Which lens?

[Rookie 300d]

I hope someone could help me in a choice of lenses. I am after an L series lens of up to 400mm, but...do i get the 100-400 or the 70-200 f2.8 and add a converter. Which would give me the best aperture across the board and image quality? Any advice would be very greatful as it took along time to save the money !!!

[nightshade]

Hold on the Canon crew will be here soon I like the 70-200 +converter
but I think they are anti-shake 100-400 guys

[Bushcraft]

The 100-400 is a great lens, IF you get a good copy, some of them are a little soft. IF you will be using it at the higher end most of the time I would go for the 300 (with IS) or the 400 prime (Without IS). I am a huge fan of the 70-200 2.8's with a tele though, some will say they don't go well with a tele but in my experience (Albeit with Nikon, at the time) I was very very very impressed, so sharp and so bright!

Good luck
Kris

[Brian Phipps]

Hi Bud long time no see!

I use the 100-400 quite a bit and have had no problems with any soft images, my friend works for Canon and he says that when the lens came out first there was a spate of soft image complaints.

But people were expecting miricles from a IS lens, like being able to hand hold it a very low shutter speeds and still get sharp results, I thinks its user error and people expecting miricles,

I know many pros that use ths lens and wouldn`t risk using it if they thought for one minutes you would get soft images, check out Ben Halls website most images are taken with a 100-400.

Its canons best selling lens and its not been changed since it was realesed all those years ago,

If you can use a tripod even better than IS will ever be.


Can`t comment on the other lens combination as I`ve never used it.
Your more than welcombe to have a go with mine again, I`m due to come down to Arne in Dorset soon, could meet up again if you like.

If you keen on spending this much money hire the other lens for the day from LCE in Southampton and meet me to use the other and compare.

Cheers
Brian

[Rookie 300d]

Thanks for the advice Brian. That would be good to meet at Arne just let me know when you are going.

Paul.

[Kev Lewis]

Another very satified user of the 100-400mm but I do shoot mainly on a tripod rather than rely on electrickery for sharp images. If the majority of your work is general photography then personally I would go for the 70-200 as it is very very sharp and the AF is very quick. combining that lens with a x1.4TC (not the x2 as that is oooo) would give you a 340mm f4 still faster than the 100-400 but short on focal length.

[Raffman]

I have the 100-400L IS, now I own it I'm kicking myself I didnt get it sooner, I was concerned about not getting a sharp copy but I have no issues what so ever with mine. I use it throughout the range and so its versatility cant be matched for quality. I used to own the 70-200L IS 2.8 and the 400L 5.6, both are amazing lenes but you have the inconvienience of swaping around. If you're going to have a 1.4 TC attached most the time go the 100-400. I wouldn't bother with a 2x TC on the 70-200L, the AF speed and quailty takes too much away from a great lens. I think the 300L IS f4 is also a good option if you dont need between 100-300mm.

heres a image taken with my 100-400L IS
note: click on the image to see it at proper size.


Raff

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by Kev Lewis

Another very satified user of the 100-400mm but I do shoot mainly on a tripod rather than rely on electrickery for sharp images. If the majority of your work is general photography then personally I would go for the 70-200 as it is very very sharp and the AF is very quick. combining that lens with a x1.4TC (not the x2 as that is oooo) would give you a 340mm f4 still faster than the 100-400 but short on focal length.

combining the 70-200 with a 1.4 converter would give a max focal length of 280 rather than 340 wouldn't it? Excluding the crop factor.

Matt

[Boddie]

Does anyone actually know someone that has had a soft copy recently, or is it just an urban myth?

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by Boddie

Does anyone actually know someone that has had a soft copy recently, or is it just an urban myth?

there's probably an element of urban myth, word of a dud spreads like wildfire on forums.

But I think there's an element of truth in it. When I was in the market for my lens I read a review of the 100-400 in Photography Monthly. They claimed the lens they had was OK, but not great, but did say that they had reviewed several 100-400s over the years and they have varied quite a bit in their sharpness.

