For LONGshooters, which is d better one?


Status
Not open for further replies.

Canonised

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2003
2,989
4
38
For EXPERIENCED wildlife, nature, fashion, zoo, long shooters, etc...
which is the better choice?

1. ef 300mm f4 IS
2. ef 100-400mm IS USM
3. ef 400mm f5.6

Consideration: Flexibility/Usefulness, Weight and Sharpness

Thanks for your feedbacks.
 

nickmak

Senior Member
Apr 16, 2004
2,358
0
0
34
London, UK
www.pbase.com
Canonised said:
For EXPERIENCED wildlife, nature, fashion, zoo, long shooters, etc...
which is the better choice?

1. ef 300mm f4 IS
2. ef 100-400mm IS USM
3. ef 400mm f5.6

Consideration: Flexibility/Usefulness, Weight and Sharpness

Thanks for your feedbacks.
The 300 f4L IS is the best lens to use... can add 1.4X convertor and get 420mm IS f5.6 lens... The 400 f5.6L of course give more reach but no IS and I can happily say that with my 300 f4L I'm very sure u need IS to hand hold the lens... If u want ultimate sharpness get the primes... For a long range of lenses use the zoom...

Hope this helps...
 

akdwivedi

Senior Member
Apr 27, 2003
870
2
18
48
Singapore
Visit site
I would second that.. I myslef am looking for a 300 f/4 IS.. in the meantime I have been using a sigma 400f/5.6 apo and am quite satisfied with its performance.. probably the best price/performance lens in my collection...

However EF 400f/5.6 will beat 300f/4+1.4x in terms of quality.. You should expect a bit of degradation due to extra glass from 1.4x extender.. but then IS overweighs and is worth it..
 

majere2sg

Senior Member
Mar 31, 2003
2,789
0
0
42
Singapore (SengKang)
majere2sg.clubsnap.org
Canonised said:
For EXPERIENCED wildlife, nature, fashion, zoo, long shooters, etc...
which is the better choice?

1. ef 300mm f4 IS
2. ef 100-400mm IS USM
3. ef 400mm f5.6

Consideration: Flexibility/Usefulness, Weight and Sharpness

Thanks for your feedbacks.
For flexibility and usefulness, the 100-400mm IS will be better.. Can be used to shoot portraits and stuff. Take note that it is a push-pull lens, some may not like it but I like cause easier and faster to zoom in and out.
See this for some of the photos I took with this lens at the zoo
http://majere2sg.clubsnap.org/gallery/singaporezoo5
and a number of people photos from here (fifth photos in page 3 onwards to the second last in page 5 )
http://majere2sg.clubsnap.org/gallery/Poses?page=3

Sharpness wise, 300mm F4 IS will be sharper. :lovegrin: Will love to own it too if I got the money.. :D
 

Caussway

New Member
Dec 8, 2003
997
0
0
49
Malaysia
Visit site
I've not used any of these lenses yet. But I did quite a bit
of reading on all of them.

IMO:
100-400 L: is the most flexible and value for money though
it's expensive. It's sharp even wide open. Push pull zoom is matter
of taste. Some will like some not. Possible to handhold in bright days.


400 F5.6 L : Good for birds in flight as the AF is very fast. Very sharp.
The downside is no IS. But if you always use tripod then you can
consider this lens.


300 F4 L: Sharp, 1 stop faster then 400 L at 300mm. Add 1.4x will
get you 420mm F5.6, more versatile. IS makes this lens more favorable then 400 L. Shorter MFD.

Did you consider Sigma 50-500 ?
 

Garion

Senior Member
Nov 26, 2002
5,526
0
0
46
West side of S'pore
Visit site
Here's a link to a related thread. http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=65943&highlight=100-400

I will choose the 300mm f4 L IS over the other two. Why? It is an extremely versatile lens which can be handheld, can be used with or without the 1.4x TC, and if u add an extension tube, can even be used for macro of skittish insects such as butterflies or dragonflies. Very sharp and superb image quality. An excellent all round lens.

Another possible option is the Sigma 50-500mm lens, also an excellent value for money lens.
 

clive

Senior Member
Oct 9, 2002
2,536
0
0
Visit site
get all this
70-200/2.8L
300/3.8L
2x tc

=)
 

Terence

Senior Member
Nov 16, 2003
4,751
0
36
I'm a Llama!
I think there is a saying amongst wildlife photographers that says to always choose a lens with the longest reach even if its the slower lens.

