This topic is in the 2004 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2004400mm arena
p.1 #1400mm arena
Which is the best lens at 400mm?
I've seen this question many times, and I've asked this question myself manytimes. And I don't think there is a correct answer for it. One has to select the lens to suit his own requirement!
Each lens has its own uniqueness, what I want from all of you to post the photot you think that most demonstrate its own beauty/strength.
All lens, with any kind of TCs are ok, as long as the focal length is close to 400mm, such as 400/2.8, 400/5.6, 300/4 + 1.4x. 300/2.8+1.4x, 200 + 2x, 100-400 and so on.
I'd like to you challenge others, for example,
"look at the bokeh of this, no other lens can do it"
"see how sharp it is, no other lens even come close"
"this thing is fly at xx miles per second, can your focus this fast?"
"this is only possible when I handhold it, no way to use tripod here!"
..
Let me start with a 100-400 shot. Not that good, but
"It was done at 1/30s speed, non-IS lens will have a hard time here!
http://www.pbase.com/jxsq/image/37582641.jpg
---
this is mean to have some fun, and enjoy other's great work. So don't take it too serious on your choice, I am sure that was a correct one.
Edited by jxsq on Dec 17, 2004 at 03:17 PM GMT
I've seen this question many times, and I've asked this question myself manytimes. And I don't think there is a correct answer for it. One has to select the lens to suit his own requirement!
Each lens has its own uniqueness, what I want from all of you to post the photot you think that most demonstrate its own beauty/strength.
All lens, with any kind of TCs are ok, as long as the focal length is close to 400mm, such as 400/2.8, 400/5.6, 300/4 + 1.4x. 300/2.8+1.4x, 200 + 2x, 100-400 and so on.
I'd like to you challenge others, for example,
"look at the bokeh of this, no other lens can do it"
"see how sharp it is, no other lens even come close"
"this thing is fly at xx miles per second, can your focus this fast?"
"this is only possible when I handhold it, no way to use tripod here!"
..
Let me start with a 100-400 shot. Not that good, but
"It was done at 1/30s speed, non-IS lens will have a hard time here!
http://www.pbase.com/jxsq/image/37582641.jpg
---
this is mean to have some fun, and enjoy other's great work. So don't take it too serious on your choice, I am sure that was a correct one.
Edited by jxsq on Dec 17, 2004 at 03:17 PM GMT
Dec 17, 2004 at 05:07 PM
p.1 #2400mm arena
taken with the tamron 200-400mm 5.6. At 400mm
I apologize for the size, i'm at work so I had to steal this from my site.
I apologize for the size, i'm at work so I had to steal this from my site.
Dec 17, 2004 at 05:11 PM
p.1 #3400mm arena
whoops, I just read your post... I dont think there is anything special about this shot. It was just one I had at 400mm.
Dec 17, 2004 at 05:19 PM
p.1 #4400mm arena
Thanks Troy, it IS a good shot!
How is this lens? What is your findings after use it?
How is this lens? What is your findings after use it?
Dec 17, 2004 at 05:31 PM
p.1 #5400mm arena
This is a little beyond 400mm, but shows what a 300 f4 with a 2X is capable of:
https://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting/data//3697/27146GBH3__.jpg
https://www.fredmiranda.com/hosting/data//3697/27146GBH3__.jpg
Dec 17, 2004 at 05:31 PM
p.1 #6400mm arena
jxsq wrote:
Thanks Troy, it IS a good shot!
How is this lens? What is your findings after use it?
To be honest, I am dissapointed with this lens. But to be even more honest, I bought it before I even knew about L glass
.
Its pretty heavy, slow AF, not that sharp. but, it doesnt cost that much, and you get some decent reach. With the right settings the pictures can be good.
Thanks Troy, it IS a good shot!
How is this lens? What is your findings after use it?
To be honest, I am dissapointed with this lens. But to be even more honest, I bought it before I even knew about L glass
.Its pretty heavy, slow AF, not that sharp. but, it doesnt cost that much, and you get some decent reach. With the right settings the pictures can be good.
Dec 17, 2004 at 05:56 PM
p.1 #7400mm arena
How do you figure in the 1.6 crop factor? At 1.6 a 300 is 480. Do you count that as around 400?
Dec 17, 2004 at 07:00 PM
p.1 #8400mm arena
I guess I didn't think about the crop factor. So as long the lens part is 400mm that'd be ok.
This is just for fun, not mean to be scientific, so I guess any crop factor will do. Anything that is close to 400 will also do.
This is just for fun, not mean to be scientific, so I guess any crop factor will do. Anything that is close to 400 will also do.
Dec 17, 2004 at 07:33 PM
p.1 #9400mm arena
This is with the 100-400. People either love or hate this lens. Count me in the
"love it" category. Mine does not have any sharpness issues that I can see.
Les
"love it" category. Mine does not have any sharpness issues that I can see.
