A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

400mm IS



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 24th 06, 04:25 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 400mm IS

I have a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM. What I would really like to have is
this same lens with IS. At this point, the actual options (without
quintupling the price) are the Canon 100-400 IS, 300 f/4 IS + 1.4 TC and the
Sigma 80-400 IS. Sure, the 400 DO IS and 400 2.8 IS are available, but not
in my price range. So, what is the likelihood that a) Canon will come out
with an 400mm 5.6 IS replacement for my lens; b) a third party will make a
compatible 400mm f/5.6 IS/OS/VR non-zoom; or, c) someone will make an
IS/OS/VR teleconverter in Canon mount?

Second question: Has anyone made an actual comparison of the realistally
expectable photo quality between the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4TC, the 100-400 IS,
80-400 OS and the 400 f/5.6 L that takes into account the results obtainable
with IS? I'm not just talking about optical quality, but general sharpness
of photos in the real world, giving the lenses with IS/OS their due. I'm
starting to suspect that whatever marginal benefits the 400 f/5.6 L offers
in optical quality is outweighed by the benefits of IS/OS for certain
applications, like the small bird photography that I do.

The other option, is, I gues, using a gyroscopic stabilizer like the ones
offered by Kenyon Labs, but those aren't exactly cheap.

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com


  #2  
Old January 24th 06, 04:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 400mm IS


"Eric Miller" wrote in message
...
I have a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM. What I would really like to have is
this same lens with IS. At this point, the actual options (without
quintupling the price) are the Canon 100-400 IS, 300 f/4 IS + 1.4 TC and
the Sigma 80-400 IS. Sure, the 400 DO IS and 400 2.8 IS are available, but
not in my price range. So, what is the likelihood that a) Canon will come
out with an 400mm 5.6 IS replacement for my lens; b) a third party will
make a compatible 400mm f/5.6 IS/OS/VR non-zoom; or, c) someone will make
an IS/OS/VR teleconverter in Canon mount?

Second question: Has anyone made an actual comparison of the realistally
expectable photo quality between the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4TC, the 100-400 IS,
80-400 OS and the 400 f/5.6 L that takes into account the results
obtainable with IS? I'm not just talking about optical quality, but
general sharpness of photos in the real world, giving the lenses with
IS/OS their due. I'm starting to suspect that whatever marginal benefits
the 400 f/5.6 L offers in optical quality is outweighed by the benefits of
IS/OS for certain applications, like the small bird photography that I do.

The other option, is, I gues, using a gyroscopic stabilizer like the ones
offered by Kenyon Labs, but those aren't exactly cheap.


The 100-400 is virtually the same as the prime you have. Some copies are
worse than others. Anything built recently is near prime quality, and
nothing you can't make up for with a little USM, IMO. I had a fantastic one
but I sold it to trade up for a 300mm 2.8 which I use with a 1.4x and 2.0x.
The 300mm 2.8 is a totally different optical experience, but I wish I still
had the 100-400 for walk-around wildlife shooting.



  #3  
Old January 24th 06, 05:54 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 400mm IS

Some sources of information that might help
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/len..._4is/index.htm
http://www.dmcphoto.com/Articles/Canon300f4/
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/300mm/

I opted for the Canon 300mm F4 IS lens and the 1.4x TC and image quality
seems very good, however the flexibility of the 100-400 zoom should not be
overlooked

Phil Martin






"Eric Miller" wrote in message
...
I have a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM. What I would really like to have is
this same lens with IS. At this point, the actual options (without
quintupling the price) are the Canon 100-400 IS, 300 f/4 IS + 1.4 TC and
the Sigma 80-400 IS. Sure, the 400 DO IS and 400 2.8 IS are available, but
not in my price range. So, what is the likelihood that a) Canon will come
out with an 400mm 5.6 IS replacement for my lens; b) a third party will
make a compatible 400mm f/5.6 IS/OS/VR non-zoom; or, c) someone will make
an IS/OS/VR teleconverter in Canon mount?

Second question: Has anyone made an actual comparison of the realistally
expectable photo quality between the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4TC, the 100-400 IS,
80-400 OS and the 400 f/5.6 L that takes into account the results
obtainable with IS? I'm not just talking about optical quality, but
general sharpness of photos in the real world, giving the lenses with
IS/OS their due. I'm starting to suspect that whatever marginal benefits
the 400 f/5.6 L offers in optical quality is outweighed by the benefits of
IS/OS for certain applications, like the small bird photography that I do.

The other option, is, I gues, using a gyroscopic stabilizer like the ones
offered by Kenyon Labs, but those aren't exactly cheap.

