Why are you Yanks getting so vexed about the term "wanna be"? You defined the term in the first place from the phrase "want to be" (just as you have screwed up most of the English language with your appalling slang.)
Now, if I said "I wanna be" President of the United States, does that make me an @rsehole? - O.K. don't answer that. But if I said "I wanna be" the head of NASA is that a derogatory term or phrase?
From a nation that includes some of the rudest people on this earth (mostly on DPR) and who have insulted just about every other nationality, I find this pre-occupation with "rudeness" a trifle worrying.
Apologies to all you lovely, friendly, sensible and intellectual Yanks - I do not want to make a "blanket comment", but Jeez I do wonder about some of you. Maybe you really don't understand English at all?
M Vers wrote:
And BTW, is that even serious!? Keith's image clearly shows better IQ, exposure and renders a hell of a lot more detail than your shot of the Stonechat...and its a tighter crop!
PetKal wrote:
Methinks that those who can't shoot the combo 400 f/5.6+1.4xTC handheld without IS, or require a pod, are probably some kinda mama's boys or girly men.
perhaps if you posted an image worth posting I'd be a bit easier on you, but since you have a undeserving sense of pride and confidence (both false, in this case, BTW) and would like to call other fellow photogs out with a childish comment such as "I think that my image is better" I felt the need to voice my opinion. Keith's image is better in the sense that it renders more detail and is better exposed (on my freshly calibrated monitor)--it doesn't take an optometrist to figure it out. And that's regardless of the crop/FOV/Distance to subject/etc etc. And somehow, you still seem blind to the initial argument and the facts that support it. Then again, If Colin doesn't find something useful--it must not be...we're all living a lie.
PetKal wrote:
Whenever I shoot the 100-400 +1.4xTC combo handheld , I feel it behooves me to turn the IS off, being a real man that I am. Still get OK sharpness that way.
Hey PetKal, Just out of curiosity what was your shutter speeds for the two samples posted? Serious question--no ill intention. Also, do you believe IS is a helpful tool when shooting at slow shutter speeds without a tripod? If so, would it get you images you couldn't otherwise have gotten?
M Vers wrote:
As I stated prior, modern IS systems are now cheaper to produce and while many still have the notion that it adversely affects IQ and weight that notion is simply wrong.
...
If you honestly believe Canon will not update or replace the 16 year old 400/5.6 with an IS variant (be it f/5.6 or f/4--which there is, just not in production) in the near future I'm sorry to say you are being a bit naive.
1. I didn't say Canon wouldn't produce it. Stop frothing at the mouth, and read slower.
2. If YOU honestly believe that adding (hell-doubling) the number of air/glass interfaces in the 400 5.6 will NOT affect image quality (unless-as I stated, they use better glass, etc), then YOU are naive.
I'm sorry Skidoo...perhaps I should have been more clear in my post. That question was a general question, not something that I was specifically directing towards you. As for adding glass elements and IS systems without sacrificing IQ, it has been done, so what is there to be naive about? Again, the 70-200/4IS is pretty sharp, as is the 17-55IS, 18-55IS, 70-300IS, 200/2IS, 300/4IS, 300/2.8IS, 400/2.8IS, 500/4IS, 600/4IS, 800/5.6IS--could they be sharper? Possibly. Is it negligible? Yes.
PetKal wrote:
I do believe that electronic tripod aka IS upgrade is a good thing as long as it does not take away from the intrinsic lens IQ. Unfortunately, I believe that bad scenario did happen with the 300 f/4.....that's why I had to go back to the old non-IS version after trying the new IS lens.
Right, but then again the 300/4IS (while still a very capable lens) has an older IS system implemented--1997 was when the lens was released. Would you agree that this technology has come a long way since then? Would you also agree that while many believe current IS systems negatively affect IQ that would be a bad assumption?
It's unfortunate they dropped the non-IS 300 f/4 when they came out with the IS version. I always thought IS should be an option, not a requirement in any lens especially since some of us tend to live with a tripod where IS is only used as extra center of gravity.
M Vers wrote:
Right, but then again the 300/4IS (while still a very capable lens) has an older IS system implemented--1997 was when the lens was released. Would you agree that this technology has come a long way since then? Would you also agree that while many believe current IS systems negatively affect IQ that would be a bad assumption?
I wouldn't neccessarily call it a bad assumption, I'd say that we've had precedents for that happening (i.e., 70-200 f/2.8 IS, 300 f/4 IS) so one tends to be cautious. Granted, we also had a recent reversal of that where the 70-200 f/4 IS is probably a better lens optically than the f/4 non-IS.
PetKal wrote:
I wouldn't neccessarily call it a bad assumption, I'd say that we've had precedents for that happening (i.e., 70-200 f/2.8 IS, 300 f/4 IS) so one tends to be cautious. Granted, we also had a recent reversal of that where the 70-200 f/4 IS is probably a better lens optically than the f/4 non-IS.
Precedents are in the past and whats past is past. The future of IS is the 70-200/4IS, it is the 17-55IS and the 200/2IS. That's the point. No lens since the 100-400/300/70-200 2.8 (which I think are great pieces of glass) have shown any negative affects due to the implementation of IS--in fact its just the opposite.
Colin Key wrote:
Why are you Yanks getting so vexed about the term "wanna be"? You defined the term in the first place from the phrase "want to be" (just as you have screwed up most of the English language with your appalling slang.)
Colin
I personally don't like being called a "Yank". I'm a "Texan" and don't like being referred to anything associated to a "Yankee"
I really like the 400 f/5.6L and have gotten good results with it handheld with a 1.4x TC attached but I have gotten good results with a 100-400 using IS as well.
IMOP Keith's examples with the 100-400 are an improvement over any example you have posted so far with the 400 f/5.6L. I'm not saying the 100-400 is better than the 400 f/5.6L but it is in comparison with your examples and his.
Colin Key wrote:
It is the elegant simplicity of this lens and its lightning fast AF which make it a "winner". Adding IS would, in my opinion, ruin it.
Actually, IS does not make AF any slower. Compare the AF speed of 70-200f2.8L and the IS model. If anything, the IS model is slightly faster.
What would make the AF slower on the 400f5.6L if/when the MFD would be decreased. The two 70-200's have about the same MFD, so no difference there.
Keith's image clearly shows better IQ, exposure and renders a hell of a lot more detail than your shot of the Stonechat...and its a tighter crop!
