|
![]() |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
![]() |
#21 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
|
![]()
Golfer, I am very happy with the 100-400L. For the money it is real great for that kind of reach. Most people who say IS is not for me, probably don't shoot often at that range. Ask any folks who shoot with 500F4 and 600F4 and have 1.4x or even 2x TCs on top of that, how helpfull IS is even when you using heavy tripods. For flight shots you don't care about IS. The cheap 1.4x tc on 100-400 is usuable in good light situations. I think it will give better results if I was using a tripod rather than been hand held.
Like Eric said, I too would buy if canon released something like the Nikon 200-400F4 VR. If you don't mind using tripod most of the times, take a look at Sigma 50-500. One thing I have noticed with canon L glass is that they hold their value. You use them and if you don't like or want something better or different, you can sell them at very good resale value |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#22 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 276
|
![]() ![]() NHL Thank you so much, you have shown me a lense that may still become part of my kit. I had spent much time on the net researching the 100x400 and not once did I see anything on your suggested 120x300. The 2.8 on this lense for its size is remarkable. Thank you for taking time to point this out to me. I went ahead with the Canon becuase: 1. IS, this works for me and it seems I never have my tripod when I need it. 2. Extra reach of the 400. 3. Canon quality. 4. I found no other lense with the same flexibility [excepet the Sigma suggest by NHL] By the way, surely NHL doesn't stand for National Hockey League does it? LOL para - sorry I don't meant to ignore you - I plan to use the lense for wildlige = expecially bird photography. A lot of my photos are from a canoe or riverbank it seems. I spent too much time in my mis spent youth and can't seem to get it out of my blood. LOL |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#23 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 3,599
|
![]()
Golfer,
I just wondered whether you needed the zoom, as you already have the 70-200. Might you be better off with a 300mm prime? You can attach the 1.4xTC to it to give you 420mm, still with AF and IS. There is also the 400mm f5.6 L. The 300mm f4 IS L is a little cheaper than the 100-400L. Of course the faster 400mm primes look very nice but cost $gulp. Anyway - it's all moot now because you've ordered your lens and I'm sure you're going to love it. No review that I've ever seen has a bad word to say about the image quality of that lens. The only negative I've heard is about the zoom action, and heck - it may matter if you make your living off the lens, but for hobbyists I don't see how it can be a big deal. Enjoy - and post some pics once you get it. :-) |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#24 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 276
|
![]()
Peripatic - Thanks for sharing your thoughts. For me at this stage, I feel the zoom is very important for framing my shots. That is mainly because I don't have a number of lenses I can choose from in my bag.
NHL probably had the closest answer for me and I plan to still look for info on the Sigma. Bobbyz I think you are right, IS has been useful for me. Wish I could afford the 500 DO, but that is out of the ballpark for me. Your right, Canon lenses do seem to hold their value. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#25 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,599
|
![]()
There's a myth going on...
Try to find desirable good 'fast' used lenses - Not too many right? People hang on to them... Lenses that don't hold their value are the ones that nobody wants check out Ebay for used Canon starter lenses (or any other brands) for example ![]() IMO if anyone can find a fast f/2.8 Sigma especially a 120-300 that don't hold their value... Jump on IT (the folk that got my 50-500 would)! :G |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 276
|
![]()
:? Well said NHL it is hard to find any good lense used. I think what bobbyz was trying to say is that when you do find them they are very close fo full retail cost.
By the wey, I like the looks of your Sigman lense. Tried to find some other opinions on them but fell short. Anywhere you could send me. I may have a use for that lense also. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#27 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
|
![]()
if you already have the 100x400 is on the way... why not look into a good prime 300mm 2.8 which you can get with image stab for about the price of the sigma 120-300 2.8... you have the 100x400 if you need the zoom.. the prime lens will be sharper and will have the combination of the fast 2.8 and the image stab... just an idea, can't go wrong either way :G
style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"enjoy,dustin |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#28 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: 39.18776, -77.311353333333
Posts: 11,599
|
![]()
Hards80 wrote:
Quote:
(if it's about the same... so much for holding value hey?) :G Golfer wrote: Quote:
http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...c.php?id=32296 ... more here: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/180589 http://photosig.pcphotoreview.com/mo...2_3128crx.aspx ... and this person shoots mainly birds (with a 2x teleconverter): http://www.pbase.com/nikond70/birds ![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#29 |
Super Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
|
![]()
that was my mistake, i was thinkin of the 300 2.8 prime lens, but the price i was thinking of was for the 300 4.0 is prime.. too many numbers floatin around in my head, sometimes they land in the wrong place... :?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 276
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|