Les
Dec 17, 2004 at 08:38 PM
p.1 #10400mm arena
I don't think you can beat a prime for sharpness if you only shoot at the far end. But, I love the versatility of the 100-400L. The Turkey Vulture was flying right over my head and I had to pull back to get him in the frame.
http://www.pbase.com/markswheels/image/27516502/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/markswheels/image/27516480/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/markswheels/image/27115233/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/markswheels/image/36786396/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/markswheels/image/27516502/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/markswheels/image/27516480/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/markswheels/image/27115233/original.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/markswheels/image/36786396/original.jpg
Dec 17, 2004 at 09:20 PM
p.1 #12400mm arena
Here's one from the 400L f5.6.............
20D - 1/100 sec - f5.6 - iso 800.........on a monopod
http://www.pbase.com/rollcast/image/36937771.jpg
20D - 1/100 sec - f5.6 - iso 800.........on a monopod
http://www.pbase.com/rollcast/image/36937771.jpg
Dec 17, 2004 at 11:19 PM
p.1 #13400mm arena
Canon 400mm f5.6 lens
Focal length: 400.0 mm
1/2000 sec, f/8
ISO: 200
Focal length: 400.0 mm
1/2000 sec, f/8
ISO: 200
 |
||
| http://www.tetch.com/pix/oregon/crater/img_2380e_std.jpg | ||
|
Dec 17, 2004 at 11:23 PM
The Big Bad
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.1 #14400mm arena
The answer of course is the 400 2.8 IS. In terms of bokeh, image quality, color and contrast nothing else can beat it.
100-400, nice but no 2.8 bokeh, not the sharpest lens but still pretty good for a zoom
70-200 with 2x, ehh.. 2x really kills this lens, works pretty nice with a 1.4x though
300 f4 with 1.4x, pretty good, but the TC is still degrading things, bokeh isnt as nice as a 2.8 either
400 5.6, nice but its 5.6 so your missing out on some bokeh and the faster lens can of course be stopped down where they really shine
400 f4 DO, havent used in person but its just simply not "the best" good if you need the light weight with decent speed though. My pick if I only shot wildlife
300 2.8 with 1.4x, still pretty sharp, loses very little with TC but the bokeh isnt as nice due to the TC
So there you go....
Of course keep in mind that each of these lens all have their own given strengths and those are usually worth a good bit more than just the image quality alone
100-400, nice but no 2.8 bokeh, not the sharpest lens but still pretty good for a zoom
70-200 with 2x, ehh.. 2x really kills this lens, works pretty nice with a 1.4x though
300 f4 with 1.4x, pretty good, but the TC is still degrading things, bokeh isnt as nice as a 2.8 either
400 5.6, nice but its 5.6 so your missing out on some bokeh and the faster lens can of course be stopped down where they really shine
400 f4 DO, havent used in person but its just simply not "the best" good if you need the light weight with decent speed though. My pick if I only shot wildlife
300 2.8 with 1.4x, still pretty sharp, loses very little with TC but the bokeh isnt as nice due to the TC
So there you go....
Of course keep in mind that each of these lens all have their own given strengths and those are usually worth a good bit more than just the image quality alone
Dec 18, 2004 at 12:35 AM
p.1 #15400mm arena
100-400IS on D30
400mm, f/5.6, 1/125s, ISO800
any bluriness is due to the D30's sensor not being able to resolve the fine hairs, and also because of my poor technique, not the lens
Orang Utan's Love
Explanation (as requested):
Taken in the Singapore Zoo under drizzle conditions, which also explains why the fur of the orang-utan is rather damp-looking The 100-400 is the only lens I have that reaches to 400mm, no money for other lenses ;p
IS saved the day because the shutter speed was 1/125 (>2 stops from minimum hand-held shutter speed) and I was already at an unacceptable ISO800. But when viewed at 100%, there is noticeable hand-shake. When down-sized and resharpened for the web, much of the blurriness is gone, but you can still see that the entire image is not as sharp as it can be, even wide-open at f5.6. This shows technique is more important than lens... so go train your technique rather than buy a better lens...
Extrapolation:
For maximum versatility, use a zoom. Could I have gotten a better picture with a 400 f/5.6 or even a 400 f/2.8? Possibly, but that would mean I'll be missing out on all the other great photo-opportunities at closer range, assuming I do not have a shorter telephoto lens. A prime is best when you KNOW your subject matter very well; for all other purposes, there's always the zoom
Edited by nutek on Dec 19, 2004 at 12:27 AM GMT
400mm, f/5.6, 1/125s, ISO800
any bluriness is due to the D30's sensor not being able to resolve the fine hairs, and also because of my poor technique, not the lens
Orang Utan's Love
Explanation (as requested):
Taken in the Singapore Zoo under drizzle conditions, which also explains why the fur of the orang-utan is rather damp-looking The 100-400 is the only lens I have that reaches to 400mm, no money for other lenses ;p
IS saved the day because the shutter speed was 1/125 (>2 stops from minimum hand-held shutter speed) and I was already at an unacceptable ISO800. But when viewed at 100%, there is noticeable hand-shake. When down-sized and resharpened for the web, much of the blurriness is gone, but you can still see that the entire image is not as sharp as it can be, even wide-open at f5.6. This shows technique is more important than lens... so go train your technique rather than buy a better lens...
