Imagemaster wrote:
Thanks, it is a Kenko DGX, which some say is sharper than the Canon.
First shot of the Purple Martin is a heavy crop.
Beautiful images, they demonstrate a master in technique also !
With apertures in the f8 to f11 how do you get such blurred background ? Is is a custom background set ?
safcraft wrote:
Beautiful images, they demonstrate a master in technique also !
With apertures in the f8 to f11 how do you get such blurred background ? Is is a custom background set ?
Thanks. It is the background as photographed. Since most of the shots were taken near MFD, and the backgrounds were far away, the result is a blurred background.
I owned a 70-300L for a while and decided to switch it out for the 100-400. I believe that the 70-300 is the better lens in all respects except for the lack of a tripod collar and shorter reach.
I shoot a lot in the wild so I almost always need more reach. If I was shooting perched birds or something all of the time from a staged area than I would probably go back to the 70-300.
molson wrote:
Well, the objective tests at SLRGear.com are pretty much in line with my observations, so at least Canon's duds are consistent.
One thing I've learned over the years is to not put too much stock in fanboy forum group "reviews" where all the people who have bought a particular piece of gear take turns trying to convince each other they made a great decision, because inevitably most of those people will have that same piece of gear up for sale a few months later.
SLRgear did a lot of weird things with their test and some of their remarks regarind tamron 70-300vc and canon 70-300 IS L and not L don't even make sense (in one case they appeared to directly compare test result raw numbers even though lenses were tested on bodies with very different MP).
Also don't forget that many of the people posting their findings here have owned the 70-200 f/4 IS and 70-300L at the same time.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Alas for me I do mainly find my 100-400L in the 300-400mm range, so 70-300 holds little interest. If I bought this, I then need to buy a 400 f/5.6L, so less portability than just keeping the 100-400L. Other than IS and weight, I see little to get excited about. Now if it had of been a 70-300 f/4 that would be different. Sure much heavier and expensive, but would make a nice 100-420 f/5.6.
Anyway I'm hanging out for a new 100-400L, but it doesn't really matter at this stage as the current version is so good.
same here, especially if the "MKII" upgrades double or triple the price I'm sticking with the old
One of my favorite things about the 100-400 is its cheap price on the used market. I bought mine for less than $1100 shipped. I think I would rather save up for the 500 f/4.
I owned both as well.
Loved the 70-300 as the IS was noticibly better and much faster AF
As Tony mentioned, it works great with the new Kenko 1.4TC (I have that as well)
I sold it to a friend who LOVES it (and spent that money on a bigger toy... )
Not sure if this lens is on your rader but I recently picked up a 70-300 DO and I am amazed at the IQ and AF on it. Carried it for 3 weeks in Asia and it spent most if its time on the MKIV.
Here are a few samples, some are cropped but overall I am keeping this lens for my next trip in Southern Paris and Italy next month.
Firefox, awesome critter
visited our kayak, didn't know monkeys could swim!
They called them Sea Eagles, maybe an Osprey? Cropped
could be, that pic was taken at the Steel Pier Classic in Virginia Beach this past May, 2012
He is listed in the competitions and winning some events.
But I'm more boogie boarding than surfing!
!
)
