This topic is in the 2004 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2004photos from 100-400 IS
p.2 #1photos from 100-400 IS
How does the 70-200 compare with the 100-400 in terms of sharpness and focusing?
I am quite bent on the f/2.8 for the 70-200.
I am quite bent on the f/2.8 for the 70-200.
Aug 27, 2004 at 07:44 PM
p.2 #2photos from 100-400 IS
These images are excellent, but I would get the 70-200 mm IS F2.8 and I wish I had it...
Aug 27, 2004 at 07:54 PM
p.2 #3photos from 100-400 IS
Sheesh, you guys are making we want to get out the 100-400 and dust it off...
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
Aug 27, 2004 at 08:05 PM
p.2 #4photos from 100-400 IS
pricepolice wrote:
How does the 70-200 compare with the 100-400 in terms of sharpness and focusing?
I am quite bent on the f/2.8 for the 70-200.
IMO the 70-200 2.8/IS is perhaps just a bit better with focus and sharpness, although it's very close. But it's just too short for much of the photography that I like to do....
How does the 70-200 compare with the 100-400 in terms of sharpness and focusing?
I am quite bent on the f/2.8 for the 70-200.
IMO the 70-200 2.8/IS is perhaps just a bit better with focus and sharpness, although it's very close. But it's just too short for much of the photography that I like to do....
Aug 27, 2004 at 08:26 PM
p.2 #5photos from 100-400 IS
I just sent my 100-400 in for servicing yesterday. It was softer than my 750-300 IS which I never use and shouldn't even be close..
Aug 27, 2004 at 08:35 PM
p.2 #6photos from 100-400 IS
I use the 100-400 mainly for aviation images here are a couple of samples.
Approx 300mm
@400mm
More can be found on my website
Macks Aviation Photography
Approx 300mm
 |
||
| http://aviation.macksphotography.com/RIAT_AS/SuperHornet_001.jpg | ||
|
@400mm
|
||
| http://aviation.macksphotography.com/RIAT_AS/SuperHornet_004.jpg | ||
|
More can be found on my website
Macks Aviation Photography
Aug 27, 2004 at 10:12 PM
p.2 #7photos from 100-400 IS
This one at 275 mm s 640 f/11 iso 400
|
||
| http://w1.216.telia.com/~u21603661/crw_3302_std.jpg | ||
|
Aug 28, 2004 at 01:11 AM
p.2 #8photos from 100-400 IS
this may be a dumb question but does this lens feature "internal focusing" or does it extend when zooming in/out? Also, does this lens incorporate the same type of IS (type 2??) as in 70-200 2.8 IS?
Aug 28, 2004 at 03:42 AM
p.2 #9photos from 100-400 IS
Rather than get this lens why not go for the 70-200 2.8 'L' with a 1.4TC. The Lens is MUCH better than the 100-400 even with the TC on it. A cheaper 70-200 F4 version is also possible and will deliver very high quality.
A big problem with the 100-400 type of zoom is that it is a push pull type --i.e you don't rotate the lens for focal length you push it in and out like using a telescope.
The push pull can also get loose so it's difficult to maintain the focal length stably.
Cheers
-K
A big problem with the 100-400 type of zoom is that it is a push pull type --i.e you don't rotate the lens for focal length you push it in and out like using a telescope.
The push pull can also get loose so it's difficult to maintain the focal length stably.
Cheers
-K
Aug 28, 2004 at 03:52 AM
p.2 #10photos from 100-400 IS
Sun bear at the Perth zoo. 235mm, F/4.5, ISO800. Post processing: saturation boost and sharpening. No noise reduction applied. Proof that image stabilisation works!
http://www.pbase.com/image/30455571/original.jpg
And a 100% crop:
http://www.pbase.com/image/33097968/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/30455571/original.jpg
And a 100% crop:
http://www.pbase.com/image/33097968/original.jpg
Aug 28, 2004 at 04:06 AM
p.2 #11photos from 100-400 IS
kyle wrote:
Rather than get this lens why not go for the 70-200 2.8 'L' with a 1.4TC. The Lens is MUCH better than the 100-400 even with the TC on it. A cheaper 70-200 F4 version is also possible and will deliver very high quality.
A big problem with the 100-400 type of zoom is that it is a push pull type --i.e you don't rotate the lens for focal length you push it in and out like using a telescope.
The push pull can also get loose so it's difficult to maintain the focal length stably.
Cheers
-K
Kyle,
I have both the 70-200 IS and the 100-400. I'll agree that the 70-200 does subtly better than the 100-400 below 200, but the 70-200 with a 1.4x is marginally worse than the 100-400, and the 70-200 with a 2x is significantly worse than the 100-400. Also, the 70-200 is about 1/2 pound heavier, even without a TC and slightly longer than the 100-400 (contracted). Also, the push-pull on the 100-400 does have a locking ring, and, whether or not you
like the design, it does a good job of maintaining focal length stability.
