As a university student, money can sometimes be tight. As a university student interested in photography, travel and owning a coral reef tank, money can be extremely tight.
I've been eyeing the 40D as a step up from my XTi. However a few weeks ago I made the executive decision to upgrade my glass first... 70-300mm IS to 400mm f/5.6 L.
The lens has taken a while to get to me and so when it finally came I ran outside, despite the poor conditions, and got to shooting.
Now, none of these are fantastically exotic or technical, however they do prove to me that the lens is sharp. That's good enough for me for today.
I walked down to the lake (5 mins away) as you're pretty much guaranteed some birds to practice on. There isn't much variety yet as the water is largely still frozen and many of the open water areas aren't places you'd want to go...
Josh, FINALLY!! Congratulations! Your in the club, you've arrived.
Man you must be happy. I wouldn't worry about the compression loss and such. The runny nosed mallard is wonderful, you got a good one. Cheers to you and I'm looking forward to seeing more from you in future.
I recently made the same decision as you did, regarding my upgrade path to longer glass. I have used the 70-300mm IS for a while now, and I was uncertain about whether to upgrade to the 100-400mm or the 400mm Prime. I tried the zoom first, but I felt that it suffered from the same weaknesses as my 70-300mm IS, such as being too soft wide open at full zoom, and really needing the subject to fill the frame to get the sharpness I desire.
So the 100-400mm went back, and now I will be buying a 400mm prime (hopefully today!!!)
I still wouldn't mind a good zoom, but it will have to be next years purchase I think. By then we'll see how that new Sigma 150-500mm OS pans out.
Congratulations! I can easily understand your excitment!
natalia.atkins wrote:
I tried the zoom first, but I felt that it suffered from the same weaknesses as my 70-300mm IS, such as being too soft wide open at full zoom, and really needing the subject to fill the frame to get the sharpness I desire.
Cheers, natalia
My 400 f5.6 did not give sharper results than my 100-400.
100-400 at 400mm, wide open at f5.6, 1/800 sec. & ISO 1600:
Thanks Tim! I'm glad to be in the club. I know I've got some work to do if I want to even consider competing with some of the images posted around here. Though, I'm just going to have some fun with it and umm... find my inner birder
Glad you liked the colours Kandie! I was surprised at the vivid shades of purple and green these guys had... Is it just the time of the season?
As far as the 100-400mm vs. 400mm debate.... I read around and viewed a lot of images. Obviously both lenses are very sharp. In my case I would actually love the versatility of the zoom and the IS. However, in the end I decided to go prime for the potential gain in IQ and the supposedly faster AF. At any rate, by thinking I've got the right gear I'll only be able to blame myself for poor shots. My 70-300mm didn't quite seem sharp at 300 and I was worried I would feel the same with the 100-400mm..
Anyways, I'll pick up a 70-200mm to fill the need for a mid-range telephoto zoom.
Welcome to the 400 F/5.6 CLub. You have an awesome lens there. I like the shot of the mallard (#5) with the driping beak. Well done. The 400 is always moundted to my camera, you never know when a cool bird is going to show up in the back yard.
I have read of some ( undeterminable ) number of copies of the 100-400mm L being sharp wide open at 400mm, which is why I took a gamble and purchased one. Your copy looks terrific!!
But mine was not like your copy at all. Even stopped down to f/7.1, it was still soft at 400mm . USM in PS somewhat recovered the sharpness, but feather detail became so noisy and horrible. I have so much better results with savagely cropped pics from my 300mm f/4 L IS, where intricate feather detail is captured even when the bird only occupies only a small part of the frame.
Mine was a poor to so-so copy of the 100-400mm L , and I can't afford to gamble again like that. Although I returned it successfully to the retailer in the USA (from Australia), the excercise cost me $250 in custom fees. I could not afford to repeat this multiple times in hopes I will receive a `magical' copy eventually. In Australia the price is $2550 for a new copy, and that puts it out my price range. The worst part is even new it is just as likely to be a soft copy!
I agree its a great lens, if you get a decent copy. My main criticism is that quality control for this lens is poor, making it an expensive gamble for a birder, who needs the long end to be sharp, preferably wide open.
That is why we prime owners are obsessed with waders, hehe They walk in a nice , predictable direction, parallel to the photographer. This wader obsession becomes more pronounced as the prime focal length increases, of course.
Imagemaster wrote:
But then it can't go down from 400mm to 100mm in seconds. Of course, who would ever need to do that?
So the term "better" all depends on the circumstances.
Tony
Why are you hijacking this guys thread Tony? It had nothing to do with a 100-400 lens, He is happy with his 400, as he should be, so why are you posting 100-400 shots anyway? Why are you trying to rain on someones parade for your soapbox?
Congrats on a excellent choice of lens, especially when on a tight budget. I think you did right by spending your limited $$$ on glass rather than a body.
While I am a 100-400L user myself, I acknowledge that the 400L prime is a little sharper though probably less versatile. Lack of IS means good long lens technique is very important to bring out the best in this lens. The shots you posted are already showing the feather details etc but I'm sure you will soon learn to do even better.
Congrats on the new toy Josh! i'm sure you gonna have fun w it! 1st outing looks great! I bet it will only get better w time
Hope to see more from you!
GeneO wrote:
Why are you hijacking this guys thread Tony? It had nothing to do with a 100-400 lens, He is happy with his 400, as he should be, so why are you posting 100-400 shots anyway? Why are you trying to rain on someones parade for your soapbox?
mabidally wrote:
Congrats on a excellent choice of lens, especially when on a tight budget. I think you did right by spending your limited $$$ on glass rather than a body.
While I am a 100-400L user myself, I acknowledge that the 400L prime is a little sharper though probably less versatile. Lack of IS means good long lens technique is very important to bring out the best in this lens. The shots you posted are already showing the feather details etc but I'm sure you will soon learn to do even better.
Thanks! Yeah, this just might force me to figure all the techniques out... as I've seen pointed out before, most of those who praise IS, first learned to shoot without it.
