If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
400mm IS
I have a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM. What I would really like to have is
this same lens with IS. At this point, the actual options (without quintupling the price) are the Canon 100-400 IS, 300 f/4 IS + 1.4 TC and the Sigma 80-400 IS. Sure, the 400 DO IS and 400 2.8 IS are available, but not in my price range. So, what is the likelihood that a) Canon will come out with an 400mm 5.6 IS replacement for my lens; b) a third party will make a compatible 400mm f/5.6 IS/OS/VR non-zoom; or, c) someone will make an IS/OS/VR teleconverter in Canon mount? Second question: Has anyone made an actual comparison of the realistally expectable photo quality between the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4TC, the 100-400 IS, 80-400 OS and the 400 f/5.6 L that takes into account the results obtainable with IS? I'm not just talking about optical quality, but general sharpness of photos in the real world, giving the lenses with IS/OS their due. I'm starting to suspect that whatever marginal benefits the 400 f/5.6 L offers in optical quality is outweighed by the benefits of IS/OS for certain applications, like the small bird photography that I do. The other option, is, I gues, using a gyroscopic stabilizer like the ones offered by Kenyon Labs, but those aren't exactly cheap. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
400mm IS
"Eric Miller" wrote in message ... I have a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM. What I would really like to have is this same lens with IS. At this point, the actual options (without quintupling the price) are the Canon 100-400 IS, 300 f/4 IS + 1.4 TC and the Sigma 80-400 IS. Sure, the 400 DO IS and 400 2.8 IS are available, but not in my price range. So, what is the likelihood that a) Canon will come out with an 400mm 5.6 IS replacement for my lens; b) a third party will make a compatible 400mm f/5.6 IS/OS/VR non-zoom; or, c) someone will make an IS/OS/VR teleconverter in Canon mount? Second question: Has anyone made an actual comparison of the realistally expectable photo quality between the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4TC, the 100-400 IS, 80-400 OS and the 400 f/5.6 L that takes into account the results obtainable with IS? I'm not just talking about optical quality, but general sharpness of photos in the real world, giving the lenses with IS/OS their due. I'm starting to suspect that whatever marginal benefits the 400 f/5.6 L offers in optical quality is outweighed by the benefits of IS/OS for certain applications, like the small bird photography that I do. The other option, is, I gues, using a gyroscopic stabilizer like the ones offered by Kenyon Labs, but those aren't exactly cheap. The 100-400 is virtually the same as the prime you have. Some copies are worse than others. Anything built recently is near prime quality, and nothing you can't make up for with a little USM, IMO. I had a fantastic one but I sold it to trade up for a 300mm 2.8 which I use with a 1.4x and 2.0x. The 300mm 2.8 is a totally different optical experience, but I wish I still had the 100-400 for walk-around wildlife shooting. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
400mm IS
Some sources of information that might help
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len..._4is/index.htm http://www.dmcphoto.com/Articles/Canon300f4/ http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/300mm/ I opted for the Canon 300mm F4 IS lens and the 1.4x TC and image quality seems very good, however the flexibility of the 100-400 zoom should not be overlooked Phil Martin "Eric Miller" wrote in message ... I have a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM. What I would really like to have is this same lens with IS. At this point, the actual options (without quintupling the price) are the Canon 100-400 IS, 300 f/4 IS + 1.4 TC and the Sigma 80-400 IS. Sure, the 400 DO IS and 400 2.8 IS are available, but not in my price range. So, what is the likelihood that a) Canon will come out with an 400mm 5.6 IS replacement for my lens; b) a third party will make a compatible 400mm f/5.6 IS/OS/VR non-zoom; or, c) someone will make an IS/OS/VR teleconverter in Canon mount? Second question: Has anyone made an actual comparison of the realistally expectable photo quality between the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4TC, the 100-400 IS, 80-400 OS and the 400 f/5.6 L that takes into account the results obtainable with IS? I'm not just talking about optical quality, but general sharpness of photos in the real world, giving the lenses with IS/OS their due. I'm starting to suspect that whatever marginal benefits the 400 f/5.6 L offers in optical quality is outweighed by the benefits of IS/OS for certain applications, like the small bird photography that I do. The other option, is, I gues, using a gyroscopic stabilizer like the ones offered by Kenyon Labs, but those aren't exactly cheap. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
