Posted by Randy Cox on February 5, 2008 at 1:26 AM
Hi everyone. My first post,hope I don't mess anything up! I have a canon xti and take mostly wildlife photo's and was wondering if the canon 100-400L stabilized lens would be too much lens to buy for an entry level camera. Would I be better off with a less expensive lens for now? Thanks in advance for all suggestions! Randy
Posted by Wim Reyns on February 5, 2008 at 5:38 AM
Randy,
The 100-400L is an excelent lens, and if you have the spare money i sure would go with it.
It is better to spend more in lenses when you start simply because you will upgrade your camera along the route, and then you wont want to upgrade your lenses too!
Hope's this makes sense, i'm a bit sleepy atm
I have the100-400 for use with my Rebel XT and I love it!! The only difference between the entry level cameras and the others, for me, is the Megapixel count. Other than that the Rebel isn't that far off the other cameras for my usage at the moment.
Just be sure that you get your photo in the frame because cropping is an issue with 8mp.
Posted by Steve Foss on February 5, 2008 at 8:49 AM
Randy, the biggest difference between your XTi and mid-range Canon bodies such as the 30D/40D will be speed of operation and other features that don't impact image quality.
Today's so-called "entry" level DSLRs offer wonderful image quality that's made even better by excellent glass. I use an XT as a backup body and have no reluctance to depend fully on it for marketable images when my other bodies (30D bodies) have other lenses on them and I can't quickly get them changed.
I've shot the 100-400 for about four years, and Wim's advice is the same I'd give you. The investment you make in excellent glass will be much more nearly permanent than for any digital body, which is really just a computer designed for recording images and, as a computer, will continually be upgraded with new versions by Canon as time goes on.
I guess, to put it another way, it's tempting to get on the treadmill of continually upgrading bodies, and there is some merit to that approach if it's affordable, but the glass is the better investment, IMO.
You'll really enjoy the 100-400. With a max aperture of only f5.6, it is admittedly "slow," but couple it with a good monopod and develop a rock solid technique and it will reward you even in limited light conditions.
Good luck, and hope this helps.
Posted by Thomas Biggs on February 5, 2008 at 8:56 AM
I'll agree with Steve and Wim, invest in glass worry about upgrading the camera later!
Posted by Kent Staubus on February 5, 2008 at 10:10 AM
It's never a mistake to put money on good glass. It's the lens that determines what you can photo. I have two lenses that cost more than my camera, and my tripod cost more than my camera for that matter.
Kent in SD
Posted by Don George on February 5, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Randy, Go go for the glass. Bodies come and go and the prices come down significantly.
Good glass such as the one your considering holds its value,,,,,great investment.
Discussion
6 repliesThe 100-400L is an excelent lens, and if you have the spare money i sure would go with it.
It is better to spend more in lenses when you start simply because you will upgrade your camera along the route, and then you wont want to upgrade your lenses too!
Hope's this makes sense, i'm a bit sleepy atm
Wim.
Just be sure that you get your photo in the frame because cropping is an issue with 8mp.
Today's so-called "entry" level DSLRs offer wonderful image quality that's made even better by excellent glass. I use an XT as a backup body and have no reluctance to depend fully on it for marketable images when my other bodies (30D bodies) have other lenses on them and I can't quickly get them changed.
I've shot the 100-400 for about four years, and Wim's advice is the same I'd give you. The investment you make in excellent glass will be much more nearly permanent than for any digital body, which is really just a computer designed for recording images and, as a computer, will continually be upgraded with new versions by Canon as time goes on.
I guess, to put it another way, it's tempting to get on the treadmill of continually upgrading bodies, and there is some merit to that approach if it's affordable, but the glass is the better investment, IMO.
You'll really enjoy the 100-400. With a max aperture of only f5.6, it is admittedly "slow," but couple it with a good monopod and develop a rock solid technique and it will reward you even in limited light conditions.
Good luck, and hope this helps.
Kent in SD
Good glass such as the one your considering holds its value,,,,,great investment.