Well, maybe many of you interpret "crap" a bit more strongly than I do.
Less than optimal? Disappointing? Can be relied upon to let you down when you need it most?
Or, how about, "When locked tightly down on a superior support system, with IS engaged and properly braced, static subjects can be photographed adequately with this lens combo on some camera bodies".
Just don't try BIF handheld around sunset, and of course it won't autofocus on less than a 1-series body.
wtlloyd wrote:
Or, how about, "When locked tightly down on a superior support system, with IS engaged and properly braced, static subjects can be photographed adequately with this lens combo on some camera bodies".
Assuming you're still speaking of the 100-400, if you are using it tripod mounted with IS enabled you are doing something very, very wrong. That generation of IS is not meant to be used when tripod mounted. If that is the case, that might explain your "crap" results.
bobbytan wrote:
May be a turn off for a few people but I think most people welcome it as (a) you may miss a shot if you have to dig into your backpack to look for your extender and/or to put it on, and (b) you don't have to readjust the balance on your gimbal head, as someone else had mentioned earlier.
Totally agree, Bobby. I'd venture to guess those who find the built in TC a downer are in the vast minority, in fact I think a lot of people will end up purchasing this lens because of (completely or partially) the built in TC design.
garyvot wrote:
Hi Andy. I read here and on your blog that you regard the Nikkor 200-400 as an essential tool for your safari shooting, and I gather that you use FX bodies primarily.
The last time I was in Africa was way back in 2003, on a trip with Art Wolfe. I was using 10D bodies then, and had a 70-200L IS along with a 300 2.8L IS with 1.4x and 2x TCs (Art was still shooting film on his 1n RS.) Article here: http://www.vothphoto.com/recent/africa2003/africa2003_main.htm
After seeing your endorsement of this lens, I did a scan through my shots from that trip and found that the vast majority of my captures with the long lens were with the 300+1.4x combination; a comparatively fewer number were with the bare 300. Keeping in mind this was on APS-C, I was favoring use of an effective 670mm lens.
It's possible that I was focused on making too many portraits and not enough animals in their habitat (a common case probably for people who don't travel there frequently), but still it was interesting to me to see this.
Do you find the 200-400 to be long enough on your Africa shoots? Do you supplement the zoom with teleconverters, or with a D300 body when you need more reach? I'm curious to hear your thoughts on how this range works out for you given your experience there....Show more →
Great question. I spend about 2.5 to 3 months each year out on safari, and over the past 3 or 4 years most of my time is now spent in Botswana, South Africa, and Namibia. The 200-400mm is a better tool for those environments for me, however I do think a 500mm plus an occasional 1.4x on a full frame camera is a better toolset for east Africa. The problem for Nikon shooters is that there is no really good 100-400mm equivalent in their lineup, so one ends up bringing 2 large lenses, the 200-400mm and 500mm f/4. That's crazy money, in my opinion, so I have just standardized on a 200-400mm for all of Africa. I do use a Nikon D3x, and often have a 1.4x on the 200-400mm for my east Africa trips, so I do have some pixels to burn if I need to crop, but that isn't optimal.
Art is a great friend of mine, and it was great reading your blog post from way back when. Art and I have chatted numerous times about running a safari together, but we just can't see to get our dates down pat.
It'd be pretty difficult to lug both the 500 and 200-400 around. It's not like adding a 100-400 to your arsenal. The weight would be a problem. Perhaps that is how they thought adding the internal teleconverter. It certainly surpasses Nikons 200-400. The quickness of inboard would be so welcome for most! I am so sick of changing teleconverters and how perfect to adjust length depending of the path of a BIF.
Netgarden wrote:
It'd be pretty difficult to lug both the 500 and 200-400 around. It's not like adding a 100-400 to your arsenal. The weight would be a problem. Perhaps that is how they thought adding the internal teleconverter. It certainly surpasses Nikons 200-400. The quickness of inboard would be so welcome for most! I am so sick of changing teleconverters and how perfect to adjust length depending of the path of a BIF.
