This forum is costing me a fortune. The first time I ever visited I bought a D60 and 70-200L, then 18 months later I bought the 20D and 17-40L. I've purposely not visited for a while to save my bank balance, and what should I see when I return. A Canon 5D full frame and the 24-105L. Argh!!!!
OK, when I get this combo, do you think I should sell my 70-200L F4 and get the 100-400L IS? I hate using tripods, and the IS would come in handy. Plus I would have a perfect range. 17-40, 24-105 and 100-400 (400 being important on a full frame camera). Or.....am I just mad? This is just a hobby that I make no money from after all.
Carefully evaluate what your needs are, equipment-wise, and get whatever will meet those needs. If that combo will best serve you and it is within your means, then do it. The 100-400 is a very nice lens but you have to learn to use it to get the best results out of it, in my opinion. That seems to be a nice lens line-up that you're considering as long as you're okay with the 50 1.8 being your sole low-light lens. Of course, the 70-200 2.8IS is also a very nice lens too that might fit in there somewhere...just a tempting thought!
The 100-400 is a very nice lens. I don't hesitate in recommending it. With this said, your 70-200 f/4L will be slightly sharper and more contrasty. You need to pick what is the best for you!
I have the 100-400 on order, can't wait to get it but I hear it takes a little getting used to. I'm thinking eventually 16-35L, 24-105L plus this one and I'll be set up for a long time.
Mike W wrote:
I have the 100-400 on order, can't wait to get it but I hear it takes a little getting used to.
For whatever it is worth Mike, I don't think it takes much of any time to get used to. Also, for action shots, I prefer the push/pull zoom since you can have it react very quickly when needed. You can move from 100 to 400 and back again or anywhere in between in a flash.
BrianP wrote:
For whatever it is worth Mike, I don't think it takes much of any time to get used to. Also, for action shots, I prefer the push/pull zoom since you can have it react very quickly when needed. You can move from 100 to 400 and back again or anywhere in between in a flash.
Brian,
I think that depends on what you mean by "getting used to it". Getting used to the push-pull, focusing, etc. is easy, but, if someone has never used a lens longer than 200mm and needs to work on long lens technique, then, "getting used to" the lens may take some time, work, and practice.
Les
uz2work wrote:
Brian,
I think that depends on what you mean by "getting used to it". Getting used to the push-pull, focusing, etc. is easy, but, if someone has never used a lens longer than 200mm and needs to work on long lens technique, then, "getting used to" the lens may take some time, work, and practice.
Les
I agree Les. I wasn't referring to the typical long lens technique learning curve. There is a good article that will give you some ideas here...
I often read that the 100-400 takes some getting used to and have read the article above. Does anyone have any specific suggestions for improving handheld results with the 100-400 in action/wildlife photography? I have found that although my 100-400 is very sharp on a tripod that my keeper rate when shooting sports is rather low. I think a lot has to do with the focus speed of the lens and the focusing capabilities of the 20D. Of course there is also the minor issue of my own technique but of course, that wouldn't have anything to do with the poor image quality. Any thoughts would be appreciated.
Hrow wrote:
I often read that the 100-400 takes some getting used to and have read the article above. Does anyone have any specific suggestions for improving handheld results with the 100-400 in action/wildlife photography? I have found that although my 100-400 is very sharp on a tripod that my keeper rate when shooting sports is rather low. I think a lot has to do with the focus speed of the lens and the focusing capabilities of the 20D. Of course there is also the minor issue of my own technique but of course, that wouldn't have anything to do with the poor image quality. Any thoughts would be appreciated....Show more →
Henry,
I think that, besides practice, it is a matter of a couple of things. First, even with IS, you want to do everything you can to keep your shutter speeds up, both to negate the effects of any camera shake and to freeze any subject movement. Second, when I'm shooting handheld (and most of my shooting is with the 500/4 and a 1.4x handheld), whenever possible, I try to find something on which to steady myself and/or the camera/lens. If I can rest the camera/lens on something, I do it. If I can find something to lean against, I use it. If nothing else, I'll get down on my right knee and rest my left elbow on my left thigh, thus creating a kind of "natural" tripod. About the only time I'm shooting without something to brace myself and/or the camera is when I'm shooting birds in flight with a bright sky and very high shutter speeds.
Les
Thank you for the good tips. Going for more support will probably help a lot. One of the things that I am thinking is that I am losing focus as minor movements take me off the subject for a moment. Need to practice my tracking technique and it will certainly be easier to do so braced rather than standing upright. The problem that I have had is that "normal" body steading positions that work well for wider lens make for very jerky movements when long lens come into play.
Just as an aside, please don't yell at me, I just didn't love my 100-400 and took my 300/4 IS over it, with a TC it has even more reach and does a bit better with speeds.
FYI, always listen to Les, his pics are regularly fantastic!
I just remembered I own the x1.4. I dont' think I've ever used it. I could just keep this on the 70-200L for the long shots. I know I will use the 24-105 90% of the time, so this could be the most sensible way to go. I will wait until I get the 5D and see how it pans out. I should really buy a Tripod as well.
If anybody has any example of what the 100-400 can do, I would be very grateful to see them. It could just bend my arm enough to get one
dpleech wrote:
This forum is costing me a fortune. The first time I ever visited I bought a D60 and 70-200L, then 18 months later I bought the 20D and 17-40L. I've purposely not visited for a while to save my bank balance, and what should I see when I return. A Canon 5D full frame and the 24-105L. Argh!!!!
OK, when I get this combo, do you think I should sell my 70-200L F4 and get the 100-400L IS? I hate using tripods, and the IS would come in handy. Plus I would have a perfect range. 17-40, 24-105 and 100-400 (400 being important on a full frame camera). Or.....am I just mad? This is just a hobby that I make no money from after all.
PS. I have my 50mm F1.8 for low light stuff ...Show more →
I had 3 copies of the 70-200 f4 all with back focus...........CANON FIX IT!
xmattkx wrote:
Just as an aside, please don't yell at me, I just didn't love my 100-400 and took my 300/4 IS over it, with a TC it has even more reach and does a bit better with speeds.
FYI, always listen to Les, his pics are regularly fantastic!
but the 100-400 is sharper at 400 than your 300 w/TC .........
oh and we can shoot all the way from 100 to 400............you are stuck!
at 300mm.......I can shoot a soccer game....can you?
dpleech wrote:
I just remembered I own the x1.4. I dont' think I've ever used it. I could just keep this on the 70-200L for the long shots. I know I will use the 24-105 90% of the time, so this could be the most sensible way to go. I will wait until I get the 5D and see how it pans out. I should really buy a Tripod as well.
If anybody has any example of what the 100-400 can do, I would be very grateful to see them. It could just bend my arm enough to get one
Thanks.
I have some examples of what the 100-400 can do, but you need to get your own skills going because mine might be better than yours.....
I've had the 100-400 for more than a year now and I've probably used it on less than 5 ocassions. I dont particularly like it and I hate to carry it when I'm travelling, preferring instead the 70-200 f/2.8L. I carry a 1.4x teleconverter just in case I need a longer reach on rare occassions..
thebiker wrote:
I've had the 100-400 for more than a year now and I've probably used it on less than 5 ocassions. I dont particularly like it and I hate to carry it when I'm travelling, preferring instead the 70-200 f/2.8L. I carry a 1.4x teleconverter just in case I need a longer reach on rare occassions..
?