The other source of the rumours is the following website which has received a lot of attention on various forums;
Forgotten 400

if you look at the comparison of the 400 prime and the 100-400 at f5.6, the 100-400 is very soft. Again, there are rumours that this might have been a dodgy 100-400 that he had (although he denies this at the bottom of the review).

I'm sure 99% of them are absolutely fine though.

Matt

[Kev Lewis]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

combining the 70-200 with a 1.4 converter would give a max focal length of 280 rather than 340 wouldn't it? Excluding the crop factor.

Matt

Just call me brain dead lol Still think it would a useful combination though but generally too short for serious wildlife work

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

there's probably an element of urban myth, word of a dud spreads like wildfire on forums.

But I think there's an element of truth in it. When I was in the market for my lens I read a review of the 100-400 in Photography Monthly. They claimed the lens they had was OK, but not great, but did say that they had reviewed several 100-400s over the years and they have varied quite a bit in their sharpness.

The other source of the rumours is the following website which has received a lot of attention on various forums;
Forgotten 400

if you look at the comparison of the 400 prime and the 100-400 at f5.6, the 100-400 is very soft. Again, there are rumours that this might have been a dodgy 100-400 that he had (although he denies this at the bottom of the review).

I'm sure 99% of them are absolutely fine though.

Matt

That's an interesting link Matt. I've bookmarked it to look through it later.

[eeyore]

ive used a 70-200 f2.8 with a 2xTC (tho not a canon TC) without problems , and its a great lens to use without the tC as a short zoom

however for everyday regular use I would suggest you go for a 100-400 , so long as you can live with the sliding zoom action - atthis price it is worth hiring the lenes first to see how you get on with them.

another possibilty is the 300mm f2.8 IS prime (around 1500 notes I think) and a 1.4tc giving an effective 420mm f4 - I've used a hired set up like this and would buy it in a heart beat if I had the bar

[JeffH]

Hi Rookie

I'm relatively new to the world of DSLRs but when I bought my new gear a couple of months ago I went for the 100-400, mainly because of its flexibilty and, with IS, its potential as a 'walk about' lens for use in the field.

Another major influence for me in making that choice was the fact that it's used by some of the UK's best pro wildlife photographers, including Andy Rouse and Ben Hall (check out their websites to see their amazing work) as well as some of WAB's own pro-am photographic stars such as Kev Lewis and Brian Phipps - again check out their gallery images - and also many other good and very experienced photographers amongst the WAB membership.

From my own researches (and I spent ages making the decision ) it's almost certainly true to say that Canon's 400 prime lens gives better results than the 100-400 set at its maximum focal length, as I understand any leading manufacturers prime lenses usually outperform their zooms. But do bear in mind that without the IS facility the prime 400 would need to be used on a tripod or on some other form of support pretty much all the time.

Having said all that, in the RSPB Guide to Digital Wildlife Photography by David Tipling, another pro, (and which my daughter bought me for Christmas ) he says this "You might read and hear sometimes that mid-range zoom lenses do not offer the quality of fixed length lenses. this can pretty much be ignored these days; optical quality is no longer the issue it once was with zooms. The vast majority of zoom lenses will give no discernible difference to picture quality when compared to a fixed focal length lens".

So, in short, there's no single "best" choice - you pays your money and takes your choice based on your own personal requirements and the factors that are most important to you. However, if you go for the 100-400 then, based on my limited experience with it to date, I doubt you'll be disappointed.

Jeff

[paulthomas]

Originally Posted by eeyore

another possibilty is the 300mm f2.8 IS prime (around 1500 notes I think) and a 1.4tc giving an effective 420mm f4 - I've used a hired set up like this and would buy it in a heart beat if I had the bar

The Sigma 120-300/f2.8 may be worth considering too.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by Boddie

Does anyone actually know someone that has had a soft copy recently, or is it just an urban myth?