Yeah, no kidding. I have done it, and it sucks. But I am driving around in Land Rovers for 3 months out of the year, and not really carrying huge and heavy packs for miles on end on trails or anything like that.
The new internal teleconverter on the Canon is a huge thing, and I love that they did it. The real question in my mind will have to do with if the Canon 2X TC will work acceptably (or at all) with the lens. We shall see!
Andy Biggs wrote:
The new internal teleconverter on the Canon is a huge thing, and I love that they did it. The real question in my mind will have to do with if the Canon 2X TC will work acceptably (or at all) with the lens. We shall see!
Why the 2x TC? Surely you don't really want a 1120 f/11 lens? I'd have thought an external 1.4x would be needed at most, giving you a 400-800 f/8 with internal TC enabled as well.
Yes, 800 f/8 with the 2X III teleconverter.
As opposed, I guess, to 800 f/8 with the internal 1.4X and an external 1.4X teleconverter. Which would be better, I wonder...
Tom_W wrote:
Yes, 800 f/8 with the 2X III teleconverter.
As opposed, I guess, to 800 f/8 with the internal 1.4X and an external 1.4X teleconverter. Which would be better, I wonder...
I'm sure Bryan Carnathan would make all the possible combinations.
Andy Biggs wrote:
Great question. I spend about 2.5 to 3 months each year out on safari, and over the past 3 or 4 years most of my time is now spent in Botswana, South Africa, and Namibia. The 200-400mm is a better tool for those environments for me, however I do think a 500mm plus an occasional 1.4x on a full frame camera is a better toolset for east Africa. The problem for Nikon shooters is that there is no really good 100-400mm equivalent in their lineup, so one ends up bringing 2 large lenses, the 200-400mm and 500mm f/4. That's crazy money, in my opinion, so I have just standardized on a 200-400mm for all of Africa. I do use a Nikon D3x, and often have a 1.4x on the 200-400mm for my east Africa trips, so I do have some pixels to burn if I need to crop, but that isn't optimal. ...Show more →
Thanks Andy.
I guess the question is: if Nikon *did* have a worty alternative to the 100-400, would you instead carry that lens plus a 500 f/4 in lieu of the 200-400?
I've been giving some serious consideration to going back to APS-C for the majority of my work, and one of the things that one can do to combat the format differences (noise, DOF) it throw lens aperture at it. The new Canon 400 2.8L II, at 8.5 pounds, suddenly makes the APS-C option seem more interesting. Since you can shoot at one full ISO step lower in the same light, and gain a stop to combat the shorter focal length for DOF, I should think that the image quality on a 7D would be competitive vs. a full frame body with a 600 f/4 or (especially) a 500 f/4 + 1.4x.
The 200-400 throws a monkey wrench into the mix because it's so darned compelling for certain use scenarios.
Great question, Gary. You know, I still feel that a 200-400mm + 70-200mm is the best combo for Botswana and South Africa, where the vegetation is much closer and the wildlife is also closer. For Kenya and Tanzania, I think a 100-400mm + 500mm is the best option. The 200-400mm isn't quite enough reach, unless an APS-C sensor is thrown into the mix. I do like most everything about the 7D, with the exception of ISO 800 or higher. It's just too darned noisy for my tastes. With that being said, I tend to shoot at ISO 400 to 3200 in Botswana and South Africa, and 200 to 1600 in Kenya and Tanzania.
Why? Because the vegetation in Bots and South Africa is higher on the horizon, which means the sun hides much sooner during the golden light. I have to rely on the higher ISO settings down there much much more than I do when I am in the Serengeti or Masai Mara.
One thing that is worth noting: a 100-400mm is an extremely versatile lens, in that blurred pan shots can be captured at f/45, whereas on a 70-200mm f/2.8 it can only be done at f/22 (or f/32? I forget). Anyway, when there is ample light you really do need a slower lens to try and get blurred shots, unless you use a polarizer or ND grad on front. Those aren't convenient at all, IMHO.