If you're using a dslr, chances are you'd be turning up the ISO for faster speeds to shoot at. Oftentimes, this technique negates the advantages offered by a faster lens. How often are you going to be shooting at f/4? With such a shallow depth of field, only part of the animal's features will be in focus. more likely, one would be shooting f/8 and above.

And as someone mentioned, a pure 400mm is way better than a 300 with a TC. IS should not be a critical requirement. The 400/5.6 is so light, handholding it steadily is not a real problem.

I'd go for the 400/5.6 and save yourself a few bucks.
 

loupgarou

New Member
Sep 9, 2003
1,766
0
0
if that's the arguement, then why not the sigma 50-500.. 8)
 

Terence

Senior Member
Nov 16, 2003
4,751
0
36
I'm a Llama!
loupgarou said:
if that's the arguement, then why not the sigma 50-500.. 8)
Then there's that never ending debate of zooms vs primes. The weight of the 400/5.6 over the Bigma is a clear advantage.
 

agape01

Senior Member
Feb 13, 2003
2,577
0
36
Somewhere Out There
Visit site
For me, I have most of the zooms, but I would suggest that you calculate which type of photography that you are going to photograph more.

However for fashion, I think the better choice for you is the 70-200L. I guess for one, it would be the f/stop that would be really useful. The other possibility on your list would be the 300/4. But you would have to figure out whether f/4 is good enough for you or not.

Anyway, these are just my opinions. Don't let them influence you on which lens to buy in the end. ;)
 

Canonised

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2003
2,989
4
38
Thank you for all the good advices. From the comments, it's obvious that the three lens have about the same equal supporters and each has its strengths and weaknesses, thus I m still as unsure which one to get. Paiseh, i hope these tai kors will help me by letting us know which one they actually owned for their >300mm lens ....

chngpe01
CYRN
Harlequin
skfoo
erwinx
terence
and all the other omitted "great" long-range shooters.

Personally, the 300mm IS is good but may not help much since i have the 70-200f2.8L, the 400mm is fantastic but i hate tripod, 100-400mm IS is like "jack of all range but master of none", and of course i only stick to Canon, so no Sigma (no reason). Reason for owning: no real reason, juz want to have the right lens when the occasion arises.
 

nickmak

Senior Member
Apr 16, 2004
2,358
0
0
34
London, UK
www.pbase.com
Canonised said:
Thank you for all the good advices. From the comments, it's obvious that the three lens have about the same equal supporters and each has its strengths and weaknesses, thus I m still as unsure which one to get. Paiseh, i hope these tai kors will help me by letting us know which one they actually owned for their >300mm lens ....

chngpe01
CYRN
Harlequin
skfoo
erwinx
terence
and all the other omitted "great" long-range shooters.

Personally, the 300mm IS is good but may not help much since i have the 70-200f2.8L, the 400mm is fantastic but i hate tripod, 100-400mm IS is like "jack of all range but master of none", and of course i only stick to Canon, so no Sigma (no reason). Reason for owning: no real reason, juz want to have the right lens when the occasion arises.
how bout the 400, 500 or 600mm L lenses??? haha... Best way is to go and test it out at CP or something... take a laptop and see if u can see difference or not... GOod Luck!
 

Terence

Senior Member
Nov 16, 2003
4,751
0
36
I'm a Llama!
Canonised said:
Paiseh, i hope these tai kors will help me by letting us know which one they actually owned for their >300mm lens ....

chngpe01
CYRN
Harlequin
skfoo
erwinx
terence
and all the other omitted "great" long-range shooters.
Dunno bout the rest so I'd just speak for myself. I have the 100-400 and 70-200/2.8. Between the 3, I find the 100-400 most useful for my shooting style. I shoot birds, the big metal ones without the feathers. The 100-400 is great because of its wide focal lengths but can still be a tad heavy to have a smooth panning shot without a tripod. If you are going to be bringing a walkabout lens mainly for wildlife, something lighter like either the 300 or 400 primes would be ideal. That's just my opinion.

