Re: Can anyone comment on the comparison between 400L f5.6 & 100-400L?
wuchang wrote:
You might be interested in reading what this fella has to say about the differences
www.michaelfurtman.com/comparing_canon_400s.htm
And if you ever shoot an air show......take the zoom because you can\'t \"foot zoom\" fast enough when the jets make a run over the crowd
.....just sayin
Thanks Wuchang. Looking at the 3 compared images, I\'d say the difference is significant between the 400 f/5.6 and the 100-400. For less than the sharpness shown there, I was willing to replace my 24-105 f/4 with a 24-70 II at more than 2 times the cost.
I\'m glad I decided on the 400mm f/5.6L - costs less, better performance...why not . Unlike many of you, I found the lack of zoom and increased MFD a very minor inconvenience. Perfhaps because I shoot BIF mostly. I\'d miss about 1 shot out of 200 shooting BIF for not having a zoom. I also shoot airshows...I have no problems...I situated myself so the main actions are at the right FL. Even if I couldn\'t situate, I\'d just wait til the planes get a little farther away before I take the shot. I find the BIF and airshow action to be too fast to mess with the zoom anyways. The super-telephoto lenses (the big 400, 500, 600, 800) are mostly primes (except the 200-400)-- they don\'t seem to bother the BIF shooters none. The same apply, you situate yourself at the right FL where you can take most of the shots. If it\'s too close, I\'d just take pictures of the eyes or the head...some of these end up being the best I\'ve got.
Re: Can anyone comment on the comparison between 400L f5.6 & 100-400L?
wuchang wrote:
You might be interested in reading what this fella has to say about the differences
www.michaelfurtman.com/comparing_canon_400s.htm
And if you ever shoot an air show......take the zoom because you can\'t \"foot zoom\" fast enough when the jets make a run over the crowd
.....just sayin
Thanks Wuchang. Looking at the 3 compared images, I\'d say the difference is significant between the 400 f/5.6 and the 100-400. For less than the sharpness shown there, I was willing to replace my 24-105 f/4 with a 24-70 II at more than 2 times the cost.
I\'m glad I decided on the 400mm f/5.6L - costs less, better performance...why not . Unlike many of you, I found the lack of zoom and increased MFD a very minor inconvenience. I\'d miss about 1 shot out of 200 shooting BIF for not having a zoom. I also shoot airshows...I have no problems...I just wait til the planes get a little farther away before I take the shot. I find the BIF and airshow action to be too fast to mess with the zoom anyways.
Jan 30, 2013 at 03:58 PM
Previous versions of diverhank's message #11311643 « Can anyone comment on the comparison between 400L f5.6 & 100-400L? »