Extrapolation:
For maximum versatility, use a zoom. Could I have gotten a better picture with a 400 f/5.6 or even a 400 f/2.8? Possibly, but that would mean I'll be missing out on all the other great photo-opportunities at closer range, assuming I do not have a shorter telephoto lens. A prime is best when you KNOW your subject matter very well; for all other purposes, there's always the zoom
Edited by nutek on Dec 19, 2004 at 12:27 AM GMT
Dec 18, 2004 at 01:09 AM
p.1 #16400mm arena
The 100-400 IS photos posted here are fantastic! So many people complain about that lens but the difference is so minor!
Dec 18, 2004 at 01:53 AM
p.1 #17400mm arena
thanks everyone, great photos!
and thanks to BigBad for the nice summary.
The Big Bad:
Of course keep in mind that each of these lens all have their own given strengths and those are usually worth a good bit more than just the image quality alone
This is the point of this thread - to use real photos to show the strength of each lens!
show us some 400/2.8 shots!
and thanks to BigBad for the nice summary.
The Big Bad:
Of course keep in mind that each of these lens all have their own given strengths and those are usually worth a good bit more than just the image quality alone
This is the point of this thread - to use real photos to show the strength of each lens!
show us some 400/2.8 shots!
Dec 18, 2004 at 02:13 AM
The Big Bad
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.1 #18400mm arena
I sorta have a problem with showing photos to show the "strength" of a lens since about 90% of what your seeing is dependent upon the user.
Theres just so many varibles that are at play we cant really judge what we are
seeing and why.
Is that lens sharp or is it just a downsized and processed photo ?
Does that lens have great color or is is just well done post processing ?
Does that lens allow for low light shooting or was it tripod mounted ?
Does this lens mean we will be able to get near frame filling shots of such and such creature or is the photog very skilled at getting up close ?
Is this lens easy to hike around with or did the photog take the photo from the drivers seat of their car ?
Dont get me wrong, I like seeing other peoples shots, and there really are a bunch of great ones but just want to remind everyone that you can hardly compare which lens is "best" upon these shots
You can have a shot from a 100-400 of a bird and it can look amazing, and you can have a shot from a 600 f4 and it can look equally amazing. So does that mean that a 100-400 is "as good as" a 600 f4 ? No of couse not and it also doesnt mean you can take a 600 f4 where you can take a 100-400.
For this thread to really be useful, I think it would be nice if people put a little how and why with the shots. Tell us why you used what you used.
If its a 100-400 shot for example, explain how you hiked a half mile looking for the subject and since it was getting dark, the IS allowed you to shoot it handheld, and how since the subect came towards you the zoom versatility was really nice so you could back off and still frame it.
A little info like that and a resulting show will really let users get some idea as to what each lens can really do in the "real world"
Theres just so many varibles that are at play we cant really judge what we are
seeing and why.
Is that lens sharp or is it just a downsized and processed photo ?
Does that lens have great color or is is just well done post processing ?
Does that lens allow for low light shooting or was it tripod mounted ?
Does this lens mean we will be able to get near frame filling shots of such and such creature or is the photog very skilled at getting up close ?
Is this lens easy to hike around with or did the photog take the photo from the drivers seat of their car ?
Dont get me wrong, I like seeing other peoples shots, and there really are a bunch of great ones but just want to remind everyone that you can hardly compare which lens is "best" upon these shots
You can have a shot from a 100-400 of a bird and it can look amazing, and you can have a shot from a 600 f4 and it can look equally amazing. So does that mean that a 100-400 is "as good as" a 600 f4 ? No of couse not and it also doesnt mean you can take a 600 f4 where you can take a 100-400.
For this thread to really be useful, I think it would be nice if people put a little how and why with the shots. Tell us why you used what you used.
If its a 100-400 shot for example, explain how you hiked a half mile looking for the subject and since it was getting dark, the IS allowed you to shoot it handheld, and how since the subect came towards you the zoom versatility was really nice so you could back off and still frame it.
A little info like that and a resulting show will really let users get some idea as to what each lens can really do in the "real world"
Dec 18, 2004 at 02:47 AM
p.1 #19400mm arena
Right on Bad. Armchair intellectualizing is almost useless. Let's smell the sweat, hear the frustrations as well as the elations. A lens alone will not be able to do a single little thing that you weren't able to do, other than getting lucky sometimes.
Dec 18, 2004 at 03:05 AM
p.1 #20400mm arena
|
||
| http://www.fototime.com/26F4777D2720848/orig.jpg | ||
|
I know this thread is focused on 400mm but I thought I would throw in a shot from a 500mm/f4. This was taken hand held at 1/640.
I like the combination of sharpness and buttery bokeh that makes this image work for me.
Dec 18, 2004 at 07:15 AM