WPF - World Photography Forum
Home Gallery Register FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Welcome to World Photography Forum!
Welcome!

Thank you for finding your way to World Photography Forum, a dedicated community for photographers and enthusiasts. There's a variety of forums, a wonderful gallery, and what's more, we are absolutely FREE. You are very welcome to join, take part in the discussion, and post your pictures!

Click here to go to the forums home page and find out more.
Click here to join.


Go Back   World Photography Forum > Photography Equipment > Lenses


Lenses Discussion of Lenses

Lens advice please (Canon)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 29-03-06, 00:40
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: somerset
Posts: 40
Question Lens advice please (Canon)

I'm looking for one of the L series of Canons, but am unsure about which would be the best.

I'd thought about the 100/400, but was worried it might be a little heavy.

Looked in to the 70 - 200 with thoughts of using with a 1.4 TC, but was quite surprised at the weight of the 70 - 200, which is even heavier than the 100/400!

Any thoughts please? I've a Canon 350D by the way and mainly take Wildlife photography.

Sue
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 29-03-06, 02:11
jseaman jseaman is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: North Carolina - USA
Age: 69
Posts: 43
Default

Which lens is a very personal decision. The 100-400mm is good - but for an "L" it isn't great. An excellent lens is the 300mm f/4 L IS - no zoom but with wildlife your lenses never seem to be long enough anyway!

You can use the 1.4x teleconverter with the 300mm with very good results. Teleconverters don't work as well on zoom lenses.

If you can find a source, I strongly recommend renting a lens for a week or more to see if it fills your needs. A Canon "L" series lens holds its value very well - if you need to switch to something else you can always sell for 85-90% of your purchase price. Not so with the alternative brands.
__________________
Jim Seaman
http://www.jseaman.com
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 29-03-06, 09:44
robski robski is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Kent UK
Posts: 3,739
Default

I'd go along with Jim.

L lens are heavy compared to cheaper lens because of the wieght of the better quaility glass and stronger build. But you get used to the weight.

The 400mm f5.6 is a good sharp (fairly light) lens favoured by many.

The 100-400 is versatile but not the best.

I have the 300mm f4 and use it with a 1.4 TC. Putting the TC on and off effectively gives you a bit of zoom range. Also the minimum focus distance of 1.5m is useful for getting close to subject.

I think it is a good general purpose wildlife lens. As Jim says if your subject is always on the horizon then a lens never seems to be long enough.

The 70-200 f4 is cheap and light weight as well. If your subject is large and close this maybe a good option.

The trouble is when folk say wildlife it cover a multitude of sins. So how big is your subject ?

Small Insects, Butterflies, small birds, large birds, distant birds or large Mamals.
__________________
Rob

-----------------------------------------------------
Solar powered Box Brownie Mk2

Captain Sunshine, to be such a man as he, and walk so pure between the earth and the sea.

WPF Gallery
Birdforum Gallery
http://www.robertstocker.co.uk updated
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 29-03-06, 10:36
Roy C's Avatar
Roy C Roy C is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Barnstaple, North Devon
Posts: 2,543
Default

Depends if you want a zoom - if not I would go for something like the 400mm f5.6 prime, pin sharp and works well with the 1.4tc (but not AF unless you tape the pins or use a cheap Kenko). I find with my zoom that I have it on full zoom for 99% of the time when shooting birds - so why not get a 400 prime in the first place (it is lighter, sharper and cheaper).
__________________
Roy

MY WEB SITE
MY PHOTOSTREAM
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 29-03-06, 11:59
Tannin's Avatar
Tannin Tannin is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ballarat, Australia
Posts: 288
Default

The 100-400 weighs 1.38kg, the 400 1.25kg. Not a huge difference, but I think you'd find it noticable, and though I've never used one I've seen far too many great shots taken with this lens to think it's anything less than excellent. No IS is the big drawback, but if you can live with that it would make a good choice.

I can't imagine birding with anything less than a 400mm lens. Even 400 isn't really enough a lot of the time, but ignoring the vastly higher cost for the moment, a 500 weighs more than twice as much, and is decidedly difficult to handle.

