Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Canon Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 13, 2005, 11:37 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Dallas, Texas USA
Posts: 6,522
Default

eric s,

Sorry to have ruffled your feathers in my earlier posts. I truly didn't mean it as an insult to yourself or anyone else. I just need to be happy I got a good one.
Attached Images
 
Greg Chappell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2005, 10:55 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Not a problem, really. After I posted it I wondered if I went off a bit too far & long.

Nice shots of those eagles. Are they in captivity? Getting the exposure balanced between the black/dark body and the white head isn't easy.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2005, 1:47 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
bobbyz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,423
Default

One tip I can offer is to rotate the tripod collar so the tripod base is on the top. You can use it to grab the lens/camera combo and I find it easier to move the push=pull zoom. For most shots, keep the focus limiter switch at >6m setting. When using IS, remember it take some time to engage so full press the shutter after image has stabilized in the viewfinder. If you don't need IS (light is good or for flight shots), keep it off to save battery.
bobbyz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2005, 8:54 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 276
Default

Bobbyz thanks for the tip. Wonder if anyone has ever attacthed ahorizontalsmall wooden handel to the bracked making a larger handel for a carrier. Could be easily taken off when not needed.

Eric, Gregg, you guys said it well, there is no way the 1.x4 can compete with a fixed lense, but we amatures have to draw a line at where there the dollar stops. I believe this is probably one of the better/best lenses in this catagory.

Thanks for your input.
Golfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 14, 2005, 11:46 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Golfer, I don't think I got my point across.

It isn't a question of putting the 1.4 on a better lens will produce better results. Or that the AF is slow on the 100-400 with the 1.4. I'm really saying that it was basically unusable. Imagine a pendulum swinging back and forth. Now imagine the center point of the swing is where the image is in focus. The lens' AF would swing/oscillate back and forth slowly honing in on the actual correctly focused image. After awhile I though I was physically damaging the motor or some internal component by causing all that jittering back and forth (and yes, when it got close, it sounded like jittering.)

By the time it found the focus the subject was gone. Ok, that is a slight exageration… a heron would still be there. But any bird that usually moves (robin, bluejay, warbler, chickadee,…) would be gone. Even in noon-day summer summer sun. I'm talking 10+ seconds to focus some times.

You have to understand how AF works. The smaller the aperture it has to work with, the larger the DOF is. This makes it harder for the AF to tell where the proper in-focus region is - the difference between in focus and out of focus is so small (big DOF, slower bluring between in and out of focus.) You really are working outside of the tolerances of the AF system.

Now, I find the view finder is too dark and not sharp enough for me to consistently manually focus the 10D and the 100-400 (no TC) and found it even harder with the 1.4TC. I'll admit my vision is going in my left eye but it's still good in the right. If you want to do the 100-400+1.4TC for Manual focus… go right ahead. That will work fine (if you can do it.) Its sharpness isn't bad… so it's more a matter of personal standards. I do it some times, but as a trade off of weight and flexibility (but I have that option 'cause of my big-gun.) Not because I look at the results and go "wow, those are sharp". But we're all in agreement there.

Now, is this a good lens? Yes. Is it a good lens for the money? Yes (if you get a good one, their quality control leaves something to be desired.) I could easily buy the 400 f5.6 (heck, I could buy the 400 f4 DO if I really wanted to) but I don't because the 100-400 is currently good enough in this zoom range and has a great minimum focusing distance. Does it compare to a lens costing 4x more? No, but who expects it to?

I just wish that Canon would match the Nikon 200-400 f4 VR. Now that would be worth the money. In that range I really prefer a zoom.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2005, 5:21 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 276
Default

Thanks eric, I relate to what you are saying very well. Nicely said. You are right, a brighter lense in this catagory would be wonderful. How about a 2.8, might be so big we couldn't carry it though. LOL

Thanks for hanging in there with me on the explaning.
Golfer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 15, 2005, 9:11 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

No problem. I'm not a teacher, but I like helping people.

I've seen a 400 f2.8. Scary lens, weighs around what my 600 weighs. I heard someone this weekend say that Canon was planning a 500 f2.8 DO. I have a hard time imagining how big the front element would be... as big as a small pizza? It's gotta be twice as big as the 500 f4!

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2005, 11:29 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
Trout Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 132
Default

OK, I won't bore Y'all with anymore shots of my gas meter. I was wandering the backroads here in the Ozarks a couple days ago and ran into one of our many herds of elk; this herd had about 30 elk but no big bulls in sight>

Shot was 75-100 yards with full zoom at 400mm; I can't recall the EXIF data but it was someting like f6 at ISO 400 with 1/320 second on the shutter. I used Picasa2 and gave the image one click of sharpening and about a 50% crop. Whadda Y'all think?

TG

Attached Images
 
Trout Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2005, 11:34 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
Trout Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 132
Default

Here's one more of a young bull and the only one I could identify in the herd. EXIF,sharpening and cropping about the same. Although it looks like he got peppered with 00 buckshot, those are really "love bites" from the girls!! You can see other "love bites" on the hind quarter of the female partially visible in the image.

Still haven't figured out how to attach multiple images to a post...give me a clue please.

TG
Attached Images
 
Trout Guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 24, 2005, 1:58 PM   #40
Senior Member
 
JakeTPegg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 1,767
Default

Hi Golfer/Trout Guy [and others], I'll put in my penny's worth : I upgraded from a FZ10two monthsago to a 20D, and as I mentioned in another post, the LENS ISSUE was like walking into a minefield. With a digicam, it's all there [well. all that they have], with SLR, you have to search, buy, read, return, buy again, sell... until you are happy withwhat you have got at the level you're at.I have had my 100-400 for about three weeks now, and :--

Like any tool or instrument, YOU HAVE TO LEARN THE INSTRUMENT, it's capabilities, weaknesses and strengths, and work with both.In my relatively short experience with the 100-400, I am finding very good strong points [ease of use, 99% hand holdable, change of focus limit switch - muchquicker on the 6m markif close focus not required,and many more, as well as the weaknesses - miss the 2.8 on the Leica 432mm fitted to the FZ10, sometimes hunts and auto focuses on the bush in front of the bird, etc, [A fair bit better than the FZ10 cause the bird had already migrated North by the time you found your focus] But when you get to knowwhat the weaknesses are, you can then make a plan towork with them - Until of course you can afford the 600 DO, or the 1200....

I'm happy with theGWM [Great White Monster], I'm doing stuff withphotography that I've never done before, it basically lives on my body [my camera body as well] and all in all, I'm having a great time with it. Would I sell it ? maybe, if my photography takes me that much further, and in the meantime, I'mpleased with what the combination [me, my 20d and the GWM]is doing. I know it's not really ethical to postyour pic on someone elses post, but I have submitted a pic of an Ant Chat I took this weekend, hand held, in my idling car, stretching over my wife's shoulder. I think it is clear and sharp enough for what I'm doing at the moment.

Regards [if the pic seems a bit big, I'll reduce it, although it's only 159kb]

Jake


Attached Images
 
JakeTPegg is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:45 PM.