Posted by Rob Coomer on December 8, 2007 at 11:17 PM
I've got a few bucks to spend on a new lens.
I've currently have a 20D with an ef 28-105 f3.5 - 4.5, a ef 75-300 f4-5.6 II and a efs 10-22 f3.5-4.5
The 10-22 covers my landscape and cave images and is on my camera 80% of the time. I occasionally use the 28-105 for macro and small stuff. The 75-300 for telephoto, usually pushed to 300.
I'm considering the Canon 300mm f4 L and a 1.4 or the 100-400 f4.5-5.6
I'm attracted to the zoom range, but the faster 300 is also very attractive and can sort of function as a 2 step zoom with the 1.4. I've been very dissappointed with my current 75-300 with the lack of light / slow exposures / softness when shooting wildlife.
I would later add the 100-200, probably the 2.8 IS, but that is probably another year down the road.
I'll probably replace my 20D with a 40D soon though.
Any thoughts or recommendations? How usable is the 300 for wildlife, such as moose in the woods? (One very frustrating shoot with my current lens)
Posted by Paul DeCesare on December 9, 2007 at 1:09 AM
300mm hands down Rob. Image Quality on that prime rules. Rarely are you ever too close. Others may argue and support the 100-400mm, so consider their opinions. As for me, IQ is most important. In fact, I purchased the 70-200mm 2.8 NON-IS because tests clearly showed that the non-IS was sharper at 2.8. I haven't regretted it for a moment. The 2.8 images I get are nuts, they're so sharp. Reviews on the 100-400mm were good, not stellar, that's why I say go with the 300mm. Just my take!
Posted by Jim Erhardt on December 9, 2007 at 8:12 AM
Never had the 100-400, but I was always very pleased with the results from my 300/4L, even using the canon 1.4 TC.
Posted by Steve Foss on December 9, 2007 at 10:19 AM
Rob:
I've used the 100-400 extensively for wildlife/birds/outdoor weddings/candid portraits for the last four years. It's a tool I'm very familiar with, and the one I pull out of my toolbox most often for the types of photography already listed. I recently borrowed the 300 f4 and tacked on the 1.4 TC, so I have a few thousand frames on the prime but that's it. The zoom images were on the 10D/20D/30D, the prime images on the 30D alone.
Part of the reason I borrowed it was to examine comparative sharpness. Online equipment reviews are notoriously uneven and unreliable, and I wanted to see for myself how the two stacked up. I did no scientific, controlled tests, just compared the prime/tc with the images I've gotten from my 100-400 over the years.
Even pixel peeping, I had a hard time distinguishing between my copy of the 100-400 at 400mm wide open and the 300/1.4 wide open. If I had to come down on one side or the other, I'd say the prime/tc was just very slightly sharper.
While the 300 alone wide open is noticeably sharper than the zoom at 400mm wide open, comparative sharpness became a guessing game after stopping the zoom down to f8, which is where I almost always shoot it, and by pulling back to 300 mm on the zoom. In those conditions, of course, the zoom is then two full stops slower than the prime. Pulling back to 300mm on the zoom and leaving it at f5.6 produced images just slightly softer than the wide-open prime.
I have marketed images to 300 dpi glossy mags shot with the zoom at max focal length wide open, and made very large prints at the same settings. It is sharper than your current zoom by far, plus, being an L, its color saturation, contrast and build quality are quite a jump from what you've got.
Another factor is the push-pull zoom on the 100-400. Some don't like it. Some do. Some don't care either way. I'm in the third camp. I've used the twist zoom Ls quite a bit in the 70-200 series, as well as my push-pull. I'm fine with both of them, and don't like in general to get nitpicky about those types of things. Being persnickety in the wrong places takes away from the concentration and freedom I need to do my best photography. It's not, as some say, a dust vaccum. I have very little dust inside mine after four years in a huge variety of weather conditions, including dusty environments.
There also were quality control issues on the earliest versions of the zoom. You heard a lot of talk about whether someone got a "good" or a "bad" copy. While some of that can be put down to operator ineffectiveness or impatience in getting a new lens and not adjusting to the learning curve, I believe there were some actual issues. It appears quality control has been largely put to rest as an issue within the last couple of years in particular.
I will also add that using the zoom has several times allowed me to pull back in and capture a fleeting environmental composition rather than tight portraits of birds and animals.
So that's all based on my own experience, and it only has some limited value as one person's perspective. Lots of other perspectives out there.
Which to get? They are nothing but tools to translate your vision, so it's a matter of choosing the right tool for the job. I think it's a matter of how much flexibility you need. That's what zooms are for. If you don't need that and want that extra bit of sharpness (and the full stop faster aperture native to the 300) that the prime offers, then I would pull the trigger on the 300/1.4. If flexibility is key for you (which it is for me), get the best combination of flexibility and quality in the Canon arsenal.
When I was shooting Canon, my 75-300 was noticeably soft. I recently shot with a friend who was using the 100-400, and I was impressed with the sharpness. No experience with the Canon 300 f/4, but my shots with a Nikon 300 f/4 alongside his 100-400 were not any better.
