United4everDEN From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4433 times:
A great thing happened today, and I have been offered a lens for my 300D, but I have to ask, which is best? I am looking for one that has good zoom, but nothing like a 400mm fixed, infact, no fixed lenses at all. So what should it be? I want nothing either, that will "just work in most places", I want all places.
DLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4397 times:
Here in Denver, the 100-400 will be all you will ever need. Remember the 300D has a crop ratio of 1.6, so do this: Multiply 400 by 1.6. That will be how much you get when in full zoom, for example: When I zoom to 300mm, It is actually 300x1.6, which equals something in the neighborhood of 485mm.
That is one of the many reasons why I like the 300D.
Ckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 660 posts, RR: 17 Reply 6, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4401 times:
OK, I suspect you're still thinking in digicam terms. If you really mean the best, you need to think in SLR terms.
All zooms are a compromise on optical quality, the greater the zoom range, the more you sacridice in quality. So what do you want? If zoom range is a big issue for you get the Sigma 50-500.
If image quality is the important, the Canon 100-400 is probably the best long zoom you can buy.
If the ultimate in image quality is what you want, then forget zooms altogether and look at the Canon 500mm or 600mm f4LIS - if price really isn't the issue that is, as either of these lenses is the price of a car
Mikec From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 247 posts, RR: 14 Reply 7, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4394 times:
"Is 100-400 the equivilent of a 4x zoom? I want better than that"
No it isn't! To get an equivalent x zoom number you are looking at, you divide the total focal length (including crop factor) by 35 to get a conventional x times zoom number. In the case of the 100-400L it would be 400 x 1.6 = 640mm. Divide by 35, gives you 18.3x zoom - that's what it would be if it was on a normal digicam. Definitely not 4x!!!
I'm sure someone will correct me if that isn't right!
Rotor1 From Tajikistan, joined Mar 2003, 230 posts, RR: 3 Reply 8, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4390 times:
I believe zoom refers to the amount of difference between wide angle and maximum telephoto. It's a deceptive word -- if you had a lens that had 20x zoom but its wide angle was 12mm, you'd only be looking at a 240mm lens on the long end. On the other hand, a 100-400L has a 4x zoom, but is 400mm at the long end.
Zoom is versatility, but focal length (mm) is magnification. The more zoom, USUALLY the more tradeoffs (IE maximum aperature, image quality, distortion, abberation, WEIGHT, etc).
Money not an option? Get a 400 F2.8 and go from there. Sharp and fast, but expencive... or you could get a 500 F4. E-mail me your address and the hours you're at work, as well.
The best aviation photo I've ever taken was rejected by Airliners.net
Mikec From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 247 posts, RR: 14 Reply 9, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 4384 times:
Thanks for the explanation Mike. I assumed United4everDEN was referring to digicam terminology when he said 4x zoom and "I want better than that", so my explanation was to give an equivalent digicam optical zoom figure based on the full focal length of the 100-400 for comparison.
Mia777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2002, 1165 posts, RR: 6 Reply 11, posted (9 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4364 times:
It's known to be one of Canon's "weaker" (in terms of image quality) L lenses (still great though). It also lacks IS which is rough if you've become really used to it, but they new 28-300 does have IS but costs quite a bit.