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com



  #4  
Old January 24th 06, 08:24 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 400mm IS

Probably not the answer you wanted to hear as it is inconclusive however, I
agree with Phil. I would have also made the same choice as him.

It depends if you need a zoom.


"Phil Martin" wrote in message
...

I opted for the Canon 300mm F4 IS lens and the 1.4x TC and image quality
seems very good, however the flexibility of the 100-400 zoom should not be
overlooked

Phil Martin



  #5  
Old January 25th 06, 01:07 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 400mm IS

"Eric Miller" wrote in message
...
I have a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM. What I would really like to have is
this same lens with IS. At this point, the actual options (without
quintupling the price) are the Canon 100-400 IS, 300 f/4 IS + 1.4 TC and
the Sigma 80-400 IS. Sure, the 400 DO IS and 400 2.8 IS are available, but
not in my price range. So, what is the likelihood that a) Canon will come
out with an 400mm 5.6 IS replacement for my lens; b) a third party will
make a compatible 400mm f/5.6 IS/OS/VR non-zoom; or, c) someone will make
an IS/OS/VR teleconverter in Canon mount?

Second question: Has anyone made an actual comparison of the realistally
expectable photo quality between the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4TC, the 100-400 IS,
80-400 OS and the 400 f/5.6 L that takes into account the results
obtainable with IS? I'm not just talking about optical quality, but
general sharpness of photos in the real world, giving the lenses with
IS/OS their due. I'm starting to suspect that whatever marginal benefits
the 400 f/5.6 L offers in optical quality is outweighed by the benefits of
IS/OS for certain applications, like the small bird photography that I do.

The other option, is, I gues, using a gyroscopic stabilizer like the ones
offered by Kenyon Labs, but those aren't exactly cheap.

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

All the tests I've seen with the 100-400 IS, show wide aperture softness at
400. I have the 300 f/4 IS and Canon 2x. I find it to be great. I posted
some image links in a reply to Steve's question a couple posts newer in the
digital group.
John


  #6  
Old January 25th 06, 04:28 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 400mm IS

Eric Miller wrote:

I have a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM. What I would really like to have is
this same lens with IS. At this point, the actual options (without
quintupling the price) are the Canon 100-400 IS, 300 f/4 IS + 1.4 TC and the
Sigma 80-400 IS. Sure, the 400 DO IS and 400 2.8 IS are available, but not
in my price range. So, what is the likelihood that a) Canon will come out
with an 400mm 5.6 IS replacement for my lens; b) a third party will make a
compatible 400mm f/5.6 IS/OS/VR non-zoom; or, c) someone will make an
IS/OS/VR teleconverter in Canon mount?

Second question: Has anyone made an actual comparison of the realistally
expectable photo quality between the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4TC, the 100-400 IS,
80-400 OS and the 400 f/5.6 L that takes into account the results obtainable
with IS? I'm not just talking about optical quality, but general sharpness
of photos in the real world, giving the lenses with IS/OS their due. I'm
starting to suspect that whatever marginal benefits the 400 f/5.6 L offers
in optical quality is outweighed by the benefits of IS/OS for certain
applications, like the small bird photography that I do.

The other option, is, I gues, using a gyroscopic stabilizer like the ones
offered by Kenyon Labs, but those aren't exactly cheap.

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com


I found my 100-400 mm a little soft at 400mm. Another frequent poster
here, Bill Hilton, has one that is very sharp at 400. So if you
decide the 100-400 route, test it first. (I'll sell you mine ;-)
Tests at:
Relative Lens Sharpness
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...lens-sharpness

Older test:
Canon EOS 100-400mm L IS vs Sigma 170-500mm vs Canon 75-300mm IS
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/lenstest1.html

I have opted for a 300 mm f/4 L IS. It is lighter and faster
autofocus, and provides as much sharpness at 300 as the 100-400
at 400mm. Then at 420 mm (300+1.4x TC) I get more detail
than with the 100-400 at 400. I also use it on a 1D Mark II so
I have autofocus at 600 mm f/8.

