p.2 #2 · Thanks to All re: Which Lens - 70-200, 300, 100-400
I just sold a 100-400mm and purchased the 300f4. The main reason is that I do a lot of handheld shooting and the the zoom at 400mm was difficult to handle and the weight was too far forward. Even with the Bush Hawk I did not find it comfortable. But then again I am a weak old geezer. The remarks about finding you subject at 100mm and zooming in are RIGHT ON. This is especially true when using a cropped camera.
The 300mm, for me, is better balanced even with the 1.4TC on the 5D and a lot easier following game or birds while handheld. On the 20D, especially with the TC, the subject may be gone before I find where it was. For a herd or something rather still, like a fishing heron, it is fine.
If you normally use a Wimberly (sp?) head I would definitely recommend the 100-400mm lens.
p.2 #3 · Thanks to All re: Which Lens - 70-200, 300, 100-400
Matt: thanks for the reference to B&H. Amazon.com has it too when I looked. Much appreciated. Scott
Jude: I thought IS was critical and not on 400 5.6. I think if I go prime I would go with 300L with 1.4 and 30d. 400 will just get me eyes in banff where the animals are used to getting their picture taken.
Lynn: Your concern about balance and weight suggests to me that I will rent it tomorrow for the weekend. Thanks Scott
p.2 #4 · Thanks to All re: Which Lens - 70-200, 300, 100-400
Scott,
I dont have experience with the other lenses you listed, but have used the 100-400L for all my bird photography, an occassional portrait, an occassional pseud-macro (closest focussing distance is about 2 meters) and an occasional landscape. You can check out the bird images at my website.
The versatility really makes this the lens to have over a prime like the 300, which many report is sharper. The push-pull is no big deal. Focussing in lower light can be slow. Birds in flight are difficult and I have not had success with this lens. Maybe with a 1 series I would.
You will be putting this on your 30D no doubt. Birders, and I suspect most animal photographers would agree you never have enough reach, so the 1.6x crop factor is a great help.
Weight: You can get tired hand-holding and you might find times you want a monopod or way to brace your shots. I dont think the weight in a bag or over your shoulder is a big issue at all.
I say go for the 100-400. Unless you also want to shoot indoor sports, low light.
p.2 #5 · Thanks to All re: Which Lens - 70-200, 300, 100-400
I shoot a 300f4L non IS on a 30D with a 1.4TC And i love this setup. Its produced constant incredible images in this setup. And to this day still amazes me how sharp it is. It took a lot of thinking about my purchase. And i did almost end up with a 100-400. But im glad i went prime. It does have its limitations. Like being stuck at 300mm ( or 420mm with the TC ) But i find most times that i wish i had a 500f4 rather than wishing i could back down to 100. Mainly because i always have two bodies with me..One 30D with the 300f4L and one 30D with a 28-135 IS as a walk around. This combination has done me well...
p.2 #6 · Thanks to All re: Which Lens - 70-200, 300, 100-400
I have owned all 3 lenses which you are considering.
I really never liked the 100-400, first and foremost because it felt too heavy for me to carry around for a significant length of time. The clunkyness of the push-pull zoom and relative slowness of its AF did nothing to endear it to me either.
70-200 was fine, a delightful lens in its own right. I just have two concerns there. If you are so focused on maximum FL extension, it does seem like a roundabout way to achieve that, through a systematic extender. Secondly, it gives you f:5.6 because of the TC. That is mighty slow.
Which brings me to the 300mm f:4. A brilliant lens. A good balance of weight and FL, good AF, and IQ to make owners of 100-400 weep (on my copies of both, YMMV). It worked fine with the 1.4TC, though lost some speed in the process. The sort of product that feels "right" from the moment you pick it up. I sold it to fund my 5D MkII and still regret it.
p.2 #7 · Thanks to All re: Which Lens - 70-200, 300, 100-400
JTJT: Yes near banff and the animals pose for me I think I have ruled out 70-200 based on the input here. Too short even in banff. 100-400 would be better for zooming but not as sharp as 300 but maybe its a good trade. Thansk for the input. Scott
You could always use the guy in the red jacket as bait and go for the 70-200 with the 1.4 TC. Dan
p.2 #10 · Thanks to All re: Which Lens - 70-200, 300, 100-400
Sbeme; thank you for the input. I am thinking that if I got the 100-300 I would use a monopod when I get out of the car. Really appreciate you responding to my pm. Scott
RebelXtJustin: Thank you for the very sharp picture and advice. I borrowed the 300 last week and was very impressed with size and sharp and focus. I just had some difficultly when the bear was too close and I had to move the car etc. Thanks. Sharp vs usability is a tough choice.