The bottom line is that, if I could only have 1 of these 2 lenses, if I were doing most of my shooting below 200mm and never needed anything at 400, I would definitely get the 70-200. However, if the much of my shooting was going to be beyond 200 or if any of it needed to be at 400, my choice would be the 100-400.
Les
Rather than get this lens why not go for the 70-200 2.8 'L' with a 1.4TC. The Lens is MUCH better than the 100-400 even with the TC on it. A cheaper 70-200 F4 version is also possible and will deliver very high quality.
A big problem with the 100-400 type of zoom is that it is a push pull type --i.e you don't rotate the lens for focal length you push it in and out like using a telescope.
The push pull can also get loose so it's difficult to maintain the focal length stably.
Cheers
-K
Kyle,
I have both the 70-200 IS and the 100-400. I'll agree that the 70-200 does subtly better than the 100-400 below 200, but the 70-200 with a 1.4x is marginally worse than the 100-400, and the 70-200 with a 2x is significantly worse than the 100-400. Also, the 70-200 is about 1/2 pound heavier, even without a TC and slightly longer than the 100-400 (contracted). Also, the push-pull on the 100-400 does have a locking ring, and, whether or not you
like the design, it does a good job of maintaining focal length stability.
The bottom line is that, if I could only have 1 of these 2 lenses, if I were doing most of my shooting below 200mm and never needed anything at 400, I would definitely get the 70-200. However, if the much of my shooting was going to be beyond 200 or if any of it needed to be at 400, my choice would be the 100-400.
Les
Aug 28, 2004 at 05:59 AM
p.2 #12photos from 100-400 IS
Here's some of my shots of 100-400 with the 500D closeup diopter. It makes a nice near-macro setup as well with 0.93x magnification at 400mm FL:
#1
http://www.galant-ho.com/download/dragon1.jpg
#2
http://www.galant-ho.com/download/dragon2.jpg
#3 (0.93x magnification at 400mm)
http://www.galant-ho.com/download/dragon-close.jpg
#4 (this one without the 500D)
http://www.galant-ho.com/download/grass1.jpg
Edited by nutek on Aug 28, 2004 at 06:04 PM GMT
#1
http://www.galant-ho.com/download/dragon1.jpg
#2
http://www.galant-ho.com/download/dragon2.jpg
#3 (0.93x magnification at 400mm)
http://www.galant-ho.com/download/dragon-close.jpg
#4 (this one without the 500D)
http://www.galant-ho.com/download/grass1.jpg
Edited by nutek on Aug 28, 2004 at 06:04 PM GMT
Aug 28, 2004 at 06:58 AM
p.2 #13photos from 100-400 IS
The push-pull design of the 100-400 scares a lot of people but it did not take me 2 days to get used to it.
It is a very nice lens - which has its compromises - but nothing matches its flexibility to cost to quality ratio.
I use it in the mountains, when I can not carry more than 1 lens - it serves as wildlife / landscape lens all in one and does a great job at both.
Of course I'd rather have a 135 f:2 and a 300f:2.8 IS but at 14,000 feet I just can't carry those.
I also have the 70-200; it is just not as versatile. Better image quality for sure (not with the 1.4 conv though) but 200mm is often too short for my shooting style.On the other hand it is my favorite landscape lens.
Here are a few from those past 2 summers all shot w/ the 100-400
http://fredericbeudot.home.comcast.net/FM/elk1.jpg
http://fredericbeudot.home.comcast.net/FM/goat1.jpg
http://fredericbeudot.home.comcast.net/images/baby1.jpg
http://fredericbeudot.home.comcast.net/images/BHS1.jpg
It is a very nice lens - which has its compromises - but nothing matches its flexibility to cost to quality ratio.
I use it in the mountains, when I can not carry more than 1 lens - it serves as wildlife / landscape lens all in one and does a great job at both.
Of course I'd rather have a 135 f:2 and a 300f:2.8 IS but at 14,000 feet I just can't carry those.
I also have the 70-200; it is just not as versatile. Better image quality for sure (not with the 1.4 conv though) but 200mm is often too short for my shooting style.On the other hand it is my favorite landscape lens.
Here are a few from those past 2 summers all shot w/ the 100-400
http://fredericbeudot.home.comcast.net/FM/elk1.jpg
http://fredericbeudot.home.comcast.net/FM/goat1.jpg
http://fredericbeudot.home.comcast.net/images/baby1.jpg
http://fredericbeudot.home.comcast.net/images/BHS1.jpg
Aug 28, 2004 at 07:02 AM
p.2 #14photos from 100-400 IS
KIDERAL wrote:
I just sent my 100-400 in for servicing yesterday. It was softer than my 750-300 IS which I never use and shouldn't even be close..
