Well, I'm on my quest for the right "400" mm FL for my needs/desires. I've decided to begin with the versatile and affordable 100-400L. This is the 2nd copy of this lens I've really ever had more than mount and a couple shots experience. Though I've only taken a couple shots, but I'm pretty impressed both with and without the 1.4XII TC.
ChrisRD wrote:
It's a good lens and a good value for sure. I wish they'd update this one and do their '70-200/2.8 II IS magic' to it...I'd buy one in a minute!
isn't that what the new 200-400 w/ built in converter is suppose to be?
I've been pleased with mine. Any updates that bump the price by $1200 more or less might not be worth the cost for a incremental gain. Be careful what you wish for, it might bite you in the pocketbook
datousteve wrote:
isn't that what the new 200-400 w/ built in converter is suppose to be?
With the new 70-300L out and the 200-400 coming some have speculated that, but I hope that's not the case. IMO the 200-400 is a totally different price range, size, weight, etc...I'd put that zoom more in the super tele category...not very easy to carry (or afford) for travel, trips to the zoo, etc. 300mm is often just too short for birds/wildlife so IMO the 70-300 doesn't really fill the role either.
Reno, my 100-400L is my first true lens love, but since I got a 70-200L II, I am trying to justify keeping the 100-400L vs. getting a 2X TC for the 70-200 to put some $$$ back in my pocket and dealing with slower AF, similar IQ, but better IS.
I just haven't been able to pull the trigger. To much of a wuss...
Reno, I know you've been looking for a long focal-length solution for a while, and I think the 100-400 may fill the bill...its versatility and IS rank it higher in my eyes than the 400 f/5.6, even though the conventional wisdom gives the 400 higher marks in IQ. I have regularly considered selling my 100-400 to help finance a "big white", but I just couldn't do it; for travel, for the kayak, for long hiking, there's just no substitute. I often want to select just a small aspect of the landscape, and the wider 100mm end is perfect (for example, your icy forest road above). When I rented a 400 5.6 to try it out, it was definitely suited for BIF shots - a lot better than my skills - so the vast majority of my birds are perched, and the lack of IS showed there...
I'll be interested to hear of your experience after you try and compare the 400 f/5.6...
reno.peterson wrote:
I definitely plan to put this lens through some rigorous use over the 10 days it's in my posession on both bodies and with the 1.4XII TC on my 1DII. (Battery shots, that's the reason it was f/8).
A couple of shots, again, just goofin with a couple things round the house...Nothing too in depth today, but...
Ah, I didn't catch you had a TC on. Those look pretty decent.