400mm IS
Probably not the answer you wanted to hear as it is inconclusive however, I
agree with Phil. I would have also made the same choice as him. It depends if you need a zoom. "Phil Martin" wrote in message ... I opted for the Canon 300mm F4 IS lens and the 1.4x TC and image quality seems very good, however the flexibility of the 100-400 zoom should not be overlooked Phil Martin |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
400mm IS
"Eric Miller" wrote in message
... I have a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM. What I would really like to have is this same lens with IS. At this point, the actual options (without quintupling the price) are the Canon 100-400 IS, 300 f/4 IS + 1.4 TC and the Sigma 80-400 IS. Sure, the 400 DO IS and 400 2.8 IS are available, but not in my price range. So, what is the likelihood that a) Canon will come out with an 400mm 5.6 IS replacement for my lens; b) a third party will make a compatible 400mm f/5.6 IS/OS/VR non-zoom; or, c) someone will make an IS/OS/VR teleconverter in Canon mount? Second question: Has anyone made an actual comparison of the realistally expectable photo quality between the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4TC, the 100-400 IS, 80-400 OS and the 400 f/5.6 L that takes into account the results obtainable with IS? I'm not just talking about optical quality, but general sharpness of photos in the real world, giving the lenses with IS/OS their due. I'm starting to suspect that whatever marginal benefits the 400 f/5.6 L offers in optical quality is outweighed by the benefits of IS/OS for certain applications, like the small bird photography that I do. The other option, is, I gues, using a gyroscopic stabilizer like the ones offered by Kenyon Labs, but those aren't exactly cheap. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com All the tests I've seen with the 100-400 IS, show wide aperture softness at 400. I have the 300 f/4 IS and Canon 2x. I find it to be great. I posted some image links in a reply to Steve's question a couple posts newer in the digital group. John |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
400mm IS
Eric Miller wrote:
I have a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM. What I would really like to have is this same lens with IS. At this point, the actual options (without quintupling the price) are the Canon 100-400 IS, 300 f/4 IS + 1.4 TC and the Sigma 80-400 IS. Sure, the 400 DO IS and 400 2.8 IS are available, but not in my price range. So, what is the likelihood that a) Canon will come out with an 400mm 5.6 IS replacement for my lens; b) a third party will make a compatible 400mm f/5.6 IS/OS/VR non-zoom; or, c) someone will make an IS/OS/VR teleconverter in Canon mount? Second question: Has anyone made an actual comparison of the realistally expectable photo quality between the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4TC, the 100-400 IS, 80-400 OS and the 400 f/5.6 L that takes into account the results obtainable with IS? I'm not just talking about optical quality, but general sharpness of photos in the real world, giving the lenses with IS/OS their due. I'm starting to suspect that whatever marginal benefits the 400 f/5.6 L offers in optical quality is outweighed by the benefits of IS/OS for certain applications, like the small bird photography that I do. The other option, is, I gues, using a gyroscopic stabilizer like the ones offered by Kenyon Labs, but those aren't exactly cheap. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com I found my 100-400 mm a little soft at 400mm. Another frequent poster here, Bill Hilton, has one that is very sharp at 400. So if you decide the 100-400 route, test it first. (I'll sell you mine ;-) Tests at: Relative Lens Sharpness http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...lens-sharpness Older test: Canon EOS 100-400mm L IS vs Sigma 170-500mm vs Canon 75-300mm IS http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/lenstest1.html I have opted for a 300 mm f/4 L IS. It is lighter and faster autofocus, and provides as much sharpness at 300 as the 100-400 at 400mm. Then at 420 mm (300+1.4x TC) I get more detail than with the 100-400 at 400. I also use it on a 1D Mark II so I have autofocus at 600 mm f/8. Sample (300+1.4x TC): http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...962.b-700.html Roger |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
400mm IS
You may wish to go to the Birds as Art web site. Arthur Morris does a couple