I sent my 100-400 in for servicing the other day too. The IS was bust so they replaced the IS and re-calibrated the lens. Formally pretty sharp, N\now its soft or not focusing correctly
. Back it goes as soon as I can characterize the problem in more detail. Glad I bought that 400/5.6 as partner for it.
Good luck on yours.
Gene
I just sent my 100-400 in for servicing yesterday. It was softer than my 750-300 IS which I never use and shouldn't even be close..
I sent my 100-400 in for servicing the other day too. The IS was bust so they replaced the IS and re-calibrated the lens. Formally pretty sharp, N\now its soft or not focusing correctly
. Back it goes as soon as I can characterize the problem in more detail. Glad I bought that 400/5.6 as partner for it. Good luck on yours.
Gene
Aug 28, 2004 at 07:11 AM
p.2 #15photos from 100-400 IS
Nill Toulme wrote:
Sheesh, you guys are making we want to get out the 100-400 and dust it off...
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
No, no! If you haven't used it in a week or two, you obviously don't need it! So you ought to sell it to me for... oh, about $700?
Sheesh, you guys are making we want to get out the 100-400 and dust it off...
Nill
~~
www.toulme.net
No, no! If you haven't used it in a week or two, you obviously don't need it! So you ought to sell it to me for... oh, about $700?
Aug 28, 2004 at 07:29 AM
p.2 #16photos from 100-400 IS
I love this lens a lot for its versatility and image quality.
here is at 100mm
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v432/nponto/Landscape/GoldenTriangle3.jpg
And this one at 400mm
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v432/nponto/Nature%20and%20Wildlife/6f3295af.jpg
Best luck to you with whatever you choose
here is at 100mm
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v432/nponto/Landscape/GoldenTriangle3.jpg
And this one at 400mm
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v432/nponto/Nature%20and%20Wildlife/6f3295af.jpg
Best luck to you with whatever you choose
Aug 28, 2004 at 09:29 AM
p.2 #17photos from 100-400 IS
Yesterday was the first time I used this lens that was recently bought in this forum. Actually, it was my first time using my 1dMk2 outdoor for some 'real' shooitng too. Got a few images I like:
Dragonfly (1/1600s f/8.0 at 400.0mm iso320):
http://www.pbase.com/image/33089988/original.jpg
Spruce Grouse (1/160s f/5.6 at 400.0mm iso400):
http://www.pbase.com/image/33089990/original.jpg
Both shots were shot handheld and almost full frame with minimum cropping for composition. I am very happy with the lens, especially this was the first time I used it and got nice results like this.
Dragonfly (1/1600s f/8.0 at 400.0mm iso320):
http://www.pbase.com/image/33089988/original.jpg
Spruce Grouse (1/160s f/5.6 at 400.0mm iso400):
http://www.pbase.com/image/33089990/original.jpg
Both shots were shot handheld and almost full frame with minimum cropping for composition. I am very happy with the lens, especially this was the first time I used it and got nice results like this.
Aug 28, 2004 at 01:16 PM
p.2 #18photos from 100-400 IS
Here's one taken a year and a half ago with a 1D and a 100-400 including their 1.4x Teleconverter wide open.
http://www.pbase.com/image/6289732/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/6289732/original.jpg
Aug 28, 2004 at 01:31 PM
p.2 #19photos from 100-400 IS
kyle wrote:
Rather than get this lens why not go for the 70-200 2.8 'L' with a 1.4TC. The Lens is MUCH better than the 100-400 even with the TC on it. A cheaper 70-200 F4 version is also possible and will deliver very high quality.
A big problem with the 100-400 type of zoom is that it is a push pull type --i.e you don't rotate the lens for focal length you push it in and out like using a telescope.
The push pull can also get loose so it's difficult to maintain the focal length stably.
Cheers
-K
Gordon Bennet (a UK expression probably!) - if it produces sharper photos than these you would cut your hands on it!
Rather than get this lens why not go for the 70-200 2.8 'L' with a 1.4TC. The Lens is MUCH better than the 100-400 even with the TC on it. A cheaper 70-200 F4 version is also possible and will deliver very high quality.
A big problem with the 100-400 type of zoom is that it is a push pull type --i.e you don't rotate the lens for focal length you push it in and out like using a telescope.
The push pull can also get loose so it's difficult to maintain the focal length stably.
Cheers
-K
Gordon Bennet (a UK expression probably!) - if it produces sharper photos than these you would cut your hands on it!
Aug 28, 2004 at 01:37 PM
p.2 #20photos from 100-400 IS
you people love him, I can tell.
I am so overwhelm, I am taken back by so much information.
I think I need a few hours to review all of these pictures/comments before
making any final decisions.
I am so overwhelm, I am taken back by so much information.
I think I need a few hours to review all of these pictures/comments before
making any final decisions.
Aug 28, 2004 at 01:56 PM