You're probably more undecided now than when you first started the thread eh? The sheer number of differing opinions can be a little overwhelming. The best thing to do is to try to borrow or rent these lenses and try them out for yourself. They are relatively common and you should be able to find em. You may even find that none of these suit your shooting style.
 

nickmak

Senior Member
Apr 16, 2004
2,358
0
0
34
London, UK
www.pbase.com
Terence said:
Dunno bout the rest so I'd just speak for myself. I have the 100-400 and 70-200/2.8. Between the 3, I find the 100-400 most useful for my shooting style. I shoot birds, the big metal ones without the feathers. The 100-400 is great because of its wide focal lengths but can still be a tad heavy to have a smooth panning shot without a tripod. If you are going to be bringing a walkabout lens mainly for wildlife, something lighter like either the 300 or 400 primes would be ideal. That's just my opinion.

You're probably more undecided now than when you first started the thread eh? The sheer number of differing opinions can be a little overwhelming. The best thing to do is to try to borrow or rent these lenses and try them out for yourself. They are relatively common and you should be able to find em. You may even find that none of these suit your shooting style.
Well said... its very true... best is to go and try and see if any of these lenses suit your needs... Good luck with it!
 

CYRN

Senior Member
Nov 14, 2002
4,575
0
36
photoevangel.com
Kena spotted..better say something :bsmilie:

Speaking for myself, I'm using 400mm f5.6 sigma. As it focuses down to about a meter, it doubles up as my macro lens as well.

The advantage of my lens is that it's pretty small and fits perfectly into my bag...so I tend to go around with it.

F5.6 isn't exactly bright, to get good results from the lens, you need a poor man's IS (monopod) or a tripod. Quality wise, I've no complain.

Unless you shoot across a moat, I feel it's a little too long for zoo... I've to shoot over people heads on many occasion there.

I've visited JBP once with the 400mm...it's perfect there :thumbsup:

Then on the other end...400mm may be a little short for shooting wild/flying birds.

Never tried fashion with 400mm tho :devil:

To sum it all, it very much depends on your $$$, style and requirements. For myself, I prefer the 100-400 cuz my style of shooting is "capture the fleeting moments" therefore hard to zoom with my feet. IS is a dream to have at such focal lengths. Lastly, how sharp you want your pic to be? Is sharpness between the 3 an issue?

Just to complicate matters :devil: have you consider 70-200 2.8 IS + 2x TC, there's a thread comparing the 2. :think:



Canonised said:
For EXPERIENCED wildlife, nature, fashion, zoo, long shooters, etc...
which is the better choice?

1. ef 300mm f4 IS
2. ef 100-400mm IS USM
3. ef 400mm f5.6

Consideration: Flexibility/Usefulness, Weight and Sharpness

Thanks for your feedbacks.
 

nickmak

Senior Member
Apr 16, 2004
2,358
0
0
34
London, UK
www.pbase.com
Hi, is a 300mm f4L with a 300D good enough for Bird Park? Haven't gone to BP with it so wanna try it sometime...
 

lauLEE

New Member
Jun 8, 2003
237
0
0
North-East
Visit site
Thanks CYRN and terence for yr useful tips.
Personally i think the 300mm is definately too short for the JBP, for the Flamingo and some of the birds up at the trees. Even for the zoo, i think the 300mm is also too short for the lion, cheeta, mandrills, monkeys at the top of the trees. Am i wrong? i think the 400mm would be more useful for both the JBP and the zoo.
Can a 2x TC works well with the 400mm f5.6?
 

Terence

Senior Member
Nov 16, 2003
4,751
0
36
I'm a Llama!
lauLEE said:
Can a 2x TC works well with the 400mm f5.6?
IF you're using it on a 10D or 300D, you're not going to have AF with a 2x TC on a 5.6.
 

Canonised

Senior Member
Aug 27, 2003
2,989
4
38
Got a chance to talk to some "old birds" and surprisingly the advice is to get the Sigma 50-500mm for various reasons:

1. it's value for money and it's relatively cheap compared to the Ls
2. it's good quality (the lens is Sigma's TOR quality)
3. very hard to get in the secondhand market and as such the 2nd price is good.
4. the 500mm is still 200mm more than the ef300mm! heard that with a Sigma TC it works well.
5. all the reviews are Good!
Only con is you need the tripod.
Any users/owners care to comment?
 

Status
Not open for further replies.