Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Canon 100-400L Non Aviation Photography  
User currently offlineDullesguy From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 247 posts, RR: 1
Posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3773 times:

I know its been discussed over and over but I havnt seen many shots of non aviation subjects with the Canon 100-400L vs the canon 70-200L 2.8 IS

Im going to make some good cash this summer and will have enough for either lense. I am just so stuck in the middle on the pro's vs con's of getting either lense. I dont do just aviation photography and wanted to know if any of you 70-200 or 100-400 users had any pictures of subjects other than aviation related. One of my main questions is, why is it that the 100-400L is soft towards full focal length if it has IS technology??


How do you 100-400L users like the lense for non aviation shooting..it seems that even though its an F4-5.6 with that IS technology low light situations shouldnt be as tough as say with the current lense i have now 70-300 III USM.


What a hard choice b/w the two! i want the distance, but i also want crisp shots at all ends of the focal lenghts.


Stephen


"..the joy of the Lord is your strength" Nehemiah 8:10
14 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 3738 times:

Quoting Dullesguy (Thread starter):
One of my main questions is, why is it that the 100-400L is soft towards full focal length if it has IS technology??

Softness has absolutely nothing to do with IS. Blurriness does. Softness just means that the glass is not sharp. The IS doesnt change a thing about that!



Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineTWAMD-80 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1006 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3731 times:

How much of a problem is the softness at the 400mm end? Can it be reduced significantly by bumping up the aperature to a reasonable level, say around F8-F11?

Tim



Two A-4's, left ten o'clock level continue left turn!
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 3, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3731 times:

Yes. It is not noticable at all as far as I am concerned... The 70-200 2.8 is clearly sharper, but the 100-400 is very, very useable.


Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineTWAMD-80 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1006 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 3713 times:

Ok cool. I currently use the 70-200 2.8 and it's pretty sharp. The only thing that I don't like is the limited focal length. I use a 2X converter with it when I need a few extra mm's and the photos can get fairly soft when that is attached (I suppose that's not such a big surprise).

Tim



Two A-4's, left ten o'clock level continue left turn!
User currently offlineFiveholer From United States of America, joined Jun 1999, 1013 posts, RR: 14
Reply 5, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 3696 times:

Here, have a look in my pbase gallery. I have some non-aviation stuff with the 100-400. I LOVE this lens...although one of my friend thinks its a "cheater" lens with the IS. I call jealousy!  Smile  Wink

http://www.pbase.com/fiveholer

Danny



Bring back Bethune!
User currently offlineUA777222 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 3348 posts, RR: 11
Reply 6, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3663 times:

Quoting Fiveholer (Reply 5):
although one of my friend thinks its a "cheater" lens with the IS. I call jealousy!    

If you're referring to who I think you are I would like to second the jealousy theory!  

I love my lens. The price is easy to drive one away but the results will pull you back in. I want to rent a 70-200 2.8L IS for a day. It's something like $40 at the camera shop down the hill. That said I have no experience with the 70-200 and am still learning the ins and outs of my 100-400L. Regardless both should blow you away with their results.

Thanks,

Matt

[Edited 2005-04-29 05:36:43]

[Edited 2005-04-29 05:37:27]


"It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark."
User currently offlineXpfg From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 634 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3637 times:

Quoting UA777222 (Reply 6):
If you're referring to who I think you are I would like to second the jealousy theory!

What a dumb remark and you know why...I have nothing more to say on that subject.

The 100-400 is an amazingly nice lens, I must admit. However, as with much of photography these days, things are getting easier by the day to where an average joe can pick up a camera and run; myself included.

I fully backup the "cheat" remark on the IS, as it's true...it stops some talent that otherwise used to be needed from actually being there. Regardless, the results are amazing.

[Edited 2005-04-29 07:51:26]

User currently offlineTWAMD-80 From United States of America, joined Oct 2001, 1006 posts, RR: 4
Reply 8, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3621 times:

Quoting UA777222 (Reply 6):
want to rent a 70-200 2.8L IS for a day. It's something like $40 at the camera shop down the hill. That said I have no experience with the 70-200 and am still learning the ins and outs of my 100-400L

Being quite familiar with the 70-200 2.8 L IS, I can say that it does provide some excellent results. The only weakness that I find in the lens is the focal length. I am interested in investing in a 100-400 when I get the funds up again...which I don't think will be anytime soon.