I'm not a big man by any means, but I don't find the 100-400 difficult to lug around. You do get used to heavy gear after a while. Already, I'm starting to feel more at home with the monster 500 (is it habituation? Or actual muscle growth? A little of both I think), and now the 100-400 feels like a little toy lens. (Which is great!) My point here is that I think you would soon grow used to either of the 400s.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 29-03-06, 18:30
postcardcv's Avatar
postcardcv postcardcv is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Age: 48
Posts: 1,856
Default

From what I've seen of them I'd go for the 400 f5.6 prime over the 100-400 IS every time. If you have a look you'll see that the prime is much sharper, it's also a smaller lens and feels great to use (your camera won't feel too lens heavy). The 400 f5.6 is very fast focusing and (I've been told) will still focus fast with a (taped) 1.4x tc in place.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 29-03-06, 20:35
Roy C's Avatar
Roy C Roy C is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Barnstaple, North Devon
Posts: 2,543
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by postcardcv
From what I've seen of them I'd go for the 400 f5.6 prime over the 100-400 IS every time. If you have a look you'll see that the prime is much sharper, it's also a smaller lens and feels great to use (your camera won't feel too lens heavy). The 400 f5.6 is very fast focusing and (I've been told) will still focus fast with a (taped) 1.4x tc in place.
I have had the 400mm f5.6 prime for just over a week now and it is very fast focusing (not yet tried it with my 1.4x tc). Went our for my first long walk with the lens today and I agree with postcardcv- it does not feel heavy and is great to use on the 350D.
__________________
Roy

MY WEB SITE
MY PHOTOSTREAM
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 29-03-06, 23:31
Christine's Avatar
Christine Christine is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Haverigg,South Lakes,Cumbria.Uk
Posts: 3,828
Default

I second Roy's comment.I have both the 400F5.6 and the 100-400 .Since I acquired the 400 prime ,I have not used the latter.I am not the steadiest of people,but have not found the non IS a problem as the lens is so light and fast.But I have found that when focussing the single red dot(light) must be on the subject for accurate AF.
If yo need even extra length why not consider the Tamron 70-500 zoom.I think that is the one.I have seen some superb shots taken with this lens by "DOC" on BF.It is a very reasonable price and not too heavy.
__________________
Christine
Avatar by Tracker(tom)
[COLOR="Blue

http://www.haverigg.com

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/sho...00/ppuser/2356
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 30-03-06, 00:59
Sue's Avatar
Sue Sue is offline  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: somerset
Posts: 40
Thumbs up

Hello everyone,

Thank you ALL so very much indeed for your very helpful replies.

Well, I think from all your comments that I've now discarded the 70 - 200, thanks.

Jim & Rob - I've already had a 300mm f/4 L IS (great with the 1.4 TC too) which stopped focusing completely after just 6 weeks!
Although, I was very pleased with it, I'm now wondering if maybe I'm being 'told' something about moving on, perhaps...

Roy, Tannin & Peter - I think I'm getting closer to feeling that the 400mm f5.6 prime might just be the one, IF I can get one!!!
I'm a little concerned about it being a non IS, but with the comments from everyone, may just be able to grow with it. I always thought a 300 was going to be too heavy, but had mastered that well....by the time it went kaput!!! Still, it's true, if all else fails and I just can't get used to it,then as you all point out - I could sell it on for the other with IS.

By the way Rob - Wildlife for me is far more in the way of Birds, but everything else that I come across too, but I do see your point.

I've tried to get one on hire Roy, but only get one answer! WExpress haven't got any and aren't expecting a replacement for the 300 for "some time" and blame it on to Canon, but who knows!

Christine - I can't find the Tamron 70 - 500 on WE site, do you mean 200 - 500? However, I really appreciate you points on the (Canon 400) non IS from a female angle

Thanks again everyone, I've really appreciated all your help and advice and thanks for the test run results on yours today Roy. I'll be back and tell you what I got....when I can get it!

Many thanks again,

Sue.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 30-03-06, 08:58
postcardcv's Avatar
postcardcv postcardcv is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Age: 48
Posts: 1,856
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sue
Roy, Tannin & Peter - I think I'm getting closer to feeling that the 400mm f5.6 prime might just be the one, IF I can get one!!!
I know that this lens has been in short supply - if you're struggling to find one try my local camera shop (01362 693 506), they had it in stock a few days ago so it might still be there.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:38.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.