Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
The Ultimate Canon Aviation Lens  
User currently offlineSleekjet From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 2048 posts, RR: 22
Posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4655 times:

Since I've owned my 70-200 f/4 L for all of 5 months now, it is certainly time to upgrade. I don't want to spend more than $1500-1700...and at that it will take many months of saving.

I thinking in terms of the 100-400 IS L. But I don't want to invest this much dough and then get the urge to upgrade 5 months later.

So is it the 100-400?


II Cor. 4:17-18
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineLHRsunriser From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2004, 399 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 4601 times:

Hi,

Phew you aim high. That is what i could only wish for. I don't know how the 100-400 compares to the 70-200. I always thought the 200 was extremely good when hearing from others.

Dom



Getting back into it
User currently offlineTimdegroot From Netherlands, joined Apr 2002, 3674 posts, RR: 64
Reply 2, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4578 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

I own the 70-200 2.8 and while it's an amazing lense for slides, it just sucks for digital, 200mm is just not enough to get the shots I want.

Tim



Alderman Exit
User currently offlineN317AS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4573 times:

Having owned the 100-400mm IS lens for three months now, I love it. Everything you want in an av lens.
Plus, it fits in your price range.


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 765 posts, RR: 16
Reply 4, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4546 times:

In terms of image quality, the 70-200 beats the 100-400 by some way. If you want to retain image quality and increase your range, you need to be looking at primes.

The 300mm f4L is in your price range, and with a 1.4x convertor will give you 400mm and still retain the quality you're used to.

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineJAT74L From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 618 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4534 times:

Tim,
Even though the 1.6 multiply gives 112-320 on digital? I am thinking of the 100-400 IS and also the 70-200 non IS with 1.4 converter that only loses one stop on the 2.8

John



I like trains just as much as planes but trains don't like the Atlantic!
User currently offlineTin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 268 posts, RR: 3
Reply 6, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4434 times:


I had a 100-400 and a 70-200f4. Both nice lenses. I wasn't keen on the 100-400 as I really didn't like the push pull zoom, which does act a little like a vacuum cleaner as dust does get inside eventually. I aslo found "my one" a little soft at the long end wide open. Others seem to be better so maybe mine was a bad apple.

The 70-200f4 is a great lens, light and produces great results, but limited on it's own.

I sold both and bought a 70-200f2.8 IS and a 300 prime. The 70-200f2.8 is an excellent lens that I use a lot with and without the 1.4x extender. I did have a Sigma 300 f2.8 that produced great results but mine fell apart after 5 months and I managed to take it back recently and now have a Canon 300 f4 IS.

In your situation I'd keep the 70-200 and if you want to get the longer reach buy the 300f4 IS. It's much lighter than the 100-400, and produces better results at 300 and 420 when a 1.4x extender is added.

Martin




User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 7, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 4393 times:

ciao guys,

why not go for the Sigma 110 - 300mm 2.8 HSM ? i own it, and I am totally satisfied .... , it doesnt have a kind of IS , but with a aperture of 2.8 u might not need it .... , the HSM is equivalent to the USM .....

ahhh, small thing u Canon guys might not like its a black lens, and Canon guys are normally very proud of thier grey lenses ...

also got extremly sharp images with a attched 2x converter .....

Robin

[Edited 2004-10-08 09:33:51]


ABC
User currently offlineTin67 From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 268 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 4313 times:

ahhh, small thing u Canon guys might not like its a black lens, and Canon guys are normally very proud of thier grey lenses ...

I am Canon through and through, but was persuaded to go to the dark side and a black lens. I tried the a Sigma 300 f2.8 EX HSM, great results but terrible build quality. Back to white and pleased I did.

Martin







User currently offlineTappan From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 1538 posts, RR: 41
Reply 9, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4293 times:

When I leave this earth I want to be buried alongside my Canon 600 F4  Smile/happy/getting dizzy
Mark Garfinkel


User currently offlineCkw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 765 posts, RR: 16
Reply 10, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4276 times:

Hell Mark, you could probably be buried IN a 600 f4  Smile

Cheers,

Colin



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlineGmonney From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 2159 posts, RR: 20
Reply 11, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 4272 times:

Not that i know anything, but i photograph along side with a guy who I think glued his 100-400L IS onto his camera.... very versitile! And one day he put his 2x converter and got some amazing nose close-ups!

I think I will get that lense in the future when i see it fit to spend some $$$

Grant



Drive it like you stole it!
User currently offlineAKE0404AR From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2535 posts, RR: 45
Reply 12, posted (10 years 1 month 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4255 times:

Colin wrote:
Hell Mark, you could probably be buried IN a 600 f4

I would say the case that comes with the lens is big enough......  Big grin Big grin

Vasco


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
This From A Canon L Series Lens? posted Wed Oct 25 2006 16:56:34 by JakTrax
The Ultimate Photo? posted Sun May 28 2006 06:09:51 by CO738
Canon 350D Lens posted Sun Feb 12 2006 10:15:57 by Royal330
What Is The Meaning Of F/4-5.6 In A Lens? posted Tue Feb 7 2006 14:21:08 by TACAA320
The Ultimate Subject..... posted Thu Sep 1 2005 04:12:18 by SQPAX
The Ultimate Photography Kit posted Thu Jan 20 2005 07:03:18 by Aviation
Best Canon Zoom Lens posted Tue Jan 4 2005 23:06:59 by Janne
BP-511A - The Ultimate Battery? posted Wed Nov 10 2004 09:26:00 by UTA_flyinghigh
Canon 300D Lens posted Sat Jun 5 2004 20:53:11 by FightingDingo
The Phil Derner Aviation Photography Resort! posted Sat May 1 2004 19:32:57 by Bigphilnyc