Tim



Two A-4's, left ten o'clock level continue left turn!
User currently offlineManzoori From UK - England, joined Sep 2002, 1516 posts, RR: 33
Reply 9, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3618 times:

Quote:
I fully backup the "cheat" remark on the IS, as it's true...it stops some talent that otherwise used to be needed from actually being there. Regardless, the results are amazing.

Eh? How on earth does having image stabilisation equate to cheating?  eyebrow  I speak as someone who does not have an IS lens by the way. By this very argument isn't a 400mm lens a cheat as well? The Real photographer would simply get closer to his subject right?  irked 

It's nothing more than a technological enabler that gives you the opportunity to get more of your long focal length shots right first time. No cheating at all.

Rez
FlighLineImages



Flightlineimages DOT Com Photographer & Web Editor. RR Turbines Specialist
User currently offlineWietse From Netherlands, joined Oct 2001, 3809 posts, RR: 55
Reply 10, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3609 times:

Are you a MF, manual metering, manual film winder? I'd say that AF, Metering and motordrives is cheating as well?


Wietse de Graaf
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3609 times:

...................what Rez Manzoori said.  smirk 

User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 12, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3608 times:

Wietse, you cheater, you should be ashamed of yourself!  laughing   laughing 

User currently offlineXpfg From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 634 posts, RR: 7
Reply 13, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 3603 times:

Quoting Wietse (Reply 10):
Are you a MF, manual metering, manual film winder? I'd say that AF, Metering and motordrives is cheating as well?

Not at all, and if you read my post, you would easily understand my point. I even called myself someone who just jumped in the scene. Photography is getting much easier these days, there's no denying that!

Quoting Manzoori (Reply 9):
By this very argument isn't a 400mm lens a cheat as well? The Real photographer would simply get closer to his subject right?

I'm talking from the aspect of knowledge and handling a camera. This has nothing to do with a lens being of some odd length. Either way, you're turning/push-pulling a lens. That is the PHOTOGRAPHER doing that.

This is all I have to comment on the subject, so before flaming anymore, might as well quit.

As said before to the original poster, the 100-400 is a GREAT lens and produces amazing results! There is definitely no doubt about that!  Smile


User currently offlineSulman From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2037 posts, RR: 32
Reply 14, posted (9 years 8 months 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3592 times:

I thought IS was a load of old bollocks. I honestly didn't think it made that much difference, as I'd seen people's shots with it on and off and they looked very similar to my eyes.

Then I tried Justin Wood's 100-400, and I was pretty impressed. At the long end, it's an extremely helpful aid for getting sharp shots. I think I have two shots in the DB with it, and both of those were 'right first time', i.e. I didn't take a series. I don't have the steadiest hands, and even on the 70-200 I have to be careful at the long end.

When I can afford it I'll certainly buy one.


James



It takes a big man to admit they are wrong, and I am not a big man.
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...
Sigma 50-500 Or Canon 100-400L Is posted Mon Jul 10 2006 07:52:38 by Franzloew
Canon 100-400L Is Is Toasted posted Fri Aug 19 2005 06:41:41 by N317AS
Yay! Just Got My Canon 100-400L Is Lens posted Thu Jul 28 2005 23:23:51 by Fly747
Wanting A Canon 100-400L? posted Mon Jun 13 2005 03:31:27 by DLKAPA
Canon 100-400L Is posted Sun Jun 12 2005 21:50:12 by TFSPhoto
Canon 100-400L posted Sat Mar 19 2005 01:57:03 by Atomother
Canon 100-400L Is posted Mon Jan 3 2005 18:29:33 by ChrisZRH
Canon 100-400L : Is It Worth It? posted Tue Nov 16 2004 21:53:28 by Dlx737200
Bigma Or Canon 100-400L? posted Wed Oct 27 2004 00:55:00 by Volare
Canon 100-400L "polluting" The Cmos? posted Fri Aug 13 2004 18:23:15 by Fly-K