Sample (300+1.4x TC):
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries...962.b-700.html

Roger
  #7  
Old January 25th 06, 05:52 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 400mm IS

You may wish to go to the Birds as Art web site. Arthur Morris does a couple
of comparisons and recently has used and commented on the 100 - 400 IS.
Makes a number of statements and provides shots which tend to debunk the
myths around about the softness of the 100 - 400 compared to the 400 F5.6 (I
own the prime and love it, but will buy the zoom shortly). Anyway its all
interesting reading and a couple of shots with the 100 - 400 using a
converter are just mind boggling in their clarity, sharpness etc.
Site is:

http://www.birdsasart.com/ and look at bulletin 192.

regards

Don


"JohnR66" wrote in message
...
"Eric Miller" wrote in message
...
I have a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM. What I would really like to have is
this same lens with IS. At this point, the actual options (without
quintupling the price) are the Canon 100-400 IS, 300 f/4 IS + 1.4 TC and
the Sigma 80-400 IS. Sure, the 400 DO IS and 400 2.8 IS are available, but
not in my price range. So, what is the likelihood that a) Canon will come
out with an 400mm 5.6 IS replacement for my lens; b) a third party will
make a compatible 400mm f/5.6 IS/OS/VR non-zoom; or, c) someone will make
an IS/OS/VR teleconverter in Canon mount?

Second question: Has anyone made an actual comparison of the realistally
expectable photo quality between the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4TC, the 100-400 IS,
80-400 OS and the 400 f/5.6 L that takes into account the results
obtainable with IS? I'm not just talking about optical quality, but
general sharpness of photos in the real world, giving the lenses with
IS/OS their due. I'm starting to suspect that whatever marginal benefits
the 400 f/5.6 L offers in optical quality is outweighed by the benefits
of IS/OS for certain applications, like the small bird photography that I
do.

The other option, is, I gues, using a gyroscopic stabilizer like the ones
offered by Kenyon Labs, but those aren't exactly cheap.

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

All the tests I've seen with the 100-400 IS, show wide aperture softness
at 400. I have the 300 f/4 IS and Canon 2x. I find it to be great. I
posted some image links in a reply to Steve's question a couple posts
newer in the digital group.
John



  #8  
Old January 26th 06, 01:14 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 400mm IS


"Don" wrote in message
...
You may wish to go to the Birds as Art web site. Arthur Morris does a
couple of comparisons and recently has used and commented on the 100 - 400
IS. Makes a number of statements and provides shots which tend to debunk
the myths around about the softness of the 100 - 400 compared to the 400
F5.6 (I own the prime and love it, but will buy the zoom shortly). Anyway
its all interesting reading and a couple of shots with the 100 - 400 using
a converter are just mind boggling in their clarity, sharpness etc.



I agree. The 1.4x on my 100-400 was amazing. However you need a 1-series
body to AF at the long end (400mm).



Site is:

http://www.birdsasart.com/ and look at bulletin 192.

regards

Don


"JohnR66" wrote in message
...
"Eric Miller" wrote in message
...
I have a Canon EF 400mm f/5.6 L USM. What I would really like to have is
this same lens with IS. At this point, the actual options (without
quintupling the price) are the Canon 100-400 IS, 300 f/4 IS + 1.4 TC and
the Sigma 80-400 IS. Sure, the 400 DO IS and 400 2.8 IS are available,
but not in my price range. So, what is the likelihood that a) Canon will
come out with an 400mm 5.6 IS replacement for my lens; b) a third party
will make a compatible 400mm f/5.6 IS/OS/VR non-zoom; or, c) someone
will make an IS/OS/VR teleconverter in Canon mount?

Second question: Has anyone made an actual comparison of the realistally
expectable photo quality between the 300 f/4 IS + 1.4TC, the 100-400 IS,
80-400 OS and the 400 f/5.6 L that takes into account the results
obtainable with IS? I'm not just talking about optical quality, but
general sharpness of photos in the real world, giving the lenses with
IS/OS their due. I'm starting to suspect that whatever marginal benefits
the 400 f/5.6 L offers in optical quality is outweighed by the benefits
of IS/OS for certain applications, like the small bird photography that
I do.

The other option, is, I gues, using a gyroscopic stabilizer like the
ones offered by Kenyon Labs, but those aren't exactly cheap.

Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

All the tests I've seen with the 100-400 IS, show wide aperture softness
at 400. I have the 300 f/4 IS and Canon 2x. I find it to be great. I
posted some image links in a reply to Steve's question a couple posts
newer in the digital group.
John





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FS: Canon ET-120 lens hood for 300mm f/2.8 IS and 400mm f/4 DO Jim Dawson 35mm Equipment for Sale 1 December 5th 05 05:04 AM
Minolta question: Sigma 400mm f/5.6 versus Minolta APO 200mm f/2.8 and 2x APO converter Hamilton Davidson Digital SLR Cameras 0 January 17th 05 02:35 AM
400mm for 10D b4 Digital Photography 8 October 12th 04 01:01 AM
FA - MINT Canon f5.6 400mm "L" lens - low price! [email protected] Digital Photo Equipment For Sale 0 May 7th 04 03:12 PM
400mm experimental lens for Bronica S2A Russ Thornton Medium Format Equipment For Sale 1 December 6th 03 10:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.