It depends a lot on your shooting style, but I find my own fixed tele's (a 500, a 300 f/2.8 and that 300 f/4) to be really confining. I relish the ability to adjust framing and perspective, feeling strongly that good composition is more important than tooth and talon detail. My own next long lens is going to be Nikon's 200-400 f/4, but the bux keep finding other needs to land on.
As for the potential of a 70-200 or 80-200 f/2.8, mine is immensely useful, especially for the large aperture and the opportunity to manage DOF while also adjusting framing.
If I was in your shoes I'd dump the 75-300 and jump on the 100-400, but that's reflective of my style.
Posted by Rob Coomer on December 9, 2007 at 11:23 AM
Thanks for the replies. Image quality matters, however, getting the shot comes first.
The money paying for this lens came from a pretty good year with print sales, mostly wide angle landscapes, though one of my most popular was shot with my 300, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out a 2x was mounted on it at the time, at iso 800, with a flash. Actually the color version is the hot one, but I haven't posted it yet. Eye See You
So my current equipment, though not a great combination, is getting the job done at times, I know I'm missing opportunities as I go through images and see some great shots that are soft/blurry due to lack of light, and slight camera movements. Both lenses will help with that problem, but I'm thinking the 300 f4 and the extra stop may be what I need. I think it will give me more opportunities to use it handheld, thus more flexible to move and frame with your feet.
Posted by Steve Foss on December 9, 2007 at 1:09 PM
Rob, like Hank, I feel confined by supertele primes in many situations. I bought the 100-400 as a compromise because I needed 400mm in a top quality lens, wanted IS but didn't have a lot of money. Since then, after shooting most of Canon's supertele primes (which I must admit I REALLY like in certain situations), I've realized that more and more I just want to stick with the zoom because of that freedom of instant re-composition. Things happen mighty fast out there.
It's a matter of personal preference, however, and I'm not at all trying to swing you "my" way. So many different ways to skin a cat in photography that yield excellent results.
Anyway, whichever you choose, consider a monopod. While the IS makes it easier to get handheld images sharp in low light, the monopod adds a powerful steadying component without the bulkiness of a tripod. When I'm low-light shooting with the 100-400, I keep the monopod mounted to the lens ring, collapsed and pivoting forward toward the front of the lens. I can easily leave it there to take handheld images but when it comes time to deploy, it's a simple matter to pivot and extend it. Even makes a bigger difference if you can find a tree or rock to steady the combo against.
I've gotten very sharp wildlife and performance images using the 100-400L IS and monopod down to 1/30 sec.
I just use a Slik ultralight monopod in these situations, but since the 100-400 only weighs three pounds it's plenty for what I need, and most times I'm either sitting or kneeling, so the monopod is less than half extended anyway.
And good luck! You're going to like whichever new acquisition a lot better than the consumer zoom you've got.
Posted by Rob Coomer on December 12, 2007 at 10:48 AM
Just an update, I picked up the Canon 300mm f4 with a 1.4tc. I have a Tamron 2x I'll experiment with as well. They gave me a 15 day full refund option / 30 day exchange if I decide that lens is not the one I want. They were out of the 100-400.
It seems a little odd not having a zoom, but realistically with my 300, I was pushing for every extra bit of reach, so I rarely zoomed out. I'll save the several hundred extra for a 70-200 f2.8 later this year. I'm liking the f4, I did a few test shots compared to my 5.6, hand held at f4 at 1/13 s shutter speed, I could count the hairs on my cat's eyebrows. It was almost unrecognizable as a cat with my old lens. That is what i was looking for!
Discussion
7 repliesI've currently have a 20D with an ef 28-105 f3.5 - 4.5, a ef 75-300 f4-5.6 II and a efs 10-22 f3.5-4.5
The 10-22 covers my landscape and cave images and is on my camera 80% of the time. I occasionally use the 28-105 for macro and small stuff. The 75-300 for telephoto, usually pushed to 300.
I'm considering the Canon 300mm f4 L and a 1.4 or the 100-400 f4.5-5.6
I'm attracted to the zoom range, but the faster 300 is also very attractive and can sort of function as a 2 step zoom with the 1.4. I've been very dissappointed with my current 75-300 with the lack of light / slow exposures / softness when shooting wildlife.
I would later add the 100-200, probably the 2.8 IS, but that is probably another year down the road.
I'll probably replace my 20D with a 40D soon though.
Any thoughts or recommendations? How usable is the 300 for wildlife, such as moose in the woods? (One very frustrating shoot with my current lens)
I've used the 100-400 extensively for wildlife/birds/outdoor weddings/candid portraits for the last four years. It's a tool I'm very familiar with, and the one I pull out of my toolbox most often for the types of photography already listed. I recently borrowed the 300 f4 and tacked on the 1.4 TC, so I have a few thousand frames on the prime but that's it. The zoom images were on the 10D/20D/30D, the prime images on the 30D alone.
Part of the reason I borrowed it was to examine comparative sharpness. Online equipment reviews are notoriously uneven and unreliable, and I wanted to see for myself how the two stacked up. I did no scientific, controlled tests, just compared the prime/tc with the images I've gotten from my 100-400 over the years.
