dullesguy
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2000 12:12 am

Canon 100-400L Non Aviation Photography

Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:23 am

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
 
wietse
Posts: 3630
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 12:49 am

RE: Canon 100-400L Non Aviation Photography

Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:03 am

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
 
TWAMD-80
Posts: 962
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 8:25 am

RE: Canon 100-400L Non Aviation Photography

Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:24 am

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!
 
wietse
Posts: 3630
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 12:49 am

RE: Canon 100-400L Non Aviation Photography

Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:28 am

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
 
TWAMD-80
Posts: 962
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 8:25 am

RE: Canon 100-400L Non Aviation Photography

Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:59 am

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 avatar
Fiveholer
Posts: 893
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 1999 6:27 am

RE: Canon 100-400L Non Aviation Photography

Fri Apr 29, 2005 10:16 am

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!
 
ua777222
Posts: 2987
Joined: Mon Dec 22, 2003 11:23 am

RE: Canon 100-400L Non Aviation Photography

Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:35 pm

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."
 
xpfg
Posts: 570
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 1:17 pm

RE: Canon 100-400L Non Aviation Photography

Fri Apr 29, 2005 2:45 pm

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]
 
TWAMD-80
Posts: 962
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2001 8:25 am

RE: Canon 100-400L Non Aviation Photography

Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:13 pm

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!
 
manzoori
Posts: 1459
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 7:08 am

RE: Canon 100-400L Non Aviation Photography

Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:34 pm

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
 
wietse
Posts: 3630
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2001 12:49 am

RE: Canon 100-400L Non Aviation Photography

Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:39 pm

Are you a MF, manual metering, manual film winder? I'd say that AF, Metering and motordrives is cheating as well?
Wietse de Graaf
 
maiznblu_757
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:05 pm

RE: Canon 100-400L Non Aviation Photography

Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:48 pm

...................what Rez Manzoori said.  smirk 
 
maiznblu_757
Posts: 4952
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2002 12:05 pm

RE: Canon 100-400L Non Aviation Photography

Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:49 pm

Wietse, you cheater, you should be ashamed of yourself!  laughing   laughing 
 
xpfg
Posts: 570
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2003 1:17 pm

RE: Canon 100-400L Non Aviation Photography

Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:00 pm

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
 
sulman
Posts: 1963
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 5:09 am

RE: Canon 100-400L Non Aviation Photography

Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:25 pm

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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests