact same lens ... scares me :)
thank you, though ... all great points
Originally posted by coolhar:
Of those 4 options I'd go for 2, but that's just me.
Why did you select 400 and not 300 or 500? What kind of shooting are you planing to do with your 400mm? Do you need IS? Or are you going to be using a tripod most of the time?
You have put yourself in a fairly restricted position by considering only Canon lenses. Some of your options are fairly old designs. Considering all brands would give you additional options of equal quality with perhaps more versatility or less cost. |
|
|
|
|
05/09/2005 07:17:43 AM · #6 |
I have tried a couple of your options extensively and one only briefly so I will give you my thoughts based on my personal experience.
The setup that I have had the most experience with is the EF 100-400 IS lens. I have been very happy with it and find its flexibility very useful for the wildlife shooting that I like to do. I use the thing 95% or more of the time at 400mm but the zoom has allowed me to get some shots that I am VERY happy with that I believe I would have missed has I needed to take a TC off or change a lens for. Here is a shot I took yesterday with the 100-400 IS:
The other setup that I have had a lot of experience with is the EF 300mm f/4 IS with EF 1.4x II teleconverter. The 300 is a very nice lens and can do very well for semi-macro photography (flowers, butterflies...). It does give you f/4 at 300mm but at 420mm and f/5.6 I don�t think it offers any real "sharpness" advantage over the 100-400. I also find it to be a real pain to pop off the TC in the field. It always seems like I need to remove the TC when I am in some location where there isn�t a good place to put gear down and fumbling with lens caps, TC, body and lens can get a little dicey when you are standing in the mud or salt marsh... If you usually find yourself in situations when you have time to carefully change the lens then none of these issues will likely be problems for you. This setup is also nice if you do a lot of shooting in low light as the 100-400 has a max aperture of f/5.6 at 300mm.
The 200mm f/2.8 II and 2x II teleconverter was a combo that I tried for a few weeks before I bought my 300mm f/4 IS. The 200 is a very fine lens and the combo with the 2x TC can deliver very good results but I found that you need to be more careful with the focus and lighting with this setup than say the 100-400 or 300 f/4. I get the impression that the AF isn�t quite as accurate with the 2x TC as it is with the bare lens. This doesn�t make much sense to me because you still have AF at f/5.6 like you do on the 100-400 but my experience was that I got a lot more slightly OOF shots with the 200 + 2x which initially led me to believe that this was a bad combo. Later I tried sitting down and very carefully manually focusing the 200 + 2x TC and got some very decent pictures. Anyway, it wasn�t the combo for me.
The 400mm f/5.6 I have only tried out for a few hours and is a lens I am considering purchasing in the future as a compliment to my 100-400 IS. My impression so far is that the 400 is sharper than the zoom at f/5.6 but by f/8 the two are so close that it is insignificant. Since I shoot a lot at f/5.6 this seems like a real benefit for me. The 400mm f/5.6 seems to handle very well and the AF is lightning fast (the other reason I am considering the lens). I can get almost as fast AF with my 100-400 though if I turn the IS off and set the limiter to 6.5m-inf. I tried the lens with a 1.4x II TC and taped pins and it appears to work better than my 100-400 does with the TC. Neither lens seem really great with the TC though. Overall I found the 400mm f/5.6 to be a very interesting lens and I am looking forward to trying it out more.
An interesting thing that I noticed about the 400mm f/5.6 was that at close focusing distances (its minimum is a seemingly long 3.5m compared to 1.8m for the 100-400) it appears to deliver higher magnification than the zoom does at the same distance. I think this has something to do with the focusing mechanism and the zoom�s ability to focus so close. It appears that the actual focal length of the 400 shortens some in order to achieve such a close minimum focusing distance. When focusing on distant objects the two lenses appear to have the same or very close to the same magnification.
Another lens that I am interested in is the Sigma 50-500. From what I have seen it can deliver good results and give a bit more focal length without using a teleconverter. I haven�t really tried it yet but it might be worth a look.
Tom
|
|
|
|
05/09/2005 07:21:03 AM · #7 |
your budget is rather low for a 400mm canon lens, the one I want is around $6000.
with your budget you really should consider other lenses, like the 50-500 sigma EX lens, I have tested it and it´s very good for $1000, much better then those lenses you have on your list, very close to the 100-400L IS in image quality but with the extra 100mm up and 50mm down, it´s light and handy, but fully extended it looks like the 600mm L f4 IS only black ;)
if I weren't ready to spend $6000 on a 400mm lens then the 50-500 is what I would get.
just my opinion, all the lenses on your list are f4+ so the 50-500 fits perfectly in your list even though it's SIGMA :) |
|
|
|
05/09/2005 07:40:14 AM · #8 |
Thanks Tom and Dan ... awesome info, just the help i need.
Things I've read, but don't know:
Sigma 50-500 focuses SLOOOOOOW
Canon 100-400 collects dust in the lens like a vaccuum cleaner |
|
|
|
05/09/2005 09:26:07 AM · #9 |
When the light is good enough, I have gotten decent shots handheld at 500mm with my Tamron 200-500. It doesn't focus as fast as USM but it's pretty sharp, especaially when stopped down off it's max aperture a bit. And I really like the 500mm reach.
|
|
|
|
05/09/2005 09:27:52 AM · #10 |
| last option looks the best to me. |
|
|
|
05/09/2005 09:33:40 AM · #11 |
The Sigma has HSM so my guess is that it couldn�t be that slow (not having tried one).
I don�t believe that the dust problem with the 100-400 is real. I have been using this lens for years and it has minimal dust inside of it and I haven�t noticed any increased rate of sensor dust collection with it either.
I wouldn�t let the "dust issue" scare you away.
I will also say that my biggest want with the 100-400 is more focal length. I was considering the 600mm f/4L IS for a while but I really am not thrilled about the idea of needing a tripod all the time.
Tom
|
|
|
|
05/09/2005 10:55:19 AM · #12 |
Canon 100-400 collects dust in the lens like a vaccuum cleaner
I hear this all the time and I don't think it is true. I've taken about 10000 pics with my 100-400L IS and I have no dust at all, nothing on the lens. Crystal Clean!! I shot all over laying on dirt road with cars driving by, in the rain, in the sand, in the wind everywhere birds go.
I would not buy this lens just because people say this.
Originally posted by hopper:
Thanks Tom and Dan ... awesome info, just the help i need.
Things I've read, but don't know:
Sigma 50-500 focuses SLOOOOOOW
Canon 100-400 collects dust in the lens like a vaccuum cleaner |
Message edited by author 2005-05-09 14:55:43. |
|
|
|
05/09/2005 11:49:24 AM · #13 |
| I have the 100-400 and have used it heavily at the motocross track shooting practice and races... my sensor has more dust than the lens. I wouldn't worry about this issue. |
|