philber: You are confirming what I have read that 300 is sharper and faster but less reach and requires foot zoom. I think I am going to rent the 100-400 and see whether the loss of sharp vs 300 is worth it. Scott
Dan: thanks. I will bring along some peanut butter for you to attrack the bears
mabidally: thank you for the advice and photo's to look at. Scott
p.2 #11 · Thanks to All re: Which Lens - 70-200, 300, 100-400
I like the 100-400 because of the weight. I also find the pictures are much sharper (at least with my lens) if you zoom out to 400 and bring it back just a tad, i.e., 390 is much sharper than 400. Although, I must say that after seeing some of the pictures above, it makes me wonder if I should send in my lens or just have a bad copy! The only other consideration is that you will be shootig wildlife, and if you are mostly shooting in lower light conditions, the 100-400 at 5.6 (assuming you will be at the longer end for most shots) and even smaller aperture if you add a TC, it may not be enough light for great pictures. Just my two cents...
p.2 #12 · Thanks to All re: Which Lens - 70-200, 300, 100-400
jmponfil: I was already thinking that 100-400 would not be great with 1.4x but 1.4x woudl be good with 300prime if that was my choice. I appreciate your input. Scott
p.2 #13 · Thanks to All re: Which Lens - 70-200, 300, 100-400
Keep in mind that the 100-400 does not readily work with Canon's teleconverters; autofocus would be disabled with your 30D and you would need a ton of available light (f7).
Scott
p.2 #14 · Thanks to All re: Which Lens - 70-200, 300, 100-400
Scott Stoness wrote:
jmponfil: I was already thinking that 100-400 would not be great with 1.4x but 1.4x woudl be good with 300prime if that was my choice. I appreciate your input. Scott
when the 60D comes out the 50D price may fall a lot
the 50D would give you a fair amount more reach over your 30D, 1.36x as much (assuming the lens fully takes advantage), anyway that is close to what a 1.4x TC does and you have no AF penalty. So whatever lens you get, if you find you need more reach, and almost everyone does, that might be the next sort of thing to look into perhaps.
anyway, yeah forgot a TC with 100-400, if you want to extend that it really needs to be with a body having a higher density sensor.
p.2 #16 · Thanks to All re: Which Lens - 70-200, 300, 100-400
Just my 2¢...
I've owned a 70-200/2.8, 300/4 IS, & 100-400... Rented a 300/4 & 400/5.6...
I've also owned XXXD, XXD, 5D, & 1D Series Bodies.
I've found that for shooting Wildlife on a budget, that the 100-400, offers the greatest flexibility & very good IQ, even at 400mm. I have also used the 1-4 + 1.4x TC on my 1D bodies. However, to my knowledge, this is the only combination, that can AF @ F/8, not require pins to be taped, & be accurate. I had a 30D and liked the body, but eventually moved on, in the Body World.
p.2 #17 · Thanks to All re: Which Lens - 70-200, 300, 100-400
Thanks Rockies and digitalbug30d. I bought the 100-400 friday and I just finished a 20k (13mile) 750m(2500' elevation gain) hike with the lens on my belt and it was just fine for weight. Even more humorously, I was getting out of my car with my landscape stuff and a grizzly and cubs wandered across the road behind me, which caused a try out of the 100-400, but unfortunately I had it on the wrong IS setting and underexposed from lanscape - the excitement - we will see how they turn out.
p.2 #18 · Thanks to All re: Which Lens - 70-200, 300, 100-400
Congrats on your purchase. I have that lens and find you get much sharper pictures if you pull it a tad from 400 (say 390). At least that is the case with my copy. Good luck!
p.2 #19 · Thanks to All re: Which Lens - 70-200, 300, 100-400
jmponfil: Thanks. It is good so far. But the operator still needs improvement. I used it with too low exposure, wrong is setting, too high fstop, when a grizzly jumped out of the bush. I think I need to just put it on my 30 d and dedicate that camera to it. Scott
Dan