of comparisons and recently has used and commented on the 100 - 400 IS. Makes a number of statements and provides shots which tend to debunk the myths around about the softness of the 100 - 400 compared to the 400 F5.6 (I own the prime and love it, but will buy the zoom shortly). Anyway its all interesting reading and a couple of shots with the 100 - 400 using a converter are just mind boggling in their clarity, sharpness etc. Site is: http://www.birdsasart.com/ and look at bulletin 192. regards Don "JohnR66" wrote in message ... "Eric Miller" wrote in message ... I have a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM. What I would really like to have is this same lens with IS. At this point, the actual options (without quintupling the price) are the Canon 100-400 IS, 300 f/4 IS + 1.4 TC and the Sigma 80-400 IS. Sure, the 400 DO IS and 400 2.8 IS are available, but not in my price range. So, what is the likelihood that a) Canon will come out with an 400mm 5.6 IS replacement for my lens; b) a third party will make a compatible 400mm f/5.6 IS/OS/VR non-zoom; or, c) someone will make an IS/OS/VR teleconverter in Canon mount? Second question: Has anyone made an actual comparison of the realistally expectable photo quality between the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4TC, the 100-400 IS, 80-400 OS and the 400 f/5.6 L that takes into account the results obtainable with IS? I'm not just talking about optical quality, but general sharpness of photos in the real world, giving the lenses with IS/OS their due. I'm starting to suspect that whatever marginal benefits the 400 f/5.6 L offers in optical quality is outweighed by the benefits of IS/OS for certain applications, like the small bird photography that I do. The other option, is, I gues, using a gyroscopic stabilizer like the ones offered by Kenyon Labs, but those aren't exactly cheap. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com All the tests I've seen with the 100-400 IS, show wide aperture softness at 400. I have the 300 f/4 IS and Canon 2x. I find it to be great. I posted some image links in a reply to Steve's question a couple posts newer in the digital group. John |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
400mm IS
"Don" wrote in message ... You may wish to go to the Birds as Art web site. Arthur Morris does a couple of comparisons and recently has used and commented on the 100 - 400 IS. Makes a number of statements and provides shots which tend to debunk the myths around about the softness of the 100 - 400 compared to the 400 F5.6 (I own the prime and love it, but will buy the zoom shortly). Anyway its all interesting reading and a couple of shots with the 100 - 400 using a converter are just mind boggling in their clarity, sharpness etc. I agree. The 1.4x on my 100-400 was amazing. However you need a 1-series body to AF at the long end (400mm). Site is: http://www.birdsasart.com/ and look at bulletin 192. regards Don "JohnR66" wrote in message ... "Eric Miller" wrote in message ... I have a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM. What I would really like to have is this same lens with IS. At this point, the actual options (without quintupling the price) are the Canon 100-400 IS, 300 f/4 IS + 1.4 TC and the Sigma 80-400 IS. Sure, the 400 DO IS and 400 2.8 IS are available, but not in my price range. So, what is the likelihood that a) Canon will come out with an 400mm 5.6 IS replacement for my lens; b) a third party will make a compatible 400mm f/5.6 IS/OS/VR non-zoom; or, c) someone will make an IS/OS/VR teleconverter in Canon mount? Second question: Has anyone made an actual comparison of the realistally expectable photo quality between the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4TC, the 100-400 IS, 80-400 OS and the 400 f/5.6 L that takes into account the results obtainable with IS? I'm not just talking about optical quality, but general sharpness of photos in the real world, giving the lenses with IS/OS their due. I'm starting to suspect that whatever marginal benefits the 400 f/5.6 L offers in optical quality is outweighed by the benefits of IS/OS for certain applications, like the small bird photography that I do. The other option, is, I gues, using a gyroscopic stabilizer like the ones offered by Kenyon Labs, but those aren't exactly cheap. Eric Miller www.dyesscreek.com All the tests I've seen with the 100-400 IS, show wide aperture softness at 400. I have the 300 f/4 IS and Canon 2x. I find it to be great. I posted some image links in a reply to Steve's question a couple posts newer in the digital group. John |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
400mm IS | Eric Miller | Digital Photography | 7 | January 26th 06 12:14 AM |
Minolta question: Sigma 400mm f/5.6 versus Minolta APO 200mm f/2.8 and 2x APO converter | Hamilton Davidson | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | January 17th 05 01:35 AM |
400mm for 10D | b4 | Digital Photography | 8 | October 12th 04 01:01 AM |
FA - MINT Canon 400mm f5.6 "L" lens on eBay - LOW PRICE! | [email protected] | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | May 7th 04 03:19 PM |
FA - eBay - Mint Canon 400mm f5.6 "L" lens - take a look | Jack Winberg | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | May 2nd 04 12:16 AM |