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.

C&C welcome and appreciated.

Here's what today brought me..

-Josh

1

Hmm... they've lost some sharpness on the conversion/compression here...

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.

Tim

I LOVED the Colors on the Pigeons.. Beautiful!

Good choice of lens. For flight shots you can't go wrong. I'll probably sell my 300 F4 and buy the same lens.

Looking forward to more posts.

Jim

Beautiful Pics Josh, especially the Pigeons!

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!

Cheers, natalia

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:

100-400 at 560mm (Tamron 1.4x TC), f8, 1/400 sec. & ISO 800:

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.

Thanks again everyone...

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.

ken

Hello Imagemaster,

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.

PS. I really love your pics! They are superb!

Good choice Josh. And a nice start with it. It is better than the 100-400

Gene

GeneO wrote:
Good choice Josh. And a nice start with it. It is better than the 100-400

Gene

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

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.

Just kidding

Imagemaster wrote:

But then it can't go down from 400mm to 100mm in seconds. Of course, who would ever need to do that?

Tony

Hmmm? Nice comment sir. I say that with all respect.
Tim

Imagemaster wrote:
GeneO wrote:
Good choice Josh. And a nice start with it. It is better than the 100-400

Gene

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?

I notice your shots are at 400 or 560mm, not 100.

Gene

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:
Imagemaster wrote:
GeneO wrote:
Good choice Josh. And a nice start with it. It is better than the 100-400

Gene

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?

I notice your shots are at 400 or 560mm, not 100.

Gene


Haha... ah well, it's all good

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.

Thanks Nello! I just may upload a lot of pics... even if they aren't my best.. sorry in advance everyone.

I don't know that there's that much difference in IQ with the 400 f/5.6 and the
100 - 400 IS. I have both and find the 100 - 400 is the lens I use on my second camera. I Usually have the Mark III and 500 IS with 1.4x tripod mounted and the Mark II N and 100-400 IS around my neck. The 400 f/5.6 is a dust collector for me. Your mileage may vary I just find having the zoom so much nicer. The 400 Prime does focus a little faster > But were not talking enough to make me want to give up my zoom.

Good luck and good shooting > Either way you've got a great lens to shoot with

Anthony Whitmo

Man guys ,
let him enjoy his first L lens in peace!
Just because you feel insecure about yourself because YOU dont have the 400 5.6 that does not mean we need to post a slew of 100-400 images to prove it can take good pictures 2!

Oh and about the L thing...dont you love that smell when you first open the padded case it comes in for the first time...You cant own just one :-)