 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / August 2005Canon 100-400 or 300 with Rebel?
I am trying to choose between a Canon 100-400 L IS or a 300 L IS for use with a digital Rebel. With the effective magnification of the body, either lens would give a respectable telephoto length. Anyone else out there who has already made this choice...? ...and can you comment on the decision process? --Wayne I take it you've read the reviews on it? http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=19&sort=7&cat=27&page=2 I note that some have commented that it sucks air (hance dust) through the camera more than the average zoom lens. Cheers, CC > I take it you've read the reviews on it? > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > CC The 100-400 is a push-pull zoom, so that can be awkward. The 300 is fixed, but you can always throw a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter on it without too much trouble. Better yet, he should buy both and send the one he doesn't like to me.  Signaturehttp://www.pbase.com/bcbaird >I am trying to choose between a Canon 100-400 L IS or a 300 L IS for >use with a digital Rebel. With the effective magnification of the >body, either lens would give a respectable telephoto length. > > Anyone else out there who has already made this choice...? ...and > can you comment on the decision process? Depending on your current arsenal, you might add in the Forgotten 400: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/forgotten-400.shtml The comparison to 100-400 frames are telling. SignatureFrank ess >>I am trying to choose between a Canon 100-400 L IS or a 300 L IS for >>use with a digital Rebel. With the effective magnification of the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >The comparison to 100-400 frames are telling. It tells me that this particular sample is defective, unfocused, or poor tripod technique was used. My 100-400 @400 is way sharper than that, at f/5.6. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >I am trying to choose between a Canon 100-400 L IS or a 300 L IS for use >with a digital Rebel. With the effective magnification of the body, either >lens would give a respectable telephoto length. > > Anyone else out there who has already made this choice...? ...and can you > comment on the decision process? The 100-400 is a nice lens but it's pricey and it's a big and heavy beast. I like mine (here is a sample: http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/291308/site1057.jpg) A better buy for some folks is the 75-300 IS (here is a sample: http://home.comcast.net/~charlesschuler/wsb/media/291308/site1056.jpg) I tried some tripod tests with both of the above at 300 mm and the 100-400 is sharper, but not so much as to justify the huge difference in cost. The 100-400 also focuses faster; but again, given the cost, size and weight, many could be better off with the 75-300. If cost, size and weight are not issues, definitely go with the 100-400. >I tried some tripod tests with both of the above at 300 mm and the 100-400 >is sharper, but not so much as to justify the huge difference in cost. The >100-400 also focuses faster; but again, given the cost, size and weight, >many could be better off with the 75-300. The 100-400 is a lot sharper than it appears to be; first of all, IS doesn't preserve tack-sharpness 2 to 3 stops; maybe only one stop. it is the low-frequency jitter that the IS works best on; not the high-frequency jitter, so lots of people are using the 100-400 at un-hand-holdable shutter speeds for tack-sharpness. I would put the 100-400 (my copy, anyway) at having about 2.5x the angular resolution at 400mm than the 75-300 has at 300mm. If you can get enough light for fast shutter speeds, or use flash, the 100-400 is still good with a 2x TC. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > I am trying to choose between a Canon 100-400 L IS or a 300 L IS for use > with a digital Rebel. With the effective magnification of the body, either > lens would give a respectable telephoto length. What kind of subjects do you have in mind? If you're shooting something like wildlife, where your longest lens is never quite long enough, then you might wish for the ability to go to 400mm rather than 300mm. That's one thing to keep in mind (I can't comment on the lenses themselves, so I'll leave that part to others). SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com I would be using the lens for wildlife. IS would be a plus, as I can't always use a tripod. I do have a 200mm that does a pretty good job (x1.6), but I would like to go out a little farther with 300 or 400 (x1.6). Thanks --Wayne >> I am trying to choose between a Canon 100-400 L IS or a 300 L IS for use >> with a digital Rebel. With the effective magnification of the body, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > one thing to keep in mind (I can't comment on the lenses themselves, so > I'll leave that part to others). >I would be using the lens for wildlife. IS would be a plus, as I >can't always use a tripod. I do have a 200mm that does a pretty good >job (x1.6), but I would like to go out a little farther with 300 or >400 (x1.6). > Thanks > --Wayne The _Birds As Art_ man calls the 400 4.6L best for birds in flight. SignatureChopped Liver >>I would be using the lens for wildlife. IS would be a plus, as I >>can't always use a tripod. I do have a 200mm that does a pretty [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The _Birds As Art_ man calls the 400 4.6L best for birds in flight. 5.6 sheesh > I would be using the lens for wildlife. I'd go for the zoom, definitely, between the two, then. I just recently started trying wildlife, and my longest lens is 300mm (x1.5 for Nikon), and I definitely found that I wanted longer. 300mm seems really long until you start pointing it at animals. :) > IS would be a plus, as I can't always use a tripod. That, too. Tripods aren't optimal for wildlife anyway; I think a monopod is a bit better as you have more freedom of movement. (I use a ball head on my monopod, though, which makes it less restrictive.) SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >I am trying to choose between a Canon 100-400 L IS or a 300 L IS for use >with a digital Rebel. With the effective magnification of the body, either >lens would give a respectable telephoto length. > > Anyone else out there who has already made this choice...? ...and can you > comment on the decision process? Wayne, These were all taken with a DRebel (300D) and the 100-400 L IS lens. http://www.pbase.com/rkircher/100400 I personally love the lens. It is heavy and the push pull zoom takes some getting used to but the results are treat IMHO. As to why I bought the zoom over a prime? Well look at the focal length numbers on the pics in that gallery and I think that will be clear. I wanted the flexibility of range that you can't get with a prime lens and I didn't have enough $ to buy multiple lenses or the desire to constantly switch lenses. HTH -- Rob Rob-- Thanks for referring me to the site. That shows very well the versatility and results from the lens. So far I'm leaning toward the 100-400 because it encompasses the 300 and looks favorably sharp. --Wayne >>I am trying to choose between a Canon 100-400 L IS or a 300 L IS for use >>with a digital Rebel. With the effective magnification of the body, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Rob |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.