Andy Biggs wrote:
Great question, Gary. You know, I still feel that a 200-400mm + 70-200mm is the best combo for Botswana and South Africa, where the vegetation is much closer and the wildlife is also closer. For Kenya and Tanzania, I think a 100-400mm + 500mm is the best option. The 200-400mm isn't quite enough reach, unless an APS-C sensor is thrown into the mix. I do like most everything about the 7D, with the exception of ISO 800 or higher. It's just too darned noisy for my tastes. With that being said, I tend to shoot at ISO 400 to 3200 in Botswana and South Africa, and 200 to 1600 in Kenya and Tanzania.
Why? Because the vegetation in Bots and South Africa is higher on the horizon, which means the sun hides much sooner during the golden light. I have to rely on the higher ISO settings down there much much more than I do when I am in the Serengeti or Masai Mara.
One thing that is worth noting: a 100-400mm is an extremely versatile lens, in that blurred pan shots can be captured at f/45, whereas on a 70-200mm f/2.8 it can only be done at f/22 (or f/32? I forget). Anyway, when there is ample light you really do need a slower lens to try and get blurred shots, unless you use a polarizer or ND grad on front. Those aren't convenient at all, IMHO....Show more →
Excellent, thank you for your thoughts.
Yes, every time I think I've got the 7D tamed, it leaps out and bites me... I agree that shooting above ISO 800 is valuable.
Agree, Andy about weight being an issue, and whether the 2x would be workable. I can only dream of truck shooting! My new 2x III hunts quite a bit on my 500f4. And it puts me over the top on hand lugging, adding almost 2 lbs to the 500. And if I add it to my 300 2.8 for 600mm, it''s almost the weight of my 500, so I might as well go with the 500 alone. Wouldn't mind 800mm for sure on the 2-4!
The 200-400 would be ideal for me if it's decent @ 560 and a lb. less than the 500.
[yes, I celebrate a 1 lb. reduction!
Netgarden wrote:
Agree, Andy about weight being an issue, and whether the 2x would be workable. I can only dream of truck shooting! My new 2x III hunts quite a bit on my 500f4. And it puts me over the top on hand lugging, adding almost 2 lbs to the 500. And if I add it to my 300 2.8 for 600mm, it''s almost the weight of my 500, so I might as well go with the 500 alone. Wouldn't mind 800mm for sure on the 2-4!
The 200-400 would be ideal for me if it's decent @ 560 and a lb. less than the 500.
[yes, I celebrate a 1 lb. reduction! ...Show more →
Are you saying you have a 2lb TC?
The 2x TC III weighs 325g or 0.7lb, not light, but nowhere near 2lb.
M Vers wrote:
Assuming you're still speaking of the 100-400, if you are using it tripod mounted with IS enabled you are doing something very, very wrong. That generation of IS is not meant to be used when tripod mounted. If that is the case, that might explain your "crap" results.
I have seen others express the opinion that on a less than first rate tripod where there is some amount of shake, but still less than if hand holding, using IS in conjunction with a tripod can be a good idea.
I do agree if you are using something like a Bogen 1410 and a first rate head tightly locked down IS should be off, but in practice wildlife photography is often done in conditions that include muddy not completely stable ground with wind blowing.
Vers refers to the 100-400 lens being 2nd Gen IS (Canon is up to 4th Gen, now) and it was determined that IS couldn't handle the LACK of movement at that time. Something I had forgot about in my comment above, but knew at the time, as I sold my copy about 3 years ago. Still, I shot with it for 5 years, shoulda remembered....
Oh, and I checked - I have over 3000 photos taken with the 100-400, on a 10D, 1D2 and 5D.....and none with the 1.4 added....and yes, the lens was good, I bought it new and had Canon Irvine do a routine service and check in year two.
My new 2x III hunts quite a bit on my 500f4. And it puts me over the top on hand lugging, adding almost 2 lbs to the 500. And if I add it to my 300 2.8 for 600mm, it''s almost the weight of my 500, so I might as well go with the 500 alone. Wouldn't mind 800mm for sure on the 2-4!