Even pixel peeping, I had a hard time distinguishing between my copy of the 100-400 at 400mm wide open and the 300/1.4 wide open. If I had to come down on one side or the other, I'd say the prime/tc was just very slightly sharper.
While the 300 alone wide open is noticeably sharper than the zoom at 400mm wide open, comparative sharpness became a guessing game after stopping the zoom down to f8, which is where I almost always shoot it, and by pulling back to 300 mm on the zoom. In those conditions, of course, the zoom is then two full stops slower than the prime. Pulling back to 300mm on the zoom and leaving it at f5.6 produced images just slightly softer than the wide-open prime.
I have marketed images to 300 dpi glossy mags shot with the zoom at max focal length wide open, and made very large prints at the same settings. It is sharper than your current zoom by far, plus, being an L, its color saturation, contrast and build quality are quite a jump from what you've got.
Another factor is the push-pull zoom on the 100-400. Some don't like it. Some do. Some don't care either way. I'm in the third camp. I've used the twist zoom Ls quite a bit in the 70-200 series, as well as my push-pull. I'm fine with both of them, and don't like in general to get nitpicky about those types of things. Being persnickety in the wrong places takes away from the concentration and freedom I need to do my best photography. It's not, as some say, a dust vaccum. I have very little dust inside mine after four years in a huge variety of weather conditions, including dusty environments.
There also were quality control issues on the earliest versions of the zoom. You heard a lot of talk about whether someone got a "good" or a "bad" copy. While some of that can be put down to operator ineffectiveness or impatience in getting a new lens and not adjusting to the learning curve, I believe there were some actual issues. It appears quality control has been largely put to rest as an issue within the last couple of years in particular.
I will also add that using the zoom has several times allowed me to pull back in and capture a fleeting environmental composition rather than tight portraits of birds and animals.
So that's all based on my own experience, and it only has some limited value as one person's perspective. Lots of other perspectives out there.
Which to get? They are nothing but tools to translate your vision, so it's a matter of choosing the right tool for the job. I think it's a matter of how much flexibility you need. That's what zooms are for. If you don't need that and want that extra bit of sharpness (and the full stop faster aperture native to the 300) that the prime offers, then I would pull the trigger on the 300/1.4. If flexibility is key for you (which it is for me), get the best combination of flexibility and quality in the Canon arsenal.
It depends a lot on your shooting style, but I find my own fixed tele's (a 500, a 300 f/2.8 and that 300 f/4) to be really confining. I relish the ability to adjust framing and perspective, feeling strongly that good composition is more important than tooth and talon detail. My own next long lens is going to be Nikon's 200-400 f/4, but the bux keep finding other needs to land on.
As for the potential of a 70-200 or 80-200 f/2.8, mine is immensely useful, especially for the large aperture and the opportunity to manage DOF while also adjusting framing.
If I was in your shoes I'd dump the 75-300 and jump on the 100-400, but that's reflective of my style.
The money paying for this lens came from a pretty good year with print sales, mostly wide angle landscapes, though one of my most popular was shot with my 300, and I wouldn't be surprised to find out a 2x was mounted on it at the time, at iso 800, with a flash. Actually the color version is the hot one, but I haven't posted it yet.
Eye See You
So my current equipment, though not a great combination, is getting the job done at times, I know I'm missing opportunities as I go through images and see some great shots that are soft/blurry due to lack of light, and slight camera movements. Both lenses will help with that problem, but I'm thinking the 300 f4 and the extra stop may be what I need. I think it will give me more opportunities to use it handheld, thus more flexible to move and frame with your feet.
It's a matter of personal preference, however, and I'm not at all trying to swing you "my" way. So many different ways to skin a cat in photography that yield excellent results.
Anyway, whichever you choose, consider a monopod. While the IS makes it easier to get handheld images sharp in low light, the monopod adds a powerful steadying component without the bulkiness of a tripod. When I'm low-light shooting with the 100-400, I keep the monopod mounted to the lens ring, collapsed and pivoting forward toward the front of the lens. I can easily leave it there to take handheld images but when it comes time to deploy, it's a simple matter to pivot and extend it. Even makes a bigger difference if you can find a tree or rock to steady the combo against.
I've gotten very sharp wildlife and performance images using the 100-400L IS and monopod down to 1/30 sec.
I just use a Slik ultralight monopod in these situations, but since the 100-400 only weighs three pounds it's plenty for what I need, and most times I'm either sitting or kneeling, so the monopod is less than half extended anyway.
And good luck! You're going to like whichever new acquisition a lot better than the consumer zoom you've got.
It seems a little odd not having a zoom, but realistically with my 300, I was pushing for every extra bit of reach, so I rarely zoomed out. I'll save the several hundred extra for a 70-200 f2.8 later this year. I'm liking the f4, I did a few test shots compared to my 5.6, hand held at f4 at 1/13 s shutter speed, I could count the hairs on my cat's eyebrows. It was almost unrecognizable as a cat with my old lens. That is what i was looking for!