Boddie
I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating and it is easy to see. There are several canon users on WAB with 100-400L IS lenses. The results are excellent. I think several people have pointed out that the IS is useful but there is no way on this earth that anyone can make a slik purse out of a sow's ear.
The images will be sharp if the subject is correctly focused and the camera and lens is kept as still as possible. I know this is very elementary and I am not trying to teach anyone to suck eggs. The last image I submitted (Turnstone) was only about 1/100th and hand held, I think it is good but I am sure it would have been better had I got a tripod with me.
The lens does deliver, if operator is equal then the images will be super. Jon

[eeyore]

I think boddie was reffering to the small number of duff 100-400s that were in circulation when it was first released - these were soft regardless of what you did - I think canon have beaten the problem now , but the "soft copy" story has become an urban myth circulating on camera forums.

Boddies 100-400 is certainly capable of producing razor sharp images both on and off the tripod

btw talking of camera rumours I heard one recently that sigma are going to bring out a bigma (50-500 HSM for the uninitiated) with OS (optical stabiliser the sigma version of IS) - if thats true , i would suspect that it will knock the 100-400 into a cocked hat.

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by eeyore

btw talking of camera rumours I heard one recently that sigma are going to bring out a bigma (50-500 HSM for the uninitiated) with OS (optical stabiliser the sigma version of IS) - if thats true , i would suspect that it will knock the 100-400 into a cocked hat.

now that would be a nice lens. I wonder what the price would be though.

Matt

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by matt_xyz

now that would be a nice lens. I wonder what the price would be though.

Matt

reputedly it is suposed to be a tad under 1500 notes - Mind you the whole thing could be an urban myth - I guess we'll find out at photokina next september.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by eeyore

I think boddie was reffering to the small number of duff 100-400s that were in circulation when it was first released - these were soft regardless of what you did - I think canon have beaten the problem now , but the "soft copy" story has become an urban myth circulating on camera forums.

Boddies 100-400 is certainly capable of producing razor sharp images both on and off the tripod

btw talking of camera rumours I heard one recently that sigma are going to bring out a bigma (50-500 HSM for the uninitiated) with OS (optical stabiliser the sigma version of IS) - if thats true , i would suspect that it will knock the 100-400 into a cocked hat.

And in no time at all we will see canon produce a very similar lens, in fact I would not be at all surprised if there is not already a lens awaiting to be launched. Then we will all be asking which is better the canon 100-500 or the sigma 100-500 or was the canon 100-400 better after all, then someone will say no the Bigma was better! Then someone will say the person behind the lens is just as important as the lens. Jon

[Rookie 300d]

Thanks to everyone for the advice given, i,m leaning very strongly to the 100-400 is. But just have read the last couple of threads and just looked up the 80-400 os by Sigma, has anyone had any experiance of this lens?

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Rookie 300d

Thanks to everyone for the advice given, i,m leaning very strongly to the 100-400 is. But just have read the last couple of threads and just looked up the 80-400 os by Sigma, has anyone had any experiance of this lens?

i tried one out recently - I have a tame camera shop which lends me stuff to review it is a good lens and a couple of hundred notes cheaper than the 100-400 IS based on RRP

However if you go to our freind kerso - he can do you a 100-400 at a very keen price which is competitive with the shop bought sigma.

[nigelryan]

i have used both of the lenses your thinking about and they both have there pro's and con"s if your going to be working close in get 70-200 but if you want distance get the 100-400 because with a 2x converter on you will still be at f5.6 on the 70-200 and then you got to pay out more money for a 2x converter, ive got both lens and i use the 100-400 more than the 70-200 it stays at home most of the time the lenses that stay in my bag are 16-35Lthe24-70Lthe 100-400Land a macro the 70-200L gets used manly for studio work as it gives good results when photographing people.
nigel

[Raffman]

I have seen a few nice pictures from the sigma 80-400 OS but the general feeling amongst most reviewers is that the lens performance isnt where it should be. The OS system is of Sigmas 1st gen and suposed to have some delaying characteristics especially when shooting continuous, the AF is also reported to be on the slow side. Image quality is meant to be good be that doesnt help if you cant get the shot.

If you can get a Canon 100-400L IS for simular money and to be honest I'd still rather pay the extra I'd stick with that.

Okay here come the 80-400 OS owners to get me....

Raff