ef 100mm-400mm

rockkeeper

rockkeeper

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,523
Name
chris
Edit My Images
Yes
thinking of selling mine off,and getting a lens that will go up to 2.8 , but what one, staying within the same range,i guess for birding/wildlife etc, but then not sure i need it atall,[birds in the garden all but gone]
 
Your only choice for 2.8 and 400mm is going to be a prime lens, there is only 1 zoom I could find
Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 EX DG = £14007.00

Yes you read it right £14K :eek:

400mm + f2.8 + Canon = £4718.03
300mm + f2.8 + Canon = £2865.53
300mm + f2.8 + Sigma = £1394.68
 
out of my range then,might look at 70-200 2.8,l

just wonder if it just sit in the backpack most of the time
 
I'd think seriously before you get the 70-200 2.8L IS. It's a great lens, but what you gain in speed you'll lose by being under-gunned for reach compared to the 100-400L. If the reach isn't so important then it's a good choice.
 
I'd think seriously before you get the 70-200 2.8L IS. It's a great lens, but what you gain in speed you'll lose by being under-gunned for reach compared to the 100-400L. If the reach isn't so important then it's a good choice
Click to expand...
thanks you, yes that the good thing about the 400mm, its good from 100mm,and its reach is good,

its just the f4.5 doesnt help with early morning shots, without pushing the iso up.

also how much for 100mm-400mm 86 model
 
There's some sort of threshold which is reached at 400mm and f/5.6. There are several ways of getting there for ~£1000; for example in the Canon range alone:
* 400mm f/5.6 L
* 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS
* 300mm f/4 L IS + 1.4x TC
* 200mm f/2.8 L + 2x TC
* 70-200mm f/2.8 L (IS) + 2x TC

But if you want to go longer, or if you want to get to 400mm faster than f/5.6, it's going to cost you big time.

I wonder whether it's because all the above use 77mm front elements, which are relatively common, but 400mm at f/4 obviously requires a 100mm or larger front element: harder to make, therefore more expensive, therefore less popular, therefore made in smaller numbers, therefore even more expensives, therefore even less popular ....
 
not sure what your saying, i have the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L IS
at 4.5 find bit dark without moving the iso up,
so might have to settle for lens 200-300 but 2.8 be it sigma or other

would having
* 200mm f/2.8 L + 2x TC
* 70-200mm f/2.8 L (IS) + 2x TC
the tc mean they too would drop to f4-f5 cos of the TC
 
The 2XTC costs you 2 full stops , so you'd be down to f5.6 max aperture, and IQ would really suffer. The 1.4TC is OK with the 70-200, but even then you need to stop down a stop or two before it begins to match the 100-400 for sharpness.
 
I'm amazed that the losing a stop thing is such an issue as todays latest cameras are running stunning high iso quality the extra stop is easily taken out of the equation surely or am I missing something big-time here. :shrug: I do understand the need for fast lenses with film and older digital cameras.
 
The 2XTC costs you 2 full stops , so you'd be down to f5.6 max aperture, and IQ would really suffer. The 1.4TC is OK with the 70-200, but even then you need to stop down a stop or two before it begins to match the 100-400 for sharpness.
Click to expand...

not really worth doing then, time ive added a tc to the 200, ill be back to /down 5.6 or lower.
I'm amazed that the losing a stop thing is such an issue as todays latest cameras are running stunning high iso quality the extra stop is easily taken out of the equation surely or am I missing something big-time here. I do understand the need for fast lenses with film and older digital cameras.
Click to expand...

well i like morning shots of birds etc but at iso 100-150 max ,dont like grian looking pics..
 
Ajophotog said:
I'm amazed that the losing a stop thing is such an issue as todays latest cameras are running stunning high iso quality the extra stop is easily taken out of the equation surely or am I missing something big-time here. :shrug: I do understand the need for fast lenses with film and older digital cameras.
Click to expand...

Would that it were that simple Alby. I just took a meter reading outside and I'm getting 1/40th at f4 at 1600 ISO. Waste of time even setting up with the 500mm f4 for birds shots. :shrug:

Despite all the fancy claims about high ISOs, it's still very visible in full res shots, it's not till you start to reduce image size that it begins to disappear, but even then with the amount of cropping usuually involved with bird shots, it seriously impacts IQ.
 
When Jan got interested in togging it was a good excuse for me to get a 70-200 2.8L IS, so we'd both have a reasonable tele lens for the likes of zoo visits. The deal was though, that she gets the 100-400L while I use the 70-200, and the bottom line is she seriously outguns me for reach on anything with any distance involved. :D

I know I keep saying it, but the 100-400L is great bang for your buck and probably the most useful walk about wildlife lens you're likely to find. The 70-200 is a great lens, but mine would go long before the 100-400. ;)
 
CT said:
I know I keep saying it, but the 100-400L is great bang for your buck and probably the most useful walk about wildlife lens you're likely to find. The 70-200 is a great lens, but mine would go long before the 100-400. ;)
Click to expand...

This man speaks the truth ;)
 
What about the Sigma 120-300 f2.8 that someone just mentioned in another thread?
 
dod said:
This man speaks the truth ;)
Click to expand...

I remember a judge or two who weren't entirely convinced of that Doddy.:p

It's horses for courses innit? The 70-200 is sharp and fast, but it was probably a bad choice for me with the wisdom of hindsight. I have got bird shots with it but they've been at about 5 or 6 feet and at 200mm. It's not easy getting that close, so it's probably rhe least used of my lenses. For street photography, and for wedding work it would be a great choice, but you can't have it both ways. :shrug:

I do think about selling it, but it's the cost of the alternative which puts me off. The Canon 300mm 2.8L IS is the obvious choice but it's mega bucks. I do have both converters to maximise it's use on the positive side.

The Sigma equivalent appeals for the money, but it lacks IS (I think) and I'd have to get the Sigma converters.
 
tis hard decission ,but the amount of bird work i do, not much ..
might be worth looking at sigma,
 
This Wren was taken with the 70-200 wide open, nice and sharp but still quite a crop and the range was about 5 feet.

-0007.jpg


This was with the 70-200 and 2X TC. IQ is pretty poor and the image doesn't stand looking at a lot larger than this.

OY8N7034-01.jpg


On the other hand this was at 400mm with the 100-400L and I doubt I've taken anything much sharper.

2930583313_91a85092cd_o.jpg
 
I too would stick with the 100-400. Every one I speak to who has sold theres, regrets it.

Cracking shots mind, CT
 
cheers for all the feedback,Cracking shots ct
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top