100-400 finely

bar

New member
Finely I bought the 100-400L lens
The IS and sharpness is awesome.

First photo 400mm 1/250
Second 400mm 1/320

Hand held.


IMG_6038.jpg


IMG_6050.jpg
 
Last edited:

freecard

New member
Nice--I do like that lense. I hear some people don't like the barrell action in moving the lense to different focal points. What is your take?
 

joefish

Premium Member
Very , very sharp for a zoom , Just like a prime lens . sweeeet !

What body are you using ?
 

bar

New member
Tnx,
I use to have a 35-350 canon lens
so im preaty used to push/pull.
I really dont have any problem with that.
 

opie

New member
I think you should send the lens to me for calibration and extended testing! ;)

Looks like you will be putting out some really nice shots with this new lens!
 

CrystalAZ

New member
Great, now I am singing that "I like to move it, move it" song from Madagascar. :D (isn't that king the same animal as in the pic?)

Seriously, those are nice pics.

Crystal
 

BlueCorn

Retired
Premium Member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=6953525#post6953525 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by joefish
Those are better then the first .....


What camera are you using with that lens ?:confused:

20D - use the EXIF Luke.

:D
 

joefish

Premium Member
He He !

I know what a EXIF is , what I don't know is how to get it from pictues that aren't mine ....:lol:

So does that make me only half dumb ....:lol:
 

125reef

New member
Bar, what made you get that particular lens? The reason I'm asking is because I have been debating between two lenses. The 100-400 and the 70-200 2.8 with the used of a 1.4x TC and/ or a 2x TC. I'm fully aware of aperture decrease which is fine, but I have read a lot of mixed reviews as to how much image degredation I will get with the 2x TC to get a focal lenght of 400. Bar, did you try this combination before making your decision on the 100-400 L lens? Nice shots by the way.
 

maroun.c

New member
Nice pics,
Same here i'm still wondering if i should get a teleconverter for my 18-200 or invest in a 200-400 or maybe just a 70-300 any suggestions of what made you make your choice?
 

aberg12012

New member
As far as Nikon mounts... (Cannon should be a similar story.)

I tried the 80-400 VR (f/4.5-5.6) about a year ago when I was shopping for the 70-200 VR (f/2.8). I guess it depends on what you need. If you need something slow, with better reach, the 80-400 would work fine. But it focuses slow, dosn't have a constant aperture, and telescopes in/out which means it's going to be sucking dust and dirt into the inner glass. The 70-200 on the other hand, focuses lighting fast, has a wonderful fast constant aperture, and dosn't telescope in and out so it's completely sealed. Plus, if I need to go out to 400mm, I can slap a 2x converter on, and have the same f/5.6 that the 80-400 has at 400mm. ;)

I would assume the same can be applied to the Cannon IS lenses... sealed, constant ap. lense that focuses lighting fast, or a non-sealed telescoping lense that focuses a little slower, but has more reach.
 

125reef

New member
Aberg, do you have any experience with the 70-200 VR with a 2x TC? If so, how was your image quality at 400 with the teleconverter. I know image quality with go down with any teleconverter, but by how much. In other words, how noticeable with a 2x TC on a 20-700 f/2.8 lens?
 

aberg12012

New member
I have not personally tried the 2x... so I can't say for sure. But I would bet that any reports of severe image quality/sharpness loss is mostly "measurebating." I would not be worried about it, because the 70-200 is so sharp to begin with, it's probably still sharper with a 2x TC than the 80-400 VR. But of coarse, I can't back that up with actuall experience...

As for the 200-400 VR... yikes! Is 5 grand really worth that? :D For five grand, I'll walk my fat butt a little closer. :lol:
 
Top