A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Canon Lense Recommendation: 400 5.6 (non-IS) -or- 100-400 IS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 20th 04, 01:05 AM
Alien Clumps
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Canon Lense Recommendation: 400 5.6 (non-IS) -or- 100-400 IS

For my 20D that I intend to purchase, I am having an excruciating,
painful time trying to decide which lense to put into my outfit.

I like the 100-400 in that it has IS, and of course, zoom.

I like the 400 5.6 because it is prime, sharper lense, etc.

I saw numerous pics posted on various websites for each lense. They
are all outstanding (the oustanding ones that i viewed).

I love closeups. I intend to do some birding along with other nature
shots. No sports. No archetecure. Pure nature.

So I need some more opinions on the 2 lenses plus some experience. I
sure do appreciate it!

Thanks
AC
  #2  
Old September 20th 04, 01:37 AM
You know who
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Alien Clumps" no to be @ determined wrote in message
...
For my 20D that I intend to purchase, I am having an excruciating,
painful time trying to decide which lense to put into my outfit.

I like the 100-400 in that it has IS, and of course, zoom.

I like the 400 5.6 because it is prime, sharper lense, etc.

I saw numerous pics posted on various websites for each lense. They
are all outstanding (the oustanding ones that i viewed).

I love closeups. I intend to do some birding along with other nature
shots. No sports. No archetecure. Pure nature.

So I need some more opinions on the 2 lenses plus some experience. I
sure do appreciate it!

Thanks
AC


Well, it's not a fair fight, is it? The 100-400 is nearly one third more
money, has IS and a variable focal length and only 0.20lbs heavier according
to BHPHOTO. I have the 100-400 because I like being able to frame things
close and far, without moving forward or backward. I read on DPREVIEW
comments from those who tried the prime and said it is no sharper than the
zoom. This was after I bought mine so I was glad to hear it (OK, maybe a
little biased here!). That said, I have never had a sharpness issue with
mine, even with a Canon 1.4x TC on a 300D and a 1D.


  #3  
Old September 20th 04, 01:37 AM
You know who
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Alien Clumps" no to be @ determined wrote in message
...
For my 20D that I intend to purchase, I am having an excruciating,
painful time trying to decide which lense to put into my outfit.

I like the 100-400 in that it has IS, and of course, zoom.

I like the 400 5.6 because it is prime, sharper lense, etc.

I saw numerous pics posted on various websites for each lense. They
are all outstanding (the oustanding ones that i viewed).

I love closeups. I intend to do some birding along with other nature
shots. No sports. No archetecure. Pure nature.

So I need some more opinions on the 2 lenses plus some experience. I
sure do appreciate it!

Thanks
AC


Well, it's not a fair fight, is it? The 100-400 is nearly one third more
money, has IS and a variable focal length and only 0.20lbs heavier according
to BHPHOTO. I have the 100-400 because I like being able to frame things
close and far, without moving forward or backward. I read on DPREVIEW
comments from those who tried the prime and said it is no sharper than the
zoom. This was after I bought mine so I was glad to hear it (OK, maybe a
little biased here!). That said, I have never had a sharpness issue with
mine, even with a Canon 1.4x TC on a 300D and a 1D.


  #4  
Old September 20th 04, 02:01 AM
S Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alien Clumps choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to
spell out:

For my 20D that I intend to purchase, I am having an excruciating,
painful time trying to decide which lense to put into my outfit.
I like the 100-400 in that it has IS, and of course, zoom.
I like the 400 5.6 because it is prime, sharper lense, etc.
I saw numerous pics posted on various websites for each lense. They
are all outstanding (the oustanding ones that i viewed).
I love closeups. I intend to do some birding along with other nature
shots. No sports. No archetecure. Pure nature.

So I need some more opinions on the 2 lenses plus some experience. I
sure do appreciate it!



This one is a toughie

From Art Morris's site:
http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_1-4is.html
http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_1-4isor4f56.html

I bought the straight 400 after considering the same question. In my
situation though, I already have a 70-200 and just really needed the
extra extra length at 400. The 100-400 is flexible on its own though,
and much less to carry around. I'm still perhaps a little bit
ambivalent, but I like toys
While you can use the 400 without a tripod, if you are planning on having
a tripod along that evens things out a bit between the two lenses.

--
______________A L L D O N E ! B Y E B Y E !_________________
| __ "The Internet is where lunatics are
| (__ * _ _ _ _ internetworked worldwide at the speed of light.
| __)|| | |(_)| \ *This* is progress?" --J. Shinal
  #5  
Old September 20th 04, 02:01 AM
S Lee
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alien Clumps choreographed a chorus line of high-kicking electrons to
spell out:

For my 20D that I intend to purchase, I am having an excruciating,
painful time trying to decide which lense to put into my outfit.
I like the 100-400 in that it has IS, and of course, zoom.
I like the 400 5.6 because it is prime, sharper lense, etc.
I saw numerous pics posted on various websites for each lense. They
are all outstanding (the oustanding ones that i viewed).
I love closeups. I intend to do some birding along with other nature
shots. No sports. No archetecure. Pure nature.

So I need some more opinions on the 2 lenses plus some experience. I
sure do appreciate it!



This one is a toughie

From Art Morris's site:
http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_1-4is.html
http://www.birdsasart.com/faq_1-4isor4f56.html

I bought the straight 400 after considering the same question. In my
situation though, I already have a 70-200 and just really needed the
extra extra length at 400. The 100-400 is flexible on its own though,
and much less to carry around. I'm still perhaps a little bit
ambivalent, but I like toys
While you can use the 400 without a tripod, if you are planning on having
a tripod along that evens things out a bit between the two lenses.

--
______________A L L D O N E ! B Y E B Y E !_________________
| __ "The Internet is where lunatics are
| (__ * _ _ _ _ internetworked worldwide at the speed of light.
| __)|| | |(_)| \ *This* is progress?" --J. Shinal
  #6  
Old September 20th 04, 02:40 AM
Bill Hilton
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Alien Clumps" no to be @ determined wrote

I like the 100-400 in that it has IS, and of course, zoom.

I like the 400 5.6 because it is prime, sharper lense, etc.

So I need some more opinions on the 2 lenses plus some experience. I
sure do appreciate it!


My wife has the 400 f/5.6 L and I have the 100-400 IS and I've used both a fair
amount. I prefer the 400 for shooting birds in flight since it will autofocus
faster, especially with the Mark II. I prefer the 100-400 for shooting from a
confined area like a viewing platform or shuttle bus in Alaska (though I didn't
take it with me on my most recent trip), and the IS is very useful for when you
have to hand-hold.

I also have the 500 f/4, 300 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 L lenses so generally take
the 100-400 only when space is a premium and when I think I'll need to
hand-hold a lot. When I drive I usually leave it home.

For most people I think the 100-400 is more useful and a better all-around
choice, and the IS makes it very handy. With the 70-200, 300 and 400 fixed
lenses I'm pretty well covered over this focal range so when space is not an
issue and I won't be doing much handholding I prefer to take two of those three
(almost always the 70-200 f/2.8 and just one of the others).

Get the 100-400 unless you have good coverage at the shorter focal lengths as
well, I feel. The 400 is more of a speciality lens, not as generically useful
as the 4:1 zoom with IS.

Bill


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) Steven M. Scharf Digital Photography 104 September 3rd 04 01:01 PM
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) Steven M. Scharf 35mm Photo Equipment 92 September 3rd 04 01:01 PM
Recommendation for a Canon lens [email protected] Photographing Nature 13 July 